DCB Legal CP Plus Court Claim

jr2025

How about the SilkysmoothCarrots thread?

Coupon-mad

Yes a version of this (with your own facts added) will do nicely:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81217876/#Comment_81217876

jr2025

IN THE COUNTY COURT

Claim No.: xxxxxxxx

Between

CP Plus Ltd T/A Groupnexus

(Claimant) 

- and -

Joe Bloggs

(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 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 draws to the attention of the allocating Judge that there are two persuasive Appeal judgments - by HHJ Murch at Luton and HHJ Evans at Manchester - to support striking out the claim in these exact circumstances of typically poorly pleaded private parking claims. 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 authorities:

3. Two recent persuasive appeal judgments in Civil Enforcement Limited v Chan (Ref. E7GM9W44) and Car Park Management Service Ltd v Akande (Ref. K0DP5J30) 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 Chan case, HHJ Murch held: '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 the Defendant trusts that the Court should strike out the extant claim, using its powers pursuant to CPR 3.4.

4. The second recent persuasive appeal judgment also held that typical private parking case POC (like this) fail to comply with Part 16. On the 10 May 2024, in CPMS v Akande, HHJ Evans held: 'Particulars of Claim have to set out the basic facts upon which a party relies in order to prove his or her claim'. Transcripts for both cases are linked below to assist the Court to deal with this failure promptly and the two authorities will also be exhibited later, if the claim is not struck out at allocation stage:

INSERT CHAN / AKANDE TRANSCRIPTS HERE

The facts known to the Defendant:

5. 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.

6. The defendant admits to using the site on xx April 2024. Paragraph 2 of the POC is denied as the PCN was issued XX May 2025, not XX April as stated. Paragraph 3 is denied as the vague POC are compounded by the fact that defendant has requested a copy of 'the contract' from the claimant on numerous occasions, to date this has not been provided.

PARAGRAPHS 4+ OF TEMPLATE DEFENCE (RENUMBERED)

Any good?

Coupon-mad

Why have you removed the standard bit about no PCN being £170 on private land?

jr2025

I didn't know I had! Will find that and add in, thank you 👍

jr2025

It's in there I believe, defence continues (as per template with added admin/DRA costs) with:

"7. The Claimant will concede that no financial loss has arisen... etc"

and it runs to 33 paragraphs.

Sorry if I'm misunderstanding 😟

jr2025

Ah, I see it now on the SilkysmoothCarrots defence. That mentions ParkingEye signage, I'm assuming the £70 isn't mentioned on CP Plus signage (or any of them for that matter). If I can find time I'll go take a look, it's not that far away.

Coupon-mad

You don't need to prove it. This is nothing to do with ParkingEye signage.

Just copy the standard wording about £170, as seen in every single DCB Legal recent defence.. 

jr2025

IN THE COUNTY COURT

Claim No.: xxxxxxxx

Between

CP Plus Ltd T/A Groupnexus

(Claimant) 

- and -

Joe Bloggs

(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 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 draws to the attention of the allocating Judge that there are two persuasive Appeal judgments - by HHJ Murch at Luton and HHJ Evans at Manchester - to support striking out the claim in these exact circumstances of typically poorly pleaded private parking claims. 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 authorities:

3. Two recent persuasive appeal judgments in Civil Enforcement Limited v Chan (Ref. E7GM9W44) and Car Park Management Service Ltd v Akande (Ref. K0DP5J30) 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 Chan case, HHJ Murch held: '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 the Defendant trusts that the Court should strike out the extant claim, using its powers pursuant to CPR 3.4.

4. The second recent persuasive appeal judgment also held that typical private parking case POC (like this) fail to comply with Part 16. On the 10 May 2024, in CPMS v Akande, HHJ Evans held: 'Particulars of Claim have to set out the basic facts upon which a party relies in order to prove his or her claim'. Transcripts for both cases are linked below to assist the Court to deal with this failure promptly and the two authorities will also be exhibited later, if the claim is not struck out at allocation stage:

INSERT CHAN / AKANDE TRANSCRIPTS HERE

The facts known to the Defendant:

5. 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.

6. The defendant admits to using the site on xx April 2024. Paragraph 2 of the POC is denied as the PCN was issued XX May 2025, not XX April as stated. Paragraph 3 is denied as the vague POC are compounded by the fact that defendant has requested a copy of 'the contract' from the claimant on numerous occasions, to date this has not been provided.

It is denied that the sum of £170 (or the possibility of adding a fake and imaginary 'admin fee/damages' of £70) is believed not to appear on the signage whatsoever. The quantum is hugely exaggerated and no PCN can be £170 on private land. 

PARAGRAPHS 4+ OF TEMPLATE DEFENCE (RENUMBERED)

jr2025

Thank you, added and posted above.