DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Private parking tickets
*****************************************************
#Post#: 30835--------------------------------------------------
GroupNexus invoice Taunton Deane South
DIR By: Oldstoat
Date: July 23, 2024, 12:28 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Have received this as the registered keeper of the vehicle.
First. Is this invoice compliant with POFA? I (on behalf of the
driver) feel it is not, but would appreciate assistance with a
challenge. Secondly they ask for an online challenge, as it is
better, which I doubt. My main point would be inadequacy of
signage. On entering the services, the driver was presented
with a large sign above driving head height, covered in dense
writing. The only thing that was noticed by the driver was a
prominent bit in the top left hand corner of the sign saying
HGV. The driver being mindful of entering an area with
pedestrians, saw HGV and presumed that the rest of the sign
related to HGV only. The driver parked and having looked around
saw no further signage other than a smaller version of the entry
sign, they then went into the caravan and fell asleep.
Does the driver have an opportunity to successfully defeat this.
HTML https://i.ibb.co/TPFpMLk/IMG-0823.jpg
HTML https://ibb.co/8PSTgc0
HTML https://i.ibb.co/yq9KkVd/IMG-0822.jpg
HTML https://ibb.co/w4k8QYB
#Post#: 30846--------------------------------------------------
Re: GroupNexus invoice Taunton Deane South
DIR By: b789
Date: July 23, 2024, 1:02 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
It is PoFA compliant but not fully. That won't make any
difference to an appeal as they will reject any appeal. The NtK
does not invite (nor any synonym of the word) the keeper to pay
the charge which is a failure to fully comply with PoFA
9(2)(e)(i).
Also, the NtK does not specify the actual contractual terms
breached. It simply States that "the vehicle remained at the
site for longer than the free parking period". There is no
evidence of what the free period is.
You can appeal and wait for the rejection and a POPLA code and
then appeal to POPLA and throw the usual "kitchen sink" of
points for the operator to rebut but I would wager that POPLA
will reject also. Good luck though. I would love to be proved
wrong.
In my personal opinion, this will go al the way to a county
court claim being issued. That is a good thing because a truly
independent arbiter, a judge, is best placed to decide whether
you owe GN a debt or not.
If it does go to a claim, there is a good new "short" defence
coupled with a draft order that should see it quashed. The only
caveat is whether you are up for fighting this all the way with
the very remote risk that if it all went south for whatever
reason and the judge decided that you sis owe GN a debt, it
could cost around ~£200 all-in, which would still be less than
what they will be claiming. There is no risk of a CCJ because if
paid in full within 28 days of judgment, there is no record of
it in your credit history.
The most likely outcome is that you resist any debt collector
demands with the knowledge that they are powerless to do
anything and can be safely ignored and wait and see if they
actually do issue a claim. They may or they may not.
#Post#: 30848--------------------------------------------------
Re: GroupNexus invoice Taunton Deane South
DIR By: DWMB2
Date: July 23, 2024, 1:09 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
For your argument on signage, we would need to see photos of
this to advise.
#Post#: 31183--------------------------------------------------
Re: GroupNexus invoice Taunton Deane South
DIR By: Oldstoat
Date: July 25, 2024, 12:37 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Unfortunately the google images are 8yrs out of date, but they
did not convey the terms. All I could see was a wall of text,
the only thing I saw was a bit top left in bold saying HGV,
which meant as a car and caravan combo the sign, didn’t apply to
me.
#Post#: 57651--------------------------------------------------
Re: GroupNexus invoice Taunton Deane South
DIR By: Oldstoat
Date: February 11, 2025, 10:29 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Today 11.2.25. We have received an official LETTER OF CLAIM
claim dcblegal ltd. The letter is dated 5.2.25. In next steps
we are invited to visit the dcb legal ltd website to fill in the
reply form and financial statement.
First question, is this normal, or should we wait for formal
court documentation?
Secondly, is our previous failure to engage, going to be an
issue? (We have had a quite a few medical issues, which meant
dealing with this was forgotten in the maelstrom)
Third thing, the reason, is still only a bland “vehicle remained
on private property in breach of prominently displayed terms and
conditions”. This appears to be far to vague. Is it?
Can they change the reason for action, if we argue that their
cause of action is way to vague?
Any assistance would be gratefully received.
#Post#: 57663--------------------------------------------------
Re: GroupNexus invoice Taunton Deane South
DIR By: b789
Date: February 11, 2025, 10:49 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Receipt of an LoC is normal. Any previous failure to engage will
not have any bearing on this case.
The "reason" for the claim is also going to go against them when
the actual N1SDT Claim Form is received from the CNBC. When that
arrives (it will), redact your personal info and the claim
number and MCOL password (leave all dates and times showing) and
show it to us. We will provide the necessary defence.
If the claim is not struck out at allocation stage, it will be
discontinued before they have to pay the hearing fee.
Respond to the LoC with the following:
--- Quote ---
> By email to: info@dcblegal.co.uk
>
> [Date]
>
> Dear Sirs,
>
> Re: Letter of Claim dated [date]
>
> I refer to your Letter of Claim.
>
> I confirm that my address for service at this time is as
follows, and I request that any outdated address be erased from
your records to ensure compliance with data protection
obligations:
>
> [YOUR ADDRESS]
>
> Please note that the alleged debt is disputed, and any court
proceedings will be robustly defended.
>
> I note that the sum claimed has been increased by an excessive
and unjustifiable amount, which appears contrary to the
principles established by the Government, who described such
practices as “extorting money from motorists.” Please refrain
from sending boilerplate responses or justifications regarding
this issue.
>
> Under the Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims, I require
specific answers to the following questions:
>
> [indent]1. Does the additional £70 represent what you describe
as a “Debt Recovery” fee? If so, is this figure net of or
inclusive of VAT? If inclusive, I trust you will explain why I,
as the alleged debtor, am being asked to cover your client’s VAT
liability.
>
> 2. Regarding the principal sum of the alleged Parking Charge
Notice (PCN): Is this being claimed as damages for breach of
contract, or will it be pleaded as consideration for a purported
parking contract?[/indent]
>
> I would caution you against simply dismissing these questions
with vague or boilerplate responses, as I am fully aware of the
implications. By claiming that PCNs are exempt from VAT while
simultaneously inflating the debt recovery element, your client
– with your assistance – appears to be evading VAT obligations
due to HMRC. Such mendacious conduct raises serious questions
about the legality and ethics of your practices.
>
> I strongly advise your client to cease and desist. Should this
matter proceed to court, you can be assured that these issues
will be brought to the court’s attention, alongside a robust
defence and potentially a counterclaim for unreasonable conduct.
>
> Yours faithfully,
>
> 
[YOUR NAME]
--- End Quote ---
Make sure you also CC in yourself.
#Post#: 57665--------------------------------------------------
Re: GroupNexus invoice Taunton Deane South
DIR By: Oldstoat
Date: February 11, 2025, 10:56 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Thank you for that info. Will add the required info and send
tonight. But do we use the link in their letter to fill in what
they request.
#Post#: 57700--------------------------------------------------
Re: GroupNexus invoice Taunton Deane South
DIR By: b789
Date: February 11, 2025, 12:32 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
You attach the reply as a pdf document and send it by email to
the address shown. CC in yourself.
#Post#: 58750--------------------------------------------------
Re: GroupNexus invoice Taunton Deane South
DIR By: Oldstoat
Date: February 18, 2025, 10:33 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Re reading my last post I may not have been clear. In the
letter of claim. It is required that the person must fill in a
financial statement of means. Do they need to fill this in?
Would that statement of means be issued by the court?
#Post#: 58751--------------------------------------------------
Re: GroupNexus invoice Taunton Deane South
DIR By: DWMB2
Date: February 18, 2025, 10:40 am
---------------------------------------------------------
There is no obligation to use the forms provided by the
solicitors, and indeed you shouldn't. Respond in the way advised
above.
*****************************************************
Page 1 of 2
DIR Next Page