Group Nexus DCB Legal court claim 2025

derobe

When I bought my current car, it from a private seller and he made a typo when registering me as the new owner, therefore all the automatic correspondance I get relating to my vehicle including PCN's are addressed to me but it's not my legal name due to the 1 letter typo, just wondering if this would invalidate the PCN'S?

derobe

I currently have a Claim form I'm responding to for example and there's a typo in my double barreled name and I'm wondering if that even makes it valid, as I'm entering my name as the acknowledgement of service but it doesn't technically match the name on the claim form.... 

Gr1pr

Whilst you can add errors to your defence,  the response to the claim does allow for changes where you add the correct name 

I doubt that a small error is going to matter  ( but as I said,  add it to the defence if necessary   )

Personally,  I would get out my V5c log book and double check those details,  just in case there is an error 

Coupon-mad

derobe said:

I currently have a Claim form I'm responding to for example and there's a typo in my double barreled name and I'm wondering if that even makes it valid, as I'm entering my name as the acknowledgement of service but it doesn't technically match the name on the claim form.... 

Nope but show us the POC and tell us the Date of Issue and the date you did the AOS?

(All explained in the NEWBIES FAQS thread). 

Car1980

Nope, but it does make it possible that a CCJ wouldn't go on your credit file. But you won't be letting it get that far.

derobe

Coupon-mad said:

derobe said:

I currently have a Claim form I'm responding to for example and there's a typo in my double barreled name and I'm wondering if that even makes it valid, as I'm entering my name as the acknowledgement of service but it doesn't technically match the name on the claim form.... 

Nope but show us the POC and tell us the Date of Issue and the date you did the AOS?

(All explained in the NEWBIES FAQS thread). 

Particulars of Claim:

1. The defendant is indebted to the claimant for a parking charge issued to vehicle....... at ........

2. The PCN were issued on 23/07/24
3, The defendant is pursued as the driver of the vehicle for breach of the terms on the signs (the contract). Reason Vehicle remained on private property in breach of the prominently displayed terms and conditions.
4. If the alternative the defendant is pursued as the keeper pursuant to POFA 2012. schedule 4.

AND THE CLAIMIANT CLAIMS
1. £170 being the total of the PCN and damages
2. Interest at a rate of 8% per annum pursuant to s.69 of the county courts act 1984 from teh date hereof at a daily rate of £.02 until judgment or sooner payment.
3. Costs and court fees.


**Claim History

A claim was issued against you on 14/02/2025

Your acknowledgment of service was submitted on 25/02/2025 at 12:32:31

Your acknowledgment of service was received on 25/02/2025 at 14:05:12**

I'm trying to find out how long AFTER the acknowledgement of service I have to file my defence. I am doing this now.

derobe

Also I am editing my defence, what's the best defence if it's an overstay in a retail park? Believe I was in a starbucks working on that day and I had no idea there was a time limit so I assume it's that the signage was not displayed clearly enough is my best defence? 

Anything else I can use in these situations?

derobe

derobe said:

Also I am editing my defence, what's the best defence if it's an overstay in a retail park? Believe I was in a starbucks working on that day and I had no idea there was a time limit so I assume it's that the signage was not displayed clearly enough is my best defence? 

Anything else I can use in these situations?

Here is my defence (chatgpt):

The Defendant was working at Starbucks within the retail park and did not see any clearly displayed signage indicating the parking time limit. 3. The signs, if present, were not prominent, sufficiently large, or clearly positioned in a manner that would have made the terms of parking unambiguously visible to a reasonable motorist. 4. It is a fundamental principle of contract law that terms must be clearly communicated to be enforceable. The Consumer Rights Act 2015 and case law (Thornton v Shoe Lane Parking Ltd [1971] 2 QB 163) establish that any onerous or unusual contract terms must be fairly and prominently brought to the attention of the party before they can be deemed legally binding.

Umkomaas

Have you read the Template Defence Announcement, because there's a ready-made defence there for you.  No need for ChatGPT when you've got MSE@C-m!

Which parking firm is chasing you, and which solicitors are involved?

Sloppyjoe

Words are of little use without evidence, supported by dated photos.

KeithP

derobe said:

A claim was issued against you on 14/02/2025
Your acknowledgment of service was submitted on 25/02/2025 at 12:32:31
Your acknowledgment of service was received on 25/02/2025 at 14:05:12

With a Claim Issue Date of 14th February, and having filed an Acknowledgment of Service('AOS') in a timely manner, you have until 4pm on Wednesday 19th March 2025 to file a Defence.

That's over two weeks 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 AOS has been filed, the MCOL website should be treated as 'read only'.

You need to be aware that those Particulars of Claim are totally inadequate.
Particularly this bit...

3, The defendant is pursued as the driver of the vehicle for breach of the terms on the signs (the contract). Reason Vehicle remained on private property in breach of the prominently displayed terms and conditions.

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.
This will be an easy win.