GROUP NEXUS / DCB CLAIM FORM

kathmar

Thank you!

I will submit this : (with slight addition in 7.1 to reflect incorrect costs stated by solicitor) and as you say save the rest for WS. 


DEFENCE

The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to relief in the sum claimed, or at all.  It is denied that any conduct by the driver was in breach of any term.  Further, it is denied that this Claimant (understood to have a bare licence as agents) has standing to sue or form contracts in their own name. Liability is denied, whether or not the Claimant is claiming 'keeper liability', which is unclear from the boilerplate text in the Particulars of Claim ('the POC').

The facts known to the Defendant:

1. The facts in this defence come from the Defendant's own knowledge and honest belief.  Conversely, the Claimant sets out a cut-and-paste incoherent and sparse statement of case. The POC appear to be in breach of CPR 16.4, 16PD3 and 16PD7, and fail to "state all facts necessary for the purpose of formulating a complete cause of action". The Defendant is unable, on the basis of the POC, to understand with certainty what case, allegation(s) and what heads of cost are being pursued, making it difficult to respond. However, the vehicle is recognised and it is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper and driver.

Preliminary matter: The claim should be struck out

2. The Defendant draws to the attention of the allocating Judge that there is now a persuasive Appeal judgment to support striking out the claim (in these exact circumstances of typically poorly pleaded private parking claims, and the extant PoC seen here are far worse than the one seen on Appeal).  The Defendant believes that dismissing this meritless claim is the correct course, with the Overriding Objective in mind.  Bulk litigators (legal firms) should know better than to make little or no attempt to comply with the Practice Direction.  By continuing to plead cases with generic auto-fill unspecific wording, private parking firms should not be surprised when courts strike out their claims based in the following persuasive authority.

3. A recent persuasive appeal judgment in Civil Enforcement Limited v Chan (Ref. E7GM9W44) would indicate the POC fails to comply with Civil Procedure Rule 16.4 and Practice Direction Part 16. On the 15th August 2023, in the cited case, HHJ Murch held that 'the particulars of the claim as filed and served did not set out the conduct which amounted to the breach in reliance upon which the claimant would be able to bring a claim for breach of contract'. The same is true in this case and in view of the Chan judgment, the Court should strike out the claim, using its powers pursuant to CPR 3.4

Images of Chan case 

4. The Defendant remembers the day in question as she had arrived in the Leigh Woods car park to take her dog for a walk. The Defendant noticed that the machine was out of order with no facilities to pay by cash or apple pay. After spending time to see if there were any alternative methods to pay and seeing that there were none that were possible the defendant took a photo of the out of order sign and then left. 

6.  The claim has been issued via Money Claims Online and, as a result, is subject to a character limit for the Particulars of Claim section of the Claim Form.  The fact that generic wording appears to have been applied has obstructed any semblance of clarity.  The Defendant trusts that the court will agree that a claim pleaded in such generic terms lacks the required details and would have required proper particularisation in a detailed document within 14 days, per 16PD.3. No such document has been served. 

7.  Defendant disputes the sums claimed by the claimant as they have failed to provide a clear breakdown of how these sums were calculated, despited requesting this information. On July 1st, 2024 the Defendant requested further information from the claimant through their solicitor, specifically asking for a detailed breakdown of the sums claimed and the interest calculations. 

7i In their response dated July 9th, 2024 the claimants failed to provide the requested breakdown.  Instead, the claimant’s solicitor embarrassingly provided only the following information: 

• The original Parking Charge Notice (PCN) was for £70, discounted to £50 if paid within 14 days. Despite the initial charge actually being for £25 (a reduction from £50 if paid within 14 days). 
• After 14 days, the charge reverted to £70.
• After 28 days, the claimant added on an additional £70 as a “contractual fee”. 
• On the 24th of May 2024 Letter of Claim (LoC) for £120 was issued.
• On 26th June 2024 a Claim was issued and interest at 8% per annum was added, the sum of which was £6.99.

7ii Despite these assertions, the Particulars of Claim (PoC) describe the additional £30 as “damages”, which is inconsistent with the claimant’s previous description.  Furthermore, the claimant erroneously states that the defendant failed to make payment of £120 within 30 days of the Letter of Claim (LoC) being issued.  The claimant has not explained how the figure of £120 was calculated, adding further confusion and suggesting that the figures have been arbitrarily determined. 

7iii The Defendant submits that the Claimant’s failure to provide a clear and consistent breakdown of the sums claimed prejudices the Defendant’s ability to properly defend against the claim.  Without a clear understanding of how the sums were calculated, the Defendant cannot accurately respond to or challenge the claim.  The Defendant contends that this lack of transparency and the inconsistencies in the Claimant’s statements constitute an abuse of process.  The defendant request that the court considers striking out the claim pursuant to CPR.3.4(2)(a) and (c) on the grounds that the claimant’s statement of case discloses no reasonable grounds for bringing the claim and is an abuse of the court’s process. 

7iv Alternatively, the defendant respectfully requests that the court orders the claimant to provide a detailed breakdown and clear explanation of the sums claimed and the reference dates used in the interest calculations.  The defendant reserves the right to amend this Defence upon receipt of the requested information. 

Gr1pr

IMHO, still too much detail that is for the WS stage 

Just state that the Claimants statements and allegations are incorrect and mendacious and proof will be provided to the court etc 

Or something similar 

Not to emphasise the point, the defence details should be concise, a doorway to the room beyond, the defence unlocks the door, the much later WS describes the room with much detail, 

IMHO , There is no need to put all those facts and figures into the defence , just a short sentence that opens the door 

Personally, I would suggest that you add an extra few words to 7.  Then remove the sub sections completely, saving them for the WS

Addendum 

I cannot see any redacted pictures of the POC, so only the VRM would be covered up, the original PCN is Failure to pay, so the POC would be the same allegation.  The defence is supposed to defend against the POC, so that is currently the main point here , the faulty out of order machines etc

Checking that original PCN, it clearly shows the charge as £50 , it says so below the word CHARGE,  the discount for early payment is a settlement figure of £25 within 14 days, so the £25 was never the CHARGE figure, the £25 was the payment on offer to discharge the invoice, a discount offer for early payment, so a half price settlement figure, not a charge figure. The charge was and still is £50, always will be too.  The debt collectors or lawyers added the spurious extra £70 to the £50 to make the £120 demanded as a new settlement figure 

The subsequent communications just showed that's the people employed by the lawyers do not do due diligence checks, paralegals not being checked by their superiors, or possibly incompetent, or bad at maths 

kathmar

So, just leave it as simple as this and then wait for WS to go into detail.

...

7.  The Defendant disputes the sums claimed by the claimant as, despite requesting a detailed breakdown of the sums claimed and the interest calculations from the claimant’s solicitors on July 1st, 2024, they have failed to provide a clear breakdown of how these sums were calculated. 

Gr1pr

I think that I would add accurate after clear 

kathmar

Thank you. 

LDast

The preliminary matters are designed to get the allocating judge to strike the claim out or else force the claimant to submit PoC that can be defended. Unfortunately, the defence is long and known to be a boilerplate, one size fits all, template.

I would recommend leaving the preliminary matters in there, in the hope that the allocating judge does read it and takes the appropriate action is taken and doesn’t simply assign it to a hearing.

kathmar

When you say preliminary matters do you mean the points in section 7 I included initially? 

LDast

Any points of law where the claimant has breached the Practice Direction and Civil Procedure Rules. You are pointing out to the allocating judge at the local court where the claim will be assigned. The allocating judge is supposed to review the the PoC and the defence as part of the case management duties.

It is also possible to submit with the N180 DQ, a draft order requesting the claimant to provide additional information. As the N180 DQ is submitted to the court and the claimant, this is another opportunity to bring the claimants failings to light.

This is a copy of a draft order that goes with the short defence but can also be submitted with the N180:

https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/gkv600e5h7bgsuswkan0l/short-defence-order.pdf?rlkey=cce8wmu56zwhtikoo9eq3ciyu&dl=0

kathmar

so
1. Leave in the points as illustrated in number 7 (above) 
2. the NI80 is sent to me by the court and at that time I can submit the link you've included. 

Coupon-mad

the NI80 is sent to me by the court and at that time I can submit the link you've included.

No.

I don't recommend the untested short defence and draft order.  It means you have zero defence if the case progresses to a hearing.

Stick with the template defence.