CPP/DCBLegal 4xPCN's Claimform - Roadchef Service Stations

[wildflynn]

Hi all,

I'm a member of the public defending a case by CCPlus T/a GroupNexus  for 4 PCNs from back in 2014 and 2015.

 

The main part of my defence is that I was working on site, and Roadchef didn't enter my VRN either correctly or at all.

I had repeatedly called them and was told that they would be voided.

I heard nothing for years and therefore thought it was all settled.

 

Another part of my defence will be to question the possible deliberate ploy or policy to wait until 5 years has passed to pursue these claims, therefore claiming an extra 8% per annum in interest on each ticket.

 

I went to mediation today and we didn't agree  on a settlement, so this will continue on to court.

I asked for an SAR (Subject Access Request) for all 4 PCNS and they only sent me details for one of them

 i offered to pay for one of them minus the fees/charges etc which was rejected.

For the record, 4 PCNs now stand at £950 plus court and solicitor fees.

 

What also irked me is that I had an email  response from a director at Roadchef saying that they could have helped if i had gone to them earlier.

I had gone to them earlier, and presumed it was settled.

 

then years later CP Plus pop up with a letter of claim and summons.

This left me in a catch22 situation and is why I think that this is a deliberate ploy.

They leave it 5 years to pursue the claim, then the landowner cant help you because it's 5 years down the line

 

That aside, I would like to hear from other people who have been targeting 4 or 5 years down the line and would ask if I can use their cases in my defence.

If we can prove that this is deliberate, we can do something about it.

I would also like to hear from a solicitor who'd like to take this up on my behalf. 

 

Thanks

[honeybee13]

Hi.

 

Could you let us have the information requested in the forum sticky please? It will help us to advise you.

 

 

HB

[wildflynn]

 

Hi HB, thanks for the quick response.  

The info in the sticky isn't that relevant any more because i've already filed my defence back at the end of april.

 

We have now already had small claims mediation, which failed to come to a settlement, so the next step is court. 

[honeybee13]

Well, see what the guys think. They may still want to see the details to understand your claim. We can't normally give the best advice if there are details missing.

 

HB

[FTMDave]

A solicitor tends to be a Jack-of-all-trades and knows most aspects of the law to a superficial standard, whereas on this site you've got people who are specialised in seeing off these claims - and the advice is free!

 

I'm sure these conmen are banking on it being difficult to defend after five years, but unfortunately they have a right to bring a claim up for to six years.

 

As HB said, the more detail we have the better we can advise you.  What did you write in your defence?  Have you ever outed yourself in writing as the driver to the fleecers?  Details of the PCNs would be useful if you have them to see if they have followed the provisions of the POFA law.  Any proof you had permission to be there.  Etc. 

 

Also, as they have not complied with your SAR, how about YOU sending THEM a letter of claim (if you are really prepared to take them to court that is).  

[dx100uk]

please fill out that sticky 

and post up the defence you filled

 

did you send a CPR request too?

 

dx

 

[wildflynn]

Thanks guys

Name of the Claimant :CP Plus Ltd T/a GroupNexus

 

Claimants Solicitors: DCB Legal

 

Date of issue – 28/04/2020

 

DQ sent to you on 12/06/2020

DQ filed by claimant on 12/06/2020

You filed a DQ on 01/07/2020

What is the claim for – The vehicle with registration number XXXXXX ( "the vehicle")  was parked on private land ( "the land") owned or managed by our client. The signs displayed on the landset out the terms and conditions of parking (ie. the "contract"). The vehicle was parked on the land in breach of the contract and as such a Parking Charge Notice(s) (PCN) was issued.  It is our client's position that you are liable as the Keeper or Driver. The details of the PCN(s) can be found in the PCN schedule

Pusuant to the contract, payment of the PCN(s) was due within 28 days of issue, yet it currently remains outstanding 

 

NOT SURE what a POC is  

 

What is the value of the claim?  for 4 PCNS aug, sept, nov 2014 and 1 in march march 2015 total claimed is 

Amount Claimed

£952.74

Court Fee

£60.00

Solicitor Costs

£70.00

Total Amount

£1,082.74

 

 

I was in mediation this morning and am now waiting for a court date

My defence is below  

I dispute all of the PCNs because back in 2014 and 2015 I was self
employed, working for XXXXXXXXX Ltd and Roadchef were a customer. I
visited these sites on numerous occasions and had my number plate
logged , but occasionally, the staff in WHSmith either forgot or
incorrectly entered my details. When I received these PCNs and on
subsequent follow up notices I informed both CP Plus and Roadchef
that they should be cancelled. Roadchef told me that they had
been voided.
I ignored the threatening letters from DCB Legal, because I
thought they were scams picking up on old lists of unpaid fines
This was eluded to in an article on the MoneySave Expert’s
website about them .
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6083869/dcbl-dcb-l
egal-attempting-abuse-of-process#post76631816
They had also added huge admin fees to each ticket amounting to
£952.74 for 4 parking tickets, making me think that they were just
a dodgy company trying to circumvent ruling POFA2012, the ruling
of the Supreme Court, about Double Recovery by adding superius
costs and admin fees
To summarise; I didn’t bother replying to DCB Legal because I knew
I didn’t owe the money and these claims looked dodgy should never
have been handed to them by CP Plus. Therefore, I had no reason to
deal with them or acknowledge what I thought was a phishing
attempt by them.

 

Hope that's enough for you to be going on with

[dx100uk]

shame you used the word FINE in your defence......

they are not fines .....

 

They are speculative invoices because the claimant alleges the driver broke some imaginary contract entered onto private property CPP may or may not have a current, enforceable and Paid up contract with the landowners or their agents at the times of the PCN's.

 

did you send DCB legal an adapted CPR 31:14 request ?

 

dx

 

[wildflynn]

No I didnt. what would i ask for and could you please explain it?

[dx100uk]

if they cannot produce the PCN, NTK and entry/exit photo's for EACH PCN they are sunk at hurdle one.

 

for future readers, please NEVER enter into mediation for a speculative invoice, there is never anything to mediate over.

 

so.. use this but just pluralise everything and list EACH PCN number in your title.

 

https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/409718-cpr-3114-request-to-use-on-receipt-of-a-ppc-private-land-parking-court-claim/

 

[wildflynn]

done and sent. Thanks

[dx100uk]

now get reading up HERE on cag only.

 

next will be notice of allocation from your local court i suspect.

 

so the POC (particulars of claim) state NO location??

[lookinforinfo]

It might be worthwhile to go back to Roadchef explaining that you had assumed that Roadchef had confirmed five years ago that they would contact CPP to confirm that you were working on site and did not need to pay for parking since you had heard nothing from CPP for five years. You would appreciate therefore if they could kindly send you letter for the Court confirming you were working a onsite at that time it would help your case enormously.

 

Whether a PCN was issued  last week or 5 years ago is immaterial. So even if Roadchef do not do the decent thing,  CPP can still lose their case against you for a variety of reasons. None of these parking companies have many brain cells amongst themselves so it shouldn't be too difficult to see this lot off. 

 

I don't suppose you have retained any of the old PCNs and the follow up notices?

If you have  that would be great and posting them up here would help us  a lot in getting a result for you in Court.

You should get them from the CPR request in any event but the earlier we can see them the better.

Also could you please let us have the address and postcode of the carpark. 

 

In order to win, CPP must be able to show that there exists a contract between them and the motorist.

If it cannot then they lose the case.

And there are so many ways in which they can fail to establish that contract .

 

Even if they do have a contract there are still other things that they can lose on.

One of which is what they charge when they think you have breached their rules.

 

Could you please advise us on how they reached their magnificent total of  £950 for only four PCNs.

 

I know it is a long time since you worked there but how many days did you work there for in total.

I am asking to find out if there were other times when Roadchef did inform CPP that you were working there. 

 

Could you please also post up the correspondence you still have from CPP and DCBL in pdf though first removing your name and address and any other identifiers on them to see if there is anything within them that could help in your case.

 

What would help you also is if you look at cases on here that have been won-especially "PPC successes" at the top of the page. This will help if the case does go to Court since you will be more knowledgeable about Court procedures and how CPP and all the others have an abysmal record in Court against a well contested case.

 

 

 

[wildflynn]

19 hours ago, dx100uk said:

so.. use this but just pluralise everything and list EACH PCN number in your title.

 

https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/409718-cpr-3114-request-to-use-on-receipt-of-a-ppc-private-land-parking-court-claim/

 

HI I received this response from my  CPR request. any ideas?

Good morning,

 

CPR 31.14(1)(a) allows a party to inspect a document mentioned in a statement of case.  However, nowhere in the Claimant’s Particulars of Claim are the documents listed in your email mentioned.  Accordingly, the provisions of CPR 31.14 do not apply and you are not entitled to inspect the documents requested.

 

Kind regards,

 

xxxxxxxxxxxxx

Paralegal

DCB Legal Ltd

 

[AndyOrch]

Which is true......so what did you request within the CPR 31.14 ? ....they will have to disclose the relevant documents as the claim proceeds anyway so just a little smoke and mirrors to wind you up.

 

Andy

[wildflynn]

@lookinforinfoThanks very much for your detailed response I will try and reply to all your points.

• I will contact Roadchef again and ask them for a letter.
• The SAR I requested only came back with one of the four  PCNs and follow up notices I will remove all the id and upload as soon as i can
• Re the contract As you can see above This morning,  DCB refused my CPR request
• I have never had a full breakdown of how it came to £952 Their letter of claim of 25th march said that it was £662 and that if i didnt pay within 30 days, then if it was necessary to issue a claim then further cost will be sought as well as accrued interest at the rate of 8% 
• I worked at this and other sites. there are 4 PCNs from 3 different sites
• I#ll upload what i can when i can and appreciate all the help from all of you

[wildflynn]

22 minutes ago, Andyorch said:

Which is true......so what did you request within the CPR 31.14 ? ....they will have to disclose the relevant documents as the claim proceeds anyway so just a little smoke and mirrors to wind you up.

 

Andy

This is what i sent 

 

For the attention of XXXXXXXXXXX

DCB Legal

Direct House

Greenwood Drive,

Manor Park

Runcorn

Cheshire WA71UG

 

15/07/2020

 

Dear XXXXXXXXX

 

Re: CP Plus Ltd T/a Groupnexus v XXXXXXXXn Case No: XXXXXXXXX Your ref: XXXXXXXXXX

 

I have received insufficient documentation in my SAR request from your client. They provided documentation from only one of the 4 charge notices which are included in this claim. This has forced me to make the following CPR 31.14 request

 

CPR 31.14 Request

On 28/04/2020  I received the Claim Form in this case issued by you out of the Northampton County Court Business Centre.

I confirm having returned my acknowledgement of service to the court in which I indicate my intention to contest all of your claim.

 

Please treat this letter as my request made under CPR 31.14 for the disclosure and the production of a verified and legible copy of each of the following  documents  mentioned in your Particulars of Claim:

 

1. The contract between CP Plus and the landowner that assigns the right to enter into contracts with the public and make claims in their own name.

 

2. Proof of planning permission granted for signage etc under the Town and Country Planning Act 2007

 

3. Copies of the notice to driver, notice to keeper and any other correspondence from CP Plus t/a Groupnexus & DCB Legal to the defendant that they intend to rely upon in court.

 

4. PCN, NTK and entry/exit photo's for EACH PCN  in the claim

 

You should ensure compliance with your CPR 31 duties and ensure that the document(s) I have requested are disclosed at your earliest convenience..

Your CPR 31 duties extend to making a reasonable and proportionate search for the originals documents I have requested, you must be able to verify the document's authenticity and to provide me with a legible copy.

 

Further, where I have requested a copy of a document, the original of which is now in the possession of another person, you will have a right to possession of that document if you have mentioned it in your case. You must take immediate steps to recover and preserve it for the purpose of this case.

 

Where I have mentioned a document and there is in your possession more than one version of that same document owing to a modification, obliteration or other marking or feature, each version will be a separate document and you must provide a copy of each version of it to me. Your obligations extend to making a reasonable and proportionate search for any version(s) to include an obligation to recover and preserve such version(s) which are now in the possession of a third party.

In accordance with CPR 31.15© I undertake to be responsible for your reasonable copying costs incurred in complying with this CPR 31.14 request.

 

If you are unable to comply with this request within 14 days and believe that you will never be able to comply with this request please confirm in your response.

You are reminded that as this case is yet to be allocated to a track, CPR31:14 does apply, a refusal to comply because you 'think' at this stage you dont have to comply will be referred against you in any defence.

 

Yours faithfully

 

xxxxxxxxxxxxxx

 

[dx100uk]

simply being cocky

as andy pointed too

when/if it gets to the exchange of witness statements

they will have to disclose everything you want and they intend to rely upon

 

i will guess they had hoped you'd moved and they would get a default judgement with everything sent to an old address.

and as they craftily bumped each PCN up with fake charges

the total of the claim would thus be over £600

so they could instruct their mates at the desk nearer the BOG to go pester you as HCEO's and add even more fees.

 

i can see this case collapsing through no paperwork IMHO.

 

dx

 

 

 

[ericsbrother]

the other big question is how did they arrive at £900+ for  a contracual sum or breach of contract tht would be somehting like £320?

The POC is vague about why the money is owed and that is open to challenge and that also puts a big dent in their response to your CPR 31.14 request for documents.  In short they havent given a cause for action.

Now what was the exact wording f the Letter before action that DCBL sent? that should be a breakdown of what is owed AND WHY.

 

As already said, thye will have to provide the proof at a later stage but they are hoping you have wet yourself and will pay up or alternatley dont defend and as the amount claimed is now fabtasy money they can get the bailiffs in.

The lack of response to the SAR is a big bonus to you as you can ask for any other material they tyhen want to introduce as evidence to be struck out as inadmissible as it clearly didnt exist on the date of the response to the SAR

 

 

The other thing I note is you are using email to contact these bandits. Dont, use post and make themk do the same. There is good reason for this

[brassnecked]

They will have inflated it with Unicorn Feed tax to each part of the claim  as DX indicated to put it comfortably over the magic £600, to allow a High Court intervention and the Can't pay arm of DCBL can go a knocking.  As EB is asking what is on the LBA, as if they did add all those naughty fees any defence could include reference to the OPS judgment that blew the additional fees out of the water as abuse of process & unfair term.

[ericsbrother]

the other critical thing about this is you were working there so the agreement between the landowner(tenant) and you trumps any contact they can offer.

Now start to get your head around matters of contracts and ignore the fact it is a parking issue because it isnt. yes you were parked thre but the issue is that you werent offered a contract by CPP because they are too far down the food chain to have any input into whether you should ahve been ther or not.

 

Consider thi example- I pt my house up for sale and tell the estate agent I dont want viewers parking on my drive. they put up signs accordigly. I ask a plumber to coem rund ad mend a leaky valve and the estate agent demands money from the plumber for parking.

At what point does the parking by the plumber create a contract with the estate agent? answer is it doesnt, both are working to my direction. If I told thwe plumver he would hve to pay an estate agent ot visit my house he would tell me where to go and I wouldnt have a contact with the plumber and still have a leaky valve.

 

I hope this makes sense, in law it is called supremacy of contract, ie you had an agreement with the boss that the underling has no say in