Group Nexus, DCB Legal court claim 2025, the driver parked in a disabled bay

Le_Kirk

That order does not make sense; at paragraph #2, it specifically states "parties are not to attend the hearing" but at paragraph #7 it states "The original documents are to be brought to the hearing"

Coupon-mad

Yes but that second bit is just standard blurb. The courts use templates. Ironic!

Le_Kirk

Agree, we know that but there might be motorists who don't; pretty poor from a large organisation whose day job is to issue NoAs!

evasivedavid

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81956809#Comment_81956809

okay thank you…. this is my WC

Witness Statement of XXXXXXXX

Claim Number: xxxxxx
Between: CP Plus Ltd t/a GroupNexus (Claimant)
and: xxxxxx

1. Introduction

I, Darryl Rigby, of xxxxxxxxxx, am the Defendant in this matter. I am the registered keeper of the vehicle in question. I make this witness statement from my own knowledge and belief in support of my defence.

2. Keeper liability denied

At no point has the Claimant identified the driver of the vehicle. The Claimant has chosen not to rely on the provisions of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (“POFA”) in order to transfer liability to the registered keeper.

The Notice to Keeper was not served within the required 14-day period and did not contain the mandatory wording required by POFA. As such, there is no lawful basis to pursue me as keeper.

3. No admission as to driver

I am unable to recall who was driving the vehicle on the date in question. No admission is made as to the identity of the driver.

4. Inadequate signage

The signage at the location was inadequate and failed to clearly communicate any contractual terms.

In particular:

• There was no clear or prominent signage visible from the position where the vehicle was parked
• Any signage present was not sufficiently legible or positioned to form a contract
• The terms and conditions were not brought to the attention of the driver in a clear and transparent manner

I will rely on photographs (Exhibit A) showing the absence or inadequacy of signage in the relevant area.

5. Bay markings and layout

The bay markings were unclear and confusing. The layout of the parking area did not make it sufficiently obvious that the space was subject to specific restrictions.

The markings and surrounding bays created ambiguity, and there was no clear indication from the parking position that any specific contractual terms applied.

Photographic evidence (Exhibit B) will demonstrate the lack of clarity in the bay markings.

6. No contract formed

Due to the lack of clear signage and inadequate notice of terms, no contract could have been formed between the driver and the Claimant.

This distinguishes the case from ParkingEye v Beavis, where the Supreme Court emphasised the importance of prominent and clear signage.

7. Lack of landowner authority

The Claimant is put to strict proof that it has sufficient authority from the landowner to issue parking charges and to pursue this claim.

No evidence has been provided of:

• A valid contract with the landowner
• The scope of that authority
• The relevant site boundaries

8. Inflated and unrecoverable costs

The claim includes additional sums that are not recoverable under POFA and constitute an attempt at double recovery.

Such costs are not genuine losses and are contrary to established case law.

9. Conclusion

The Claimant has failed to establish:

• Keeper liability
• A valid contract
• Adequate signage
• A lawful basis for the additional sums claimed

Accordingly, I respectfully request that the court dismisses the claim

Statement of Truth

I believe that the facts stated in this witness statement are true.

Signed: _______xxxxx________________

Date: ____________16/04/2026___________

Gr1pr

That statement of truth was retired 5 years ago, too short, out of date, inadmissible

I dont see any inclusions or exhibits as advised in the 2nd post in the newbies sticky thread in announcements either

Coupon-mad

That is an old version and 5 year old SoT.

Recent WS include:

• the one by @Horizon_Dawn which is a simple one responding to the claim, citing HHJ Moloney in Beavis (which you need as an exhibit and I'm not talking about the Supreme Court final transcript).
• the one by @JackR1 (April 2026) which includes HHJ Moloney's transcript as well as Edward, Smith, Wilkinson, Chan and Akande

MothballsWallet

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81957178#Comment_81957178

Seems like a contradiction to me. I thought courts are supposed to be clear and precise in their writings?

evasivedavid

Thanks for advice.. I updated my WS… Is this okay now?

Witness Statement of [YOUR NAME] Claim Number: [XXXX] Between: CP Plus Ltd t/a GroupNexus (Claimant) and [YOUR NAME] (Defendant)

1. Introduction I am [Your Name] of [your address], the Defendant in this matter and the registered keeper of the vehicle. This witness statement is made in support of my defence and sets out the facts as I understand them.
2. Background The claim relates to an alleged parking event on 25/01/2025. I am the registered keeper. I am unable to recall who was driving the vehicle on that date and no admission is made as to the driver’s identity. The Claimant has not provided any evidence identifying the driver.
3. No keeper liability – failure to comply with POFA The Claimant has failed to comply with the strict requirements of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (“POFA”). The Notice to Keeper was not delivered within the required 14-day period. The alleged event occurred on 25/01/2025, yet no Notice to Keeper was received before 14/02/2025. As a result, the Claimant cannot hold me liable as registered keeper under POFA 2012. Only the driver could be liable, and the Claimant has failed to identify that person. I rely on Exhibit A (Notice to Keeper and related correspondence).
4. No admission as to driver I make no admission as to who was driving the vehicle on the date in question. The Claimant is put to strict proof as to the identity of the driver.
5. Inadequate signage and no contract The Claimant relies on the existence of a contract formed by signage. This is denied. The signage at the location was sparse, poorly positioned, not visible from the parking location, and not legible from a driver’s perspective. No clear terms were brought to the attention of the driver. A valid contract requires clear and prominent terms, which were not present. This case is distinguished from ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67, where clear and prominent signage was a key factor in the Supreme Court’s decision. Those circumstances do not apply here. I rely on Exhibit B (site photographs and signage).
6. Unclear bay markings and layout The layout of the parking area and bay markings were unclear and ambiguous. There was no clear indication that the vehicle was parked in breach of any terms. The overall presentation of the site created confusion rather than clarity. I rely on Exhibit C (photographs of bay markings and layout).
7. Distinguishing the Beavis case The Claimant may seek to rely on ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67. However, that case turned on clear signage, a legitimate commercial interest, and a transparent charge. Those conditions are not present in this case.
8. Supporting authority – HHJ Moloney I rely on the first instance judgment of HHJ Moloney in the Beavis case (Exhibit D). That judgment highlights the importance of clear signage and proper communication of terms. The facts of this case do not meet that standard.
9. Additional persuasive authorities I rely on Vehicle Control Services v Wilkinson (Exhibit E) and Excel Parking v Chan (Exhibit F), which confirm that additional debt recovery sums are not recoverable and that vague or template particulars are defective. These authorities support the position that the additional sums claimed are not recoverable and are disproportionate.
10. Inflated and unrecoverable costs The claim includes additional sums beyond the original parking charge. These are not recoverable under POFA 2012 and represent double recovery. They are not genuine losses and are not supported by contract or statute.
11. Lack of landowner authority The Claimant is put to strict proof that it has authority from the landowner. This must include a valid contemporaneous contract, defined site boundaries, and authority to issue and enforce parking charges. No such evidence has been provided.
12. Conduct of the Claimant The Particulars of Claim are sparse and fail to comply with CPR 16.4. The claim includes exaggerated and unrecoverable sums. I invite the court to consider this conduct when assessing costs.
13. Conclusion The Claimant has failed to establish keeper liability, driver identity, a valid contract, adequate signage, or entitlement to the sums claimed. I respectfully request that the claim be dismissed.

Statement of 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 make, a false statement in a document verified by a statement of truth without an honest belief in its truth.

Signed by……

1505grandad

"Para 9. Additional persuasive authorities I rely on Vehicle Control Services v Wilkinson (Exhibit E) and Excel Parking v Chan (Exhibit F), which confirm that additional debt recovery sums are not recoverable and that vague or template particulars are defective. These authorities support the position that the additional sums claimed are not recoverable and are disproportionate"

Where did you copy the above from?

Le_Kirk

You state you don't know who was driving and it possibly wasn't you but you do go on to give description of inadequate signage! Better to state that "upon receipt of the PCN you carried our research and discovered that the signage was inadequate."