CP Plus/Group Nexus/DCB Legal claim form issued 27/11/2025 re Cherwell Valley Motorway Services

PostrGrrl

I, as keeper of the vehicle, received a claim from DCB Legal dated 27/11/2025.

I have ignored all previous communications about a penalty charge as this has worked for me in the past. however, not this time.

I've tried reading all the related threads and posts an hope I'm understanding things correctly but I'm having quite an intense period of PTSD related to a medical procedure and so don't feel sure that I'm understanding as well as I normally do - please be extra gentle when replying as I'm sure I've missed something as there's just so much advice here now.

I filed the AOS on 11th December and by my calculation I have until 30th December to file my defence, is that correct? Are any extra days given due to the xmas bank holidays?

I'll file my draft defence in another post for comments

PostrGrrl

Here's my draft defence, please advise on if I've added too much in paras 3, 3.1 and 3.2?

1. The Claimant’s sparse case lacks specificity and does not comply with CPR 16.4, 16PD3 or 16PD7, failing to 'state all facts necessary for the purpose of formulating a complete cause of action'. The added costs/damages are an attempt at double recovery of capped legal fees (already listed in the claim) and are not monies genuinely owed to, or incurred by, this Claimant. The claim also exceeds the Code of Practice (CoP) £100 parking charge ('PC') maximum. Exaggerated claims for impermissible sums are good reason for the court to intervene. Whilst the Defendant reserves the right to amend the defence if details of the contract are provided, the court is invited to strike out the claim using its powers under CPR 3.4.

2. The allegation(s) and heads of cost are vague and liability is denied for the sum claimed, or at all. At the very least, interest should be disallowed; the delay in bringing proceedings lies with the Claimant. This also makes retrieving material documents/evidence difficult, which is highly prejudicial. The Defendant seeks fixed costs (CPR 27.14) and a finding of unreasonable conduct and further costs (CPR 46.5). The Defendant has little recollection of events, save as set out below and to admit that they were the registered keeper and driver.

3. It is neither admitted nor denied that the driver breached any term. Section 71 of the Consumer Rights Act 2015 (‘the CRA’) creates a statutory duty upon Courts to consider the test of fairness. The CRA introduced new requirements for prominence of terms and 'consumer notices'. Pursuant to s62 and paying regard to examples 6, 10, 14 & 18 of Sch2 and the duties of fair/open dealing and good faith, the Defendant avers that this Claimant generally uses unclear and unfair terms/notices. On the limited information available, this case appears to be no different. The Claimant has never provided the wording of the contract they rely upon in any correspondence and is put to strict proof with contemporaneous photographs. The Defendant reserves the right to amend the defence if details of the contract are provided. However, the court is invited to strike this claim out using its powers pursuant to CPR 3.4.

3.1 The Defendant is disabled and was making a journey from Anglesey to their home in Chesham. Due to their disability the drive took longer than usual and they stopped at Cherwell Services to manage their medical condition. As far as the defendant was aware from checking the time when they parked and then restarted the car to depart they were within the two hour limit and there was no need to make payment.

3.2 The Defendant had not noticed any ‘Prominent’ signage close to where the vehicle was parked, showing the terms and conditions for use. On returning to the site to inspect the displayed notices they are confusing as they refer to both parking and being on-site. These are two different activities and it is possible to be on-site whilst not being parked, for example using the fuel station. The defendant was parked for less than two hours and there is no notice when entering the site that two hour limit applies to being on-site and not just parking, nor is there a display of the time that you enter the site so you can be sure not to breach the terms & conditions.

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 Act 2015 (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 has never provided the wording of the contract they rely upon in any correspondence and has not stated the term breached in the Particulars of Claim and 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 unverified Google 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 ParkingEye v Beavis [2015] UKSC67.

7. Attention is drawn to (i) paras 98, 100, 193, 198 of  Beavis (an £85 PC comfortably covered all letter chain costs and generated a profit shared with the landowner) and also to (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 deals with costs abuse. HHJ Hegarty held in paras 419-428 (High Court, later ratified by the CoA) that 'admin costs' inflating a £75 PC (already increased from £37.50) to £135 were disproportionate to the minor cost of an automated letter-chain and 'would appear to be penal'.

8. The Parking (Code of Practice) Act will curb rogue conduct by operators and their debt recovery agents (DRAs). The Government recently launched a Public Consultation considered likely to bring in a ban on DRA fees, which a 2022 Minister called ‘extorting money from motorists’. They have identified in July 2025: 'profit being made by DRAs is significantly higher than ... by parking operators' and 'the high profits may be indicative of these firms having too much control over the market, thereby indicating that there is a market failure'.

9. Pursuant to Sch4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 ('POFA') the claim exceeds the maximum sum and is unrecoverable: see Explanatory Note 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))'. Late fees (unknown to drivers, not specified on signs) are not 'unpaid parking related charges'. They are the invention of 'no win no fee' DRAs. Even in the (unlikely) event that the Claimant complied with the POFA and CoP, there is no keeper liability law for DRA fees.

10. This claim is an utter waste of court resources and it is an indication of systemic abuse that parking cases now make up a third of all small claims. False fees fuel bulk litigation that has overburdened HMCTS. The most common outcome of defended cases is late discontinuance, making Claimants liable for costs (r.38.6(1)). Whilst this does not 'normally' apply to the small claims track (r.38.6(3)) the White Book has this annotation: 'Note that the normal rule as to costs does not apply if a claimant in a case allocated to the small claims track serves a notice of discontinuance although it might be contended that costs should be awarded if a party has behaved unreasonably (r.27.14(2)(dg))'. It is submitted that a definition of unreasonableness encompasses an intention to discontinue that has been present since the start, as may be stipulated in any contractual relationship between the parking company and bulk litigator.

Gr1pr

Definitely not a Penalty. ( or Fine  )  just an invoice 

You are correct in your calculations, 4pm on 30th December,  no leeway regardless of Xmas or New Year 

1505grandad

There does not appear to be any specific breach pleaded in the PoC so the Chan and Akande cases should be included.

Coupon-mad

Yep. You can use the special para 3 linked for these cases (twice) in the Template Defence thread. Do not add detail.

PostrGrrl

@Coupon-madthanksforthe advice on not adding detail, I was unsure and as I'm saying the complainant didn't provide detail I wanted to check I didn't have to do the same.

@1505grandadthanks for confirming that thee is no specific breach pleaded so I can just add the standard Chan and Akande cases para 3, I'll post my defence on MCOL tonight so I can stop thinking about it for a bit

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'."

Le_Kirk

Gr1pr said:

You are correct in your calculations, 4pm on 30th December,  no leeway regardless of Xmas or New Yesr

To confirm the above: -

With an issue date of 27/11/25 and providing you complete(d) the AoS after 02/12/25 and before or on 16/12/25 your defence deadline date is 4.00 p.m. on 30/12/25

PostrGrrl

I've now receveived the directions questionnaire direct from DCB Legal and am starting to think about completing mine. 

I think I could be classed as vulnerable but don't know how to complete these sections. As I'm not going to post about my health here, could someone post a link to the thead about this as I've tried searching and have found nothing in the last 2 hours. I really appreciate all the knowledge and advice here but there's so much that it's exhausting when already trying to manage my health needs, thanks again

Coupon-mad

The link to how to complete the N180 is already in the first 8 steps in the Template Defence thread, top of the forum.

But wait until MCOL says it's been posted out to you. Check your MCOL 'history' weekly to make sure it hasn't gone astray.

PostrGrrl

Thanks @Coupon-mad I'd already read this general advice but I need specific advice on how to write about my vulnerability.

 Having already had problems with disability benefits due to not knowing how to word things correctly I'd like to avoid that and because of my diabilities I need to start now as my ability to read and write fluctuates.

ChirpyChicken

If you have email scheduling. Schedule it to send in 8 days time