Free Traffic Legal Advice

Good morning,
As title explains, I am looking for some much needed help - on 19th Mar 2025 N1SDT claim form was received for a parking contravention from 16/11/2023 in a free car park with maximum limit of 4 hours, Kimberlow Hill Retail Park, YO10. Today, 29/03/2025, I submitted 'acknowledgement of service' form, so I believe I have around 10 days before I must submit the defense.

I should mention that I am currently unable to access the contravention images as well as the original date of issue versus date of contravention as I do not have access to the original PCN reference number with groupnexus, but on Monday I will call them to get the info and report back here. The terms of service were breached by an overstay by (from memory) around 20 mins due to visiting health clinic.

I have attached google street view images of the location where it took place, but it does not clearly show the signage as street view images do not extend inside the car park. Once again, I will get more info relating to the timings of the issues served up and photos ASAP and update here, but if in the meantime there is any other info needed that I can send over that can be used to help build a defense, please just let me know.
Do I have a case here?

The front page of n1sdt form has also been attached just showing what I have mentioned above plus the cost breakdown of what they are asking for, with blurred personal details of course.

Thanks to everyone who can help me out in advance, I really appreciate it

[ Guests cannot view attachments ]

DoO not "call" them. A claim must contain all the particulars to be able to allow you to make a defence. That claim form is in breach of CPR16.4(1)(a) and is most likely to be struck out at allocation stage if you follow the advice and use the defence below.

With an issue date of 19th March, you have until 4pm on Monday 7th April to submit your defence. However, having submitted an Acknowledgement of Service (AoS) before then, you now have until 4pm on Monday 21st April to submit your defence. Did you use the MCOL to submit your AoS or have you emailed or posted it?

Here is the defence and link to the draft order and relevant transcripts that go with it. You only need to edit your name and the claim number. You sign the defence by typing your full name for the signature and date it. There is nothing to edit in the draft order.

When you're ready you send all the documents as a single PDF attachment (in the order of 'defence', 'draft order' and then the 2 'transcripts') in an email to claimresponses.cnbc@justice.gov.uk and CC in yourself. The claim number must be in the email subject field and in the body of the email just put: "Please find attached the defence and draft order in the matter of CP Plus t/a GroupNexus v [your full name] Claim no.: [claim number]."

IN THE COUNTY COURT

Claim No: [Claim Number]

BETWEEN:

CP Plus t/a GroupNexus
Claimant

- and -

[Defendant's Full Name]

Defendant

---

DEFENCE

1. The Defendant denies the claim in its entirety. The Defendant asserts that there is no liability to the Claimant and that no debt is owed. The claim is without merit and does not adequately disclose any comprehensible cause of action.

2. There is a lack of precise detail in the Particulars of Claim (PoC) in respect of the factual and legal allegations made against the Defendant such that the PoC do not comply with CPR 16.4(1)(a).

3. The Defendant is unable to plead properly to the PoC because:

(a) The contract referred to is not detailed or attached to the PoC in accordance with CPR PD 16(7.5);

(b) The PoC do not state the exact wording of the clause (or clauses) of the terms and conditions of the contract (or contracts) which is/are relied on;

(c) The PoC do not adequately set out the reason (or reasons) why the claimant asserts the defendant has breached the contract (or contracts)

(d) The PoC do not state with sufficient particularity exactly where the breach occurred, the exact time when the breach occurred and how long it is alleged that the vehicle was parked before the parking charge was allegedly incurred;

(e) The PoC do not state precisely how the sum claimed is calculated, including the basis for any statutory interest, damages, or other charges;

(f) The PoC do not state what proportion of the claim is the parking charge and what proportion is damages;

(g) The PoC do not provide clarity on whether the Defendant is sued as the driver or the keeper of the vehicle, as the claimant cannot plead alternative causes of action without specificity.

4. The Defendant cites the cases of CEL v Chan 2023 [E7GM9W44] and CPMS v Akande 2024 [K0DP5J30], which are persuasive appellate decisions. In these cases, claims were struck out due to identical failures to comply with CPR 16.4(1)(a). Transcripts of these decisions are attached to this Defence.

5. The Defendant attaches to this defence a copy of a draft order approved by a district judge at another court. The court struck out the claim of its own initiative after determining that the Particulars of Claim failed to comply with CPR 16.4.(1)(a). The judge noted that the claimant had failed to:

(i) Set out the exact wording of the clause (or clauses) of the terms and conditions relied upon;

(ii) Failed to explain the reasons why the defendant was allegedly in breach of contract;

(iii) Provide separate, detailed Particulars of Claim as permitted under CPR PD 7C.5.2(2).

(iv) The court further observed that, given the modest sum claimed, requiring further case management steps would be disproportionate and contrary to the overriding objective. Accordingly, the judge struck out the claim outright rather than permitting an amendment.

6. The Defendant submits that the same reasoning applies in this case and invites the court to adopt a similar approach by striking out the claim for the Claimant’s failure to comply with CPR 16.4(1)(a).

Statement of truth

I believe that the facts stated in this Defence 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 in its truth.

Signed:


Date:

Draft Order for the defence

CEL v Chan Transcript

CPMS v Akande Transcript

If you want an editable MS Word file with everything in a single document which you can then save/export as a single PDF file when ready to send, use this:

MS Word .docx file for defence [CPR 16.4(1)(a)]

(c) The PoC do not adequately set out the reason (or reasons) why the claimant asserts the defendant has breached the contract (or contracts)

This defence was drafted with the assistance of a District Judge. This wording has been chosen with care.

In this case they haven't even bothered to state the reason how the defendant has breach the terms. It means absolutely nothing without stating the actual cause of action. Have you even bothered to read the attached transcripts of the persuasive Chan and Akande appellate cases?

(e) The PoC do not state precisely how the sum claimed is calculated, including the basis for any statutory interest, damages, or other charges;

How much of the amount claimed is the principal of the original charge? How much has been added and is that amount "damages" or "debt recovery fees"? Has interest been calculated on the whole amount and from what date?

If you think that the PoC sufficiently show the amount and how it has been calculated is correct, then don't use that bit. However, before you decide... show us how the interest has been calculated. From what date are they allowed to calculate the interest from? On what portion of the claim are they allowed to claim interest?

Was the date the PCN was "issued" correct in those PoC? Have a look for the original Notice to Keeper (NtK) you received and check the date it was "issued" with the date in the PoC. Remember that a postal PCN issued as an NtK cannot be "issued" on the same date as the alleged contravention.

(g) The PoC do not provide clarity on whether the Defendant is sued as the driver or the keeper of the vehicle, as the claimant cannot plead alternative causes of action without specificity.

Have you, the Keeper, been also identified as the driver? The driver and the Keeper are separate legal entities. Yes, the Keeper could also be the driver but they don't know that unless you, the Keeper, has told them you were. As there is no legal obligation for the Keeper to identify the driver to an unregulated private company, they don't know. If the PCN was not fully compliant with ALL the requirements of PoFA then they cannot hold the Keeper liable. They haven't shown in what capacity they are suing you.

Don't try and overthink this. Have a read of the Civil Procedure Rules 16.4. You have to understand that the PoC MUST contain enough information for you to be able to make a defence. Imagine if you knew nothing about this until you received the N1SDT Claim Form, is there enough information in those PoC for you to be able to even know what the claim is about and why?

Do yourself a favour and have a read of CPR 7.4(1)(b)

If MCOL’s 1080-character limit prevents the claimant from meeting the required standard for PoC, then PoC are inherently defective unless supplemented. There is nothing to stop the claimant issuing further PoC if they cannot adequately make a claim that satisfies CPR 16.4(1)(a) if using MCOL. They have chosen not to do so.

CPR 7.4(1)(b) “Where—
(b) particulars of claim are not contained in or served with the claim form, the claimant must serve particulars of claim within 14 days after service of the claim form, and in any event no later than 28 days after the claim form was issued.”

Keep in mind that this claim from the claimant is signed with a Statement of Truth and it is anything but truthful.

I can say with greater that 99.9% certainty that this claim will either be struck out or discontinued if you use the defence provided with no editing of the content.

I have gone ahead and submitted my response on the MCOL online portal not an email as that's where it says to respond on the MCOL website. I will update here with any upddates I receive!

At risk of sounding blunt, there is little point in coming here to seek advice if you decide not to follow it. The MCOL portal removes all formatting from your defence, so it will appear to the judge as a solid wall of text with no paragraphs or line breaks. It also has a size limit - did you include the draft order and 2 transcripts? If so, it's incredibly likely some of that will not have gone through.

No, at the bottom of the defense I also included a link to a document with the full defense. On top of that, I also sent an email to caseprogression.cnbc@justice.gov.uk with the documents attached, referencing my MCOL case with both my personal reference and claim number reference. Will this suffice?

You can only hope so.

Your one saving grace is that this is a DCB Legal issued claim and as long as it is defended, no matter how inadequately, they will likely discontinue before they are required to pay the hearing fee.

Having received your own N180 (make sure it is not simply a copy of the claimants N180), do not use the paper form. Ignore all the other forms that came with it. you can discard those. Download your own here and fill it in on your computer. You sign it by simply typing your full name in the signature box.

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/673341e779e9143625613543/N180_1124.pdf

Here are the answers to some of the less obvious questions:


When you have completed the form, attach it to a single email addressed to both dq.cnbc@justice.gov.uk and info@dcblegal.co.uk and CC in yourself. Make sure that the claim number is in the subject field of the email.

As soon as your MCOl history says that an N180 DQ has been issued/sent, you can send yours.