Free Traffic Legal Advice

Hi all

I received this email response on Mon 18/11/2024 10:10

Good morning

Having reviewed the content of your defence, we write to inform you that our client intends to proceed with the claim. In due course, the Court will direct both parties to each file a directions questionnaire. In preparation for that, please find attached a copy of the Claimant's, which we confirm has been filed with the Court.
 
Without Prejudice to the above, in order to assist the Court in achieving its overriding objective, our client may be prepared to settle this case - in the event you wish to discuss settlement, please call us on 0203 434 0433 within 7 days and make immediate reference to this correspondence.
 
If you have provided an email address within your Defence, we intend to use it for service of documents (usually in PDF format) hereon in pursuant to PD 6A (4.1)(2)(c). Please advise whether there are any limitations to this (for example, the format in which documents are to be sent and the maximum size of attachments that may be received). Unless you advise otherwise, we will assume not.

Kind Regards, 
DCB Legal Ltd 

I've also received a court N180 small claims form. Quite disappointing but understandable they would want to defend their position. But noting back to the points made earlier in this thread:

...I would say, with this case involving DCB Legal, there's a pattern of behaviour established that would suggest that submitting this defence (and indeed frankly any defence) will lead to the case being discontinued.

and

The defence provided has been drafted by a long, still serving, District Judge who sees and determines these kinds of claims from serial and bulk litigators every day. I'd take their advice about what is the best defence to use in these circumstances any day. Not a single one has even reached a hearing to date.

I'm just wondering what action I should take further ?


Best
Lemon


@b789

OP, sorry to hark back, but the elephant hasn't left the room.

Your thread title is: Hampstead Heath Car Park - Did Not Receive Penalty Notice, whereas the claim itself refers to a completely different location and presumably time i.e.MOTO READING WEST

A simple statement that the thread title was wrong would suffice, but if more's involved and gets to court (which I accept is only a possibility) where would you stand?

No. The claim is regarding an alleged parking event at MOTO Reading West. However, that is irrelevant at this stage. The generic defence has been submitted is order to force the claimant to provide further PoC and for the defendant to plead a full defence should the claimant comply with the draft order.

As this is a DCB Legal issued claim, I fully expect that they will discontinue as long as the claim is defended at all, or it will be struck out at allocation.

In the unlikely event that this ever goes beyond that stage, the OP can review why they believe that this is to do with Hampstead Heath and not a motorway service station.

Please clarify that the response you provided above was the contents of the reason for requesting a hearing in person box in question D1 on your N180 DQ form and not submitted separately as an email to the CNBC.

Your thread title says "Hampstead Heath Car Park - Did Not Receive Penalty Notice".

The claim says that the alleged contravention was at "MOTO Reading West".

Did you read the claimants address as the location of the supposed parking event? CP Plus is based in Reading.

It won't make any difference to the claim or the defence submitted, so nothing to worry about.

I don't think you can edit your thread title so long after first posting (there's a time limit to prevent misuse), so I've updated it for you.

Hi @b789, @DWMB2, @H C Andersen et all ...

Just to bump this.


Basically, I refused all correspondence with the Claimant, (DCB Legal) but filed the Acknowledgement of Service, and eventually posted my defence on MCOL:

IN THE COUNTY COURT
Claim No: XXXXXX

BETWEEN:

Cp Plus Ltd T/a Groupnexus
Claimant

- and -

Mr XXXX XXXXX
Defendant


DEFENCE


1. The Defendant denies any liability for this claim.

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.

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 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 exactly how the claim for statutory interest is calculated;

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

(g) The PoC states that the Claimant is suing the defendant as the driver or the keeper. The claimant obviously knows whether the defendant is being sued as the driver or the keeper and should not be permitted to plead alternative causes of action.

4. The Defendant has attached to this defence a copy of an order made at another court which the allocating judge ought to make at this stage so that the Defendant can then know and understand the case which he/she/it faces and can then respond properly to the claim.

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:  20 October 2024


Things have moved on from then. Today, I had a telephone Mediation, where I re-iterated:

The Defendant argues that the Claimant's Particulars of Claim lack sufficient detail and fail to comply with legal requirements (CPR 16.4). The PoC does not provide enough information about the alleged contract, the specific breaches, or the breakdown of the claim. This makes it impossible for the Defendant to respond properly. The Defendant has included a suggested order from another case to clarify the issues and allow a proper defence.

To this end, to reach a mutually agreeable resolution or settlement, and save both time and costs, I propose the dismissal of the claim.

So this is going to a county court. My N180 directions have been filed, and i look forward to preparing a WS and a hearing in my local court in the future.

I'm just wondering in case I've missed anything out.
Is this the right thing to do? Any tips?

It's funny you should say that, b789.

When the mediator called and asked if I'd attended an SCMS mediation before, I played dumb.
The mediator tried to throw some intimidating phrases at me, like, "The legal team is NOT likely to drop these cases, and you will end up in court."

Then came the soft persuasion tactic, gently encouraging me to reach an offer.

I quickly shot this to pieces though, pointing out that of the 65,430 tickets issued this year, only 381 ended up in court—and most of those cases were struck out.

She stayed respectfully quiet after that, clearly realising I knew my sh*t.

So, it seems the SCMS service might not be as impartial as it claims to be.

As an aside, if you haven't done so already, you should read this:


It's soooo funny and clearly put !