CP Plus/ DBCLegal defending as keeper

Peek_a_boo_7112

Thanks for the Newbies Sticky thread, wish I had looked at it before already receiving a CCCF, but all previous tickets have gone away without lifting a finger. I know DCBL and others like it are very different now. Thanks in advance for your help.

Date of contravention: 28/12/23
NTK issue date: 11/12/23
NTK arrival date: 14/12/23 (although I have no proof of this)
4 letters from DCBLtd dated between: 12/2/24 & 29/4/24
Solicitors reminder letter dated 20/5/24
LoC issue date: 23/5/24 - arrived without any PAP paperwork, just a link telling me where I can find said paperwork.
Returned home on 30/6/24 to CCCF dated 25/6/24 with woefully sparse POC
AoS submitted: 1/7/24   Received 2/7/24  

I am the defendant and keeper in this matter. I was not the driver or even a passenger at the time; although I'm not sure I could prove my whereabouts, but they would not be able to prove the contrary either.


Current defence:

IN THE COUNTY COURT

Claim No.: XXXXXXXX

Between

CP Plus LTD T/A GroupNexus

(Claimant) 

- and -  

(My name)                          

 (Defendant)

_________________

DEFENCE

1.  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').

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(1)(e) and Practice Direction Part 16.7.5. 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 (transcript below) the Court should strike out the claim, using its powers pursuant to CPR 3.4. 

(CELvCHAN IMAGES 1,2,3,4)

The facts known to the Defendant:

4. 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 of the vehicle in question but was not the driver; liability is denied. 

5. The Defendant received a late Notice to Keeper which failed to comply with POFA 2012 Schedule 4 9.4.b.

6. The Defendant later received a Letter of Claim from the Claimant's Legal representation which failed to comply with Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims 3.1.a.iv, v, viii, 3.1.c & 3.1.d

7. The Claimant will concede that no financial loss has arisen and that in order to impose an inflated parking charge, as well as proving a term was breached, there must be: … (continued as per Coupon-mad's suggestions)

Questions:
Should I still cite POFA2012 even though I have no proof? Especially since they can only come after me with POFA2012 (if I'm understanding the Act correctly) because I am only the keeper.

For the 'facts' of the case part of @Coupon-mad 's suggested defence, should I just detail the events of CP Plus, DCBLtd and DCBLegal's letters as I have no clue about the actual 'contravention' events.

I have not spoken to any of the other parties involved on the car parking side, no emails or calls or the like, just the letters I have received. Should I still send a SAR request to someone? Anything else worth doing at this stage?

I don't know who the driver was exactly; I do have my suspicions but also figured if I don't get confirmation then I have plausible deniability. Or should I get confirmation? 

I think I also glanced at some point in my weeks of reading this forum that LoC's have to be signed by a person, however mine is just addressed from ' DCB Legal'. I might be remembering incorrectly, and if not could someone point me to the legislation so that I can add it to my defence.

If there is anything else anyone thinks I may be missing or previous Threads I have missed please do point me to them.

Thanks again.

KeithP

Peek_a_boo_7112 said:

Returned home on 30/6/24 to CCCF dated 25/6/24 with woefully sparse POC
AoS submitted: 1/7/24   Received 2/7/24 

Hello and welcome.

Can you please show us a picture of the Particulars of Claim - with personal detail hidden of course.

With a Claim Issue Date of 25th June, and having filed an Acknowledgment of Service in a timely manner, you have until 4pm on Monday 29th July 2024 to file a Defence.

That's just one week away. Plenty of time to produce a Defence but please don't leave it to the last minute.

To create a Defence, and then file a Defence by email, look at the second post in the NEWBIES thread.

Don't miss the deadline for filing a Defence.

Do not try and file a Defence via the MoneyClaimOnline website. Once an Acknowledgment of Service has been filed, the MCOL website should be treated as 'read only'.

Peek_a_boo_7112

@KeithP here you go. Im hoping that my defence draft above is enough, however it does seem a bit lacking even to me 😅

KeithP

Yes, as you say, those Particulars are 'woefully sparse'.

Totally inadequate would be my description.

Particularly this bit...

So it is alleged that the driver 'breached the terms on the signs (the contract)'.

And that allegation is then repeated - 'Reason: Vehicle Remained On Private Property In Breach Of The Prominently Displayed Terms And Conditions'.

Nowhere in those Particulars is there any explanation of what the driver is alleged to have done wrong.

You are right to include the CEL v Chan stuff.

kryten3000

The dates of parking and issue of the PCN mean that the notice to keeper was deemed delivered on 13/12 which was day 15 of 14, so out of time by 1 day.  

If you were not the driver then say so in the Defence.

KeithP

Peek_a_boo_7112 said:

Should I still send a SAR request to someone?

No, don't do that.
If they responded, you would then have no excuse for not knowing the details of their poorly pleaded case.

Peek_a_boo_7112

kryten3000 said:

The dates of parking and issue of the PCN mean that the notice to keeper was deemed delivered on 13/12 which was day 15 of 14, so out of time by 1 day.  

If you were not the driver then say so in the Defence.

I have apparently been misunderstanding POFA 9.5 and reading it as the time doesn't start until the day after the parking, which would put it presumed delivered day 14 of 14, so thank you for making me reread that bit better.

I have put that I wasn't the driver at the end of paragraph 4, however should I make this its own paragraph as either paragraph 4 or 5 to make it stand out better?

KeithP said:

Peek_a_boo_7112 said:

Should I still send a SAR request to someone?

No, don't do that.
If they responded, you would then have no excuse for not knowing the details of their poorly pleaded case.

 Thank you. Glad I didn't go ahead and do that when I first found a post about it then.

KeithP

Peek_a_boo_7112 said:

KeithP said:

Peek_a_boo_7112 said:

Should I still send a SAR request to someone?

No, don't do that.
If they responded, you would then have no excuse for not knowing the details of their poorly pleaded case.

 Thank you. Glad I didn't go ahead and do that when I first found a post about it then.

By all means send a SAR after your Defence filing deadline. By that time it will be too late for them to hastily fill any gaps in their pleading.  

Peek_a_boo_7112

KeithP said:

By all means send a SAR after your Defence filing deadline. By that time it will be too late for them to hastily fill any gaps in their pleading.  

Will keep that in mind, thank you!  

Does the rest of my defence look alright? To me it looks even more 'woefully sparse' than their PoC, but I also feel it still carries more info than theirs does. But I would like to add anything else that may be helpful.

Also noticed that the PoC say that the PCN was issued on the 28/11, which I would say was the date of contravention as the date of issue on the actual PCN is 11/12. Is this something that can be used or am I just being overly pedantic?

Gr1pr

It means that they issued it 13 days later, presumed to be delivered 2 days later on the Wednesday, missing the 14 days under POFA. But POFA compliance depends on numerous things, not just the timeline 

Failing POFA means that the keeper is not liable in law, even if the PCN was correctly issued, so whilst the driver may well be liable, the keeper defendant is not liable 

Its well known that Group Nexus fail POFA compliance, or don't even try to comply 

Peek_a_boo_7112

Gr1pr said:

Failing POFA means that the keeper is not liable in law, even if the PCN was correctly issued, so whilst the driver may well be liable, the keeper defendant is not liable 

Its well known that Group Nexus fail POFA compliance, or don't even try to comply 

Is there anyway I can be compelled to name the suspected driver? Whether the matter goes to court or not? I know that I would have to tell the Judge but if it doesn't make that far, can Nexus or DCBL force that information from me or do they not have a right to that information? And should I get conformation of the driver at all?