Defence for DCB Legal representing CP Plus T/A Group Nexus

Cousin_It

Hi All,

Thanks for all the assistance in this forum - I have managed to get through response to LOC and submitting AOS online without having to bother anyone here for individual treatment so far. 

I am now drafting out my defence to submit before 17th Aug (hopefully I am correct about that - Issue Date 15th July, + 5 days, + 28 days).

I have found the default template defence in this thread:
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6108153/template-defence-to-adapt-for-all-parking-cases-with-added-admin-dra-costs-edited-in-2025/p1

But, as my case if DCB Legal + CP Plus/Group Nexus, I believe I need to replace paras 1-3 in the above with paras 1-6 from the link below (and then renumber paras 4-10 as 7-13):
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81199155/#Comment_81199155

Ok, so far, so good (I hope) - here are my first questions:

• It looks like the replacement paragraphs were drafted prior to the change of instructions to submit defence via MCOL when I think all the subheadings from the default defence were removed - I assume I just similarly remove the subheadings from the replacement text and still submit via MCOL?
• The replacement text also includes a link to the persuasive judgements referenced in paragraphs 3 & 4 - is such a link allowed when submitting a defence via MCOL (I'm guessing maybe not) or do I just remove the link.... or something else?

Sorry for what are probably slightly pedantic questions, but I am mindful that I have one shot to get it right and the seemingly silliest of slip-ups could disadvantage me!


Turning now to my para 3 (which is now para 6 post renumbering for the alternative first paras) - this is what I have come up with - please let me know your thoughts (6 is copy paste from other submissions and 6a is all my own and probably too verbose work!):

6. Referring to the POC: paragraph 1 is denied. The Defendant is not indebted to the Claimant. Paragraph 2 is denied. The Defendant does not accept that a contravention occurred on 12/10/2024, as alleged.  Whilst the Defendant is the registered keeper and driver, paragraphs 3 and 4 are denied. The Defendant is not liable and has seen no evidence of a breach of prominent terms.  The quantum is hugely exaggerated (no PCN can be £170 on private land) and there were no damages incurred whatsoever.

6.1 On the night in question, the Defendant recalls that driving conditions were woeful with dense fog. The Defendant was taken ill whilst driving, stopped at Birch Services East to rest for a while until feeling better, before continuing the journey, without ever leaving the car. The Defendant does not recall seeing any signage regarding parking charges on entering the car park and subsequent research has revealed that such signage as does exist falls far short of what might be considered prominent; being small and partially obscured by shrubbery, other road furniture and far more prominent signage for food and drink franchises.


Finally, when I sent my reply via email to the Letter Of Claim (standard one provided in this forum), I got an automated acknowledgement of receipt, but never received any actual reply granting/refusing the 30 day request or answering the questions posed. Letter of Claim dated 12 June 2025 and I replied 11 July 2025 (had been working away and only got back in time to send it then), which I assume was still within 30 days from LOC (just). Is this an incorrect calculation of the time limit and I have created a problem or have they committed a procedural breach and would it benefit me to mention in my defence?

I think that is all so far - many thanks for any assistance you all feel able to provide.

Redacted Claim Form:


  

Coupon-mad

Welcome! Good research but NO you don't use the appeal from January. That's old.

You use the one actually linked in the Template Defence for paragraph 3 for cases where no POC is pleaded. It's right there!

Le_Kirk

The 17th August is a Sunday and therefore your defence would be due before 4.00 p.m. on Monday 18th August.  As @Coupon-mad writes, you can use the defence that includes Chan & Akande.

Cousin_It

Coupon-mad said:

Welcome! Good research but NO you don't use the appeal from January. That's old.

You use the one actually linked in the Template Defence for paragraph 3 for cases where no POC is pleaded. It's right there!

Thanks for the clarification Coupon-mad, and at 1AM in the morning - going way above and beyond for the cause!!.

It was this section in the instructions at the head of the template defence thread which took me to the January thread I used.

Use the Template Defence shown in the post below...

...unless you have a CEL (in-house only), Elms Legal, Gladstones or Moorside Legal claim (and also specifically for DCB Legal claims for ParkingEye or Group Nexus / CP Plus) in which case the start should include the extra wording and link to CEL v Chan and CPMS v Akande, here:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81199155/#Comment_81199155

As a suggestion, could the above maybe be removed as I took that to have precedence over anything that followed in the actual template defence in the next post?. I'm an IT guy, so I probably treat the whole thing too programmatically :-) , but others of a similar disposition might make the same mistake?

So, I just go with the standard template defence and use it verbatim only replacing para 3 with:

3. With regards to the POC in question, 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. 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'."

Excellent, easy - thanks so much for all your assistance on this forum again.

Cousin_It

Le_Kirk said:

The 17th August is a Sunday and therefore your defence would be due before 4.00 p.m. on Monday 18th August.  As @Coupon-mad writes, you can use the defence that includes Chan & Akande.

Thanks for that clarification @Le_Kirk - a bit of extra contingency time can never hurt!

Coupon-mad

Cousin_It said:

Coupon-mad said:

Welcome! Good research but NO you don't use the appeal from January. That's old.

You use the one actually linked in the Template Defence for paragraph 3 for cases where no POC is pleaded. It's right there!

Thanks for the clarification Coupon-mad, and at 1AM in the morning - going way above and beyond for the cause!!.

It was this section in the instructions at the head of the template defence thread which took me to the January thread I used.

Use the Template Defence shown in the post below...

...unless you have a CEL (in-house only), Elms Legal, Gladstones or Moorside Legal claim (and also specifically for DCB Legal claims for ParkingEye or Group Nexus / CP Plus) in which case the start should include the extra wording and link to CEL v Chan and CPMS v Akande, here:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81199155/#Comment_81199155

As a suggestion, could the above maybe be removed as I took that to have precedence over anything that followed in the actual template defence in the next post?. I'm an IT guy, so I probably treat the whole thing too programmatically :-) , but others of a similar disposition might make the same mistake?

So, I just go with the standard template defence and use it verbatim only replacing para 3 with:

3. With regards to the POC in question, 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. 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'."

Excellent, easy - thanks so much for all your assistance on this forum again.

Well spotted, I've removed the clash of links! Had missed that when updating it all last month.

Now both posts lead to here:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81571257/#Comment_81571257

And once your defence is safely submitted, don't disappear||! We need you this month. It's very important that people like you join us to reply to the new Public Consultation, to tell the Government that:

a) you have no faith in POPLA or the IAS and that there must be the SINGLE APPEALS SERVICE that the Parking (Code of Practice) Act 2019 promised the public. As long as it is independent (and only ONE appeals service, not two involved in a race to the bottom) that will give a real option to resolve disputed cases out of court.

b).  THAT THE ENRICHMENT OF 'DEBT RECOVERY FEES' MUST BE COMPLETELY BANNED. DISPUTED CASES ARE NOT SOLVED BY A THIRD PARTY DEMANDING MORE MONEY AND OFFERING A POINTLESS 'PAYMENT PLAN'!  The answer to the question about adding ANY money for debt recovery is: NO. Nothing, nada.  If the parking industry want to use third parties they must pay for the service, like any other.

c). Tell them about your experience and that your case has now gone all the way to court, precisely because (a) and (b) above mean there is no option, no safeguard for consumers as a buffer.

Responses are invited to the Consultation now:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6617396/parking-code-of-practice-consultation-8-weeks-from-11th-july-2025/p1

Do it this month pleeease! We will discuss it all in more detail in the coming days on that thread.