DCB LEGAL cp plus/groupnexus court claim

standup369

hi, thanks for the comments

not too much time avail today to process and take in fully but

re"Obviously you were on private land" , i've outlined that the signage does not state this, it just states "end of motorway regulations", surely if the claim is you parked on private land then it is a key detail to argue that this is not made clear the status of the land has changed as on the motorway your on public land and the apparently status changes with no signage saying so

How long were you there? 2hr 32 minutes in total

Did you use the petrol station? not sure,why ? does this have relevancy?

Did you have your ongoing health issues in 2024 that meant you needed more time? personal circumstances meaning longer needed to be fit to drive safely

re removing "Clear signs at the entrance of this site and throughout inform drivers of the requirement to pay for parking in excess of the free2 hour period, and it is not possible to access any part of the premises without passing multiple signs."

this is a false statement they make as its is my lived experience as evidenced on video that you can visit,enter property AND not read signage so not so sure i'd want to remove this detail

regarding proposed removals, are you saying this as if stays in you think they may think we want to go ahead with the case?

Coupon-mad

I don't really understand your questions.

I advised you what to remove to improve your WS. Show us the new draft.

Did you use the petrol station? not sure,why ? does this have relevancy?

Yes of course it does. My reply told you something very important:

…that the DFT rules on Motorway Services require a MINIMUM free two hours parking, not 'total stay'. That breaches the DFT MSA rules (Google them and quote them).

standup369

hi, thanks for your help

re: your comment

You need to add Chan and Akande as exhibits. - i'm confused what you mean by this as i had put

2.3Furthermore, the POC fail to comply with CPR 16.4 and 16PD3. I rely upon the persuasive appeal authorities of 

CivilEnforcement Limited v Chan (E7GM9W44)

 and 

CarPark Management Service Ltd v Akande (K0DP5J30)

.In both cases, generic, "auto-fill" POCs were held to be defective and this applies to my case  

Are you saying this is not sufficient ? if possible please can you clarify what to do add as an exhibit

do you mean i need to find those cases online and then save as pdf's and submit as separate exhibits

re drafting my statement this eve and tomorrow am

Coupon-mad

"do you mean i need to find those cases online and then save as pdf's and submit as separate exhibits"

Yes - but they are on this forum!

Surely I linked them in the recommended Exhibits long list, in the NEWBIES thread post 2 section all about this stage?

standup369

thanks for clarifying. I'm on the case.very grateful for your help.trying to navigate the relevant forum posts

standup369

https://www.ftla.uk/private-parking-tickets/received-two-pcns-from-april-2023-with-legal-and-court-fees-on-top-but-1256/15/ found chan and akande dropbox exhibit pdf's here as spent a lot of time on here not finding links so just linking in case it helps others :-D

standup369

Hi, thanks again for any comments, fingers crossed this feel improved in content below

I,__________,of __________, of am the Defendant in this matter. The facts beloware true to the best of my belief and this account has been preparedbased upon my own knowledge.

1.2 Iam a litigant in person with no formal legal training. I have done mybest to present my evidence clearly, and I respectfully ask the courtto take this into account.

2.PreliminaryMatter: The Claim should be Struck Out

2.1 Therecent High Court judgment in Mazurand Stuart v Charles Russell Speechlys LLP [2025] EWHC2341(KB) underlines that supervision does not transform an unauthorised employee into anauthorised litigator. Only those who personally hold the necessary authorisation may conduct litigation

.2.2The Claim Form in this case was signed by Sarah Ensall, who does notappear on the SRA register as a solicitor for DCB Legal. I aver thatthe Particulars of Claim (POC) were verified by a person notauthorised to conduct litigation.I attach 3 letters of evidence signed by Sarah Ensall dated, ____________, ____________,and____________. They are signed “Sarah Ensall, Head ofBulkLitigation, DCB Legal Ltd”

2.3Furthermore,the POC fail to comply with CPR 16.4 and 16PD3. I rely upon the persuasive appeal authorities of CivilEnforcementLimited v Chan (E7GM9W44) and CarParkManagement Service Ltd v Akande (K0DP5J30).Inboth cases, generic, "auto-fill" POCs were held to be defective and this applies to my case  (See Exhibitxx-01)and (Exhibitxx-02)

3.Factsand Sequence of Events

1. Onthe material date, I visited _________________ services drivingeastwards from the direction of ______________l (where at that timeIlived) . I attach video evidence filmed on 18th Feb2026, the videoevidence filmed 216calendar days after the alleged “breach” isprovided without commentary BUT to illustrate the factual evidenceof the speed at which a driver is travelling when entering theservices means it is technically impossible to read a complexsignage whilst driving a fast moving vehicle.
2. Thevideo evidence of 18th Feb 2026 evidences the whilst driving ininside lane of the m_ before you enter the slip road for theservices, you see a large approx 3m x 1 metres rectangular Blue signto the left of the road, with a bridge just behind itstating“___________ services” and a white rectangle within thebrandname “Moto” on it,There is nothing on this sign saying “youare about to enter private land”
3. Thevideo evidence of 18th Feb 2026 evidences that once a driver hasindicated left to turn off the motorway to rest (as per nationaldriving guidelines) that they pass on the left hand side of motorwayslip road entrance to the “services”, a large blue rectangularsign (approx 2 metres width by 1 m height) that states“end ofmotorway regulations” this is easy to read and process informationwise whilst travelling at significant speed.
4. Thevideo evidence of 18th Feb 2026 evidences no signage follows afterthis signage to inform you that “you are now on private land”(as it common when encountering private land) or what or if newregulations exist after passing the blue signage of“end ofmotorway regulations”.
5. Thevideo evidence show that then as you are faced with the driving taskof turning left whilst decreasing in speed, you have 6 seconds toslow your car, make the correct driving adjustments to take thecorner safely . It appears to be the case of the Claimant that theyexpect you to read and enter consensually into a complex contractwhilst driving a car at around 40mph. The video evidence of 18th Feb2026 evidences there is some signage at the bend on the right handside of the bend of the road, and the video shows that you have 2seconds to read it whilst driving a moving vehicle, this signage issituated on a grass verge by a fast moving road, the video showsthat there is no public path to walk down to read it afterwards aslikely this would endanger other drivers entering the service area.the video shows it would be unsafe to seek to walk to this areaafter parking to read in full . I still have not read the sign orentered into a consensually agreed contract. The video evidences inreal time that it is impossible to read what is on this sign at thepoint of leaving the motorway to enter the public highway area ofthe “services”
6. oneof the false claims made in the POC 3 of the claim whichstates”reason: vehicle remained on private property in breach ofthe prominently displayed terms and conditions”.
7. Thevideo evidence of 18th Feb 2026 also shows that once safely parked,when you walk from the car park into the to the services (whichtakes around ½ a minute) you also see no bold,clear signage tellingyou “you are now on private land” as you walk into the servicesbuilding . The video evidence of 18th Feb 2026 that is it very easyto walk into the services area without any advance notice that youare on private land

4.Lack of Contract and Distinction from Beavis

4.1In ParkingEyeLtdv Beavis [2015] UKSC 67,theSupreme Court held that "adequate notice" of terms is essential. My case is the video evidence shows adequate notice is not provided as impossible to read detailed signage when driving round a corner at speed. The video evidence shows when walking straight into the services from the car park, (which takes 30 seconds) that there is no clear signage of proposed terms in view

3.Failure to Properly Plead the Claim

TheClaimant relied on vague Particulars of Claim, failing to explain how any contract arose or which terms were allegedly breached. No evidence was submitted showing the vehicle had contravened the restrictions, no observation or grace period was allowed, and thedriver was not identified. The claim was therefore wholly unparticularised and unsupported.

• In CELv Chan (2023),the High Court confirmed that generic, template Particulars are insufficient where they fail to plead the contractual basis, breach,and basis of liability. DCBLegal'sParticulars are similarly sparse and fail to properly particularise any cause of action, constituting unreasonable conduct. (See Exhibitxx-01)
• In CPMSv Akande,the claim was struck out and CPMS ordered to pay £8,668 in costs because the Particulars failed to establish a contract, show a breach, or identify the driver. DCBLegal'sParticulars suffer the same defects, making the claim wholly unparticularised and unreasonable under CPR 27.14(2)(g).(See Exhibitxx-02)

5.UnlawfulInflation

1. The addition of arbitrary "debt fees" is an attempt at double recovery. I rely on Parking Eye v Somerfield Stores [2011] EWHC 4023(QB),whereHHJ Hegarty held that inflating a PCN with admin costs "would appear to be penal". I attach evidence that in a letter dated______ from CPPlus limited on _______ “as previously advised,a further fee of £70 has been applied to your account to cover additional administration costs”. TheClaimant added a £70 “additional administration costs”fee to the original Parking Charge Notice. This sum is not legally recoverable and constitutes an attempt at double recovery, which is unreasonable conduct under CPR 27.14(2)(g).

TheClaimant’s sparse case lacks specificity and does not comply withCPR 16.4, 16PD3 or 16PD7, failing to 'state all facts necessary for the purpose of formulating a complete cause of action'. Further, theClaimant has improperly added a false 'fee' or damages to the original Parking Charge (PC). This sum is not legally recoverable and constitutes an attempt at double recovery, which is unreasonable conduct under CPR 27.14(2)(g). The binding Supreme Court judgment inParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67 See Exhibitxx-03 )held that an £85 parking charge more than covered all the 'costs of enforcement' which HHJ Moloney had listed as the pre-action work of a DVLA look-up and a simple automated letter chain, including a LBC. The same heads of cost cannot lawfully be counted twice and interest should also be disallowed. Exaggerated claims for impermissible sums are good reason for judges to intervene and the court is invited to strike out the claim using its powers under CPR 3.4.

4.It is neither admitted nor denied that a term was breached but to form a contract, there must be an offer, acceptance, and valuable consideration (absent in this case). The Consumer Rights Act2015 (s71) mandates a 'test of fairness' duty on Courts and sets a high bar for prominence of terms and 'consumer notices'.Paying regard to Sch2 (examples 6, 10, 14 & 18), also s62 and the duties of fair, open dealing/good faith, the Defendant notes that this Claimant reportedly uses unclear (unfair) terms/notices. On the limited information given, this case looks no different. The Claimant is put to strict proof with contemporaneous photographs.

5.DVLA keeper data is only supplied on the basis of prior written landowner authority. The Claimant (an agent) is put to strict proof of their standing to sue and the terms, scope and dates of the landowner agreement, including the contract, updates, schedules and a map of the site boundary set by the landowner (not an unverifiedGoogle Maps aerial view).

6.To impose a PC, as well as a breach, there must be: (i) a strong' legitimate interest' extending beyond compensation for loss, and(ii) 'adequate notice' (prominence) of the PC and any relevant obligation(s). None of which have been demonstrated. This PC is a penalty arising as a result of a 'concealed pitfall or trap', poor signs and covert surveillance, thus it is fully distinguished from Beavis.

7.Attention is drawn to:

(i)paras 98, 100, 193, 198 of Beavis (an£85 PC covered all costs and generated a huge profit shared with the landowner); the court should also read paragraph 3.4 of the original judgment by HHJ Moloney in Beavis,confirming what that authority means by 'costs of the operation', and

(ii)the binding judgment in ParkingEye v Somerfield Stores ChD [2011] EWHC 4023(QB) which remains unaffected by Beavis and stands as the only parking case law that references costs abuse. HHJ Hegarty held in paras 419-428 (his judgment later ratified by the CoA) that 'costs' inflating a £75 PC (already increased from £37.50) to £135 were disproportionate to the very minor cost of a letter-chain and 'would appear to be penal'. The court should note that HHJ Moloney referenced this case in Beavis.

8.The Parking (Code of Practice) Act will curb rogue conduct by operators and debt recovery agents (DRAs). The Government launched aPublic Consultation likely to herald a ban on double recovery 'fees',which the relevant 2022 Minister called ‘extorting money from motorists’. Both the previous and present Governments found that the high profits may be indicative of firms having too much control 'indicating that there is a market failure'.

9. Pursuant to Sch4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 ('POFA') th eclaim exceeds the maximum sum and is unrecoverable: see ExplanatoryNote 221: 'The creditor may not make a claim against the keeper... for more than the amount of the unpaid parking related charges as they stood when the notice to the driver was issued (para 4(5))'. There is no keeper liability for added false fees and the POFA specifically states that 'double recovery' is not allowed if a creditor uses any other remedy.

6.Conclusion

6.1I respectfully request the Court dismiss the claim on the grounds of unauthorised litigation, defective POCs and attempts at double recovery debt fees, and a complete lack of clear private land signage for visiting member of the public

Statementof Truth

I believe that the facts stated in this witness statement are true. I understand that proceedings for contempt of court may be brought against anyone who makes, or causes to be made, a false statement in a document verified by a statement of truth without an honest belief inits truth.  

Coupon-mad

That's good.  Your WS will prod DCB Legal to email the Notice of Discontinuance very soon!

Show us the NoD when it arrives, so we can add it to Umkomaas' thread of evidence.

🙂

standup369

Hi, I really appreciate your help, feedback and support.i'll get it sent off now. Much respect for all and all the others on the forum helping others!!

standup369

woop woop!!!

you were right @Coupon-mad The claimant discontinued their claim against you by filing a Notice of Discontinuance with the Court on _________

 Consequently, the case no longer exists and the hearing on _____ has been vacated

Yes, indeed!! Result

Super grateful for your help in achieving this :-D.Many thanks for what you do to help others

haven't got a formal letter yet, just an email from the court after enquiring