DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Private parking tickets
*****************************************************
#Post#: 64720--------------------------------------------------
Group Nexus Claim form received £270 – 4HR Limit exceeded–
Kimberlow Hill Retail Park, York - AoS sent.
DIR By: sacerd
Date: March 29, 2025, 5:09 am
---------------------------------------------------------
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 :)
[attachment deleted by admin]
#Post#: 64729--------------------------------------------------
Re: Group Nexus Claim form received £270 – 4HR Limit exceeded–
Kimberlow Hill Retail Park, York - AoS sent.
DIR By: Dave65
Date: March 29, 2025, 6:11 am
---------------------------------------------------------
It is generally not advised to telephone these parking
companies, they could try to get information from you that you
should not divulge.
You could submit a subject access request to group nexus asking
for copies of all the information they have on this PPN.
#Post#: 64772--------------------------------------------------
Re: Group Nexus Claim form received £270 – 4HR Limit exceeded–
Kimberlow Hill Retail Park, York - AoS sent.
DIR By: b789
Date: March 29, 2025, 11:00 am
---------------------------------------------------------
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]."
--- Quote ---
> [center]IN THE COUNTY COURT[/center]
> [right]Claim No: [Claim Number][/right]
>
> [center]BETWEEN:
>
> CP Plus t/a GroupNexus
> Claimant
>
> - and -
>
> [Defendant's Full Name]
> 
Defendant
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------
>
> DEFENCE[/center]
>
> 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:
>
> [indent](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.[/indent]
>
> 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:
>
> [indent](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.[/indent]
>
> 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:
--- End Quote ---
Draft Order for the defence
HTML https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/zc23txk7poctyyxiv2ytx/Strikeout-order-1-a-v2.1.pdf?rlkey=pancly3z6zwqt2cra5rvvh3ls&st=nq7a58tz&dl=0
CEL v Chan Transcript
HTML https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/nb9ypbecuurpmln00dily/CELvChan-appeal-transcript.pdf?rlkey=7mpuvpmpe45s2zbhch21om1ez&st=i8dnbod3&dl=0
CPMS v Akande Transcript
HTML https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/y631olc61z1slr6xfrdsk/CPM-v-AKANDE.pdf?rlkey=kltpojedcxiwarxr0sdfyjo05&st=qi4lv3fv&dl=0
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)]
HTML https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/krubcbnf27bsis66pq4yg/Short-defence-strikeout-CPR16.4-1-a-3.docx?rlkey=z87f3h8is3hgnp7sqr8plsz99&st=ldawlubu&dl=0
#Post#: 64800--------------------------------------------------
Re: Group Nexus Claim form received £270 – 4HR Limit exceeded–
Kimberlow Hill Retail Park, York - AoS sent.
DIR By: sacerd
Date: March 29, 2025, 3:37 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Thanks so much for both your replies. I will be sure not to call
them or make contact, and yes I used the Money Claim Online
website.
I read the defence and I am just confused as to part 3:
"The Defendant is unable to plead properly to the PoC because:
...." However, some of the reasons that are listed they do
actually follow, particularly: c, e and g.
You said not to edit it so I won't, but does it not make sense
to remove these bullet points as in my case it seems to me that
they have done what we are saying they have not? For example for
point 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.") They do specify in their 'particulars of claim'
point 4: "the defendant is pursued as the keeper...", so I am
just looking for some clarity here.
Once again thank you.
#Post#: 64860--------------------------------------------------
Re: Group Nexus Claim form received £270 – 4HR Limit exceeded–
Kimberlow Hill Retail Park, York - AoS sent.
DIR By: b789
Date: March 30, 2025, 6:38 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote ---
> (c) The PoC do not adequately set out the reason (or reasons)
why the claimant asserts the defendant has breached the contract
(or contracts)
--- End Quote ---
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?
--- Quote ---
> (e) The PoC do not state precisely how the sum claimed is
calculated, including the basis for any statutory interest,
damages, or other charges;
--- End Quote ---
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.
--- Quote ---
> (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.
--- End Quote ---
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
HTML https://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/procedure-rules/civil/rules/part16#16.4.<br
/>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)
HTML https://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/procedure-rules/civil/rules/part07#7.4<br
/>
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.
--- Quote ---
> 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.”
--- End Quote ---
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.
#Post#: 65289--------------------------------------------------
Re: Group Nexus Claim form received £270 – 4HR Limit exceeded–
Kimberlow Hill Retail Park, York - AoS sent.
DIR By: sacerd
Date: April 1, 2025, 4:49 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Wow, that is incredibly informative - I appreciate the lesson!
It's shocking how much their business predicates on the
ignorance or fear the general public has when receiving letter
after letter. I will 'do myself a favour' and not complicate
things.
Once again your help is truly appreciated, you're doing a very
kind thing here; this info is so important to know.
#Post#: 65292--------------------------------------------------
Re: Group Nexus Claim form received £270 – 4HR Limit exceeded–
Kimberlow Hill Retail Park, York - AoS sent.
DIR By: sacerd
Date: April 1, 2025, 5:08 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
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!
#Post#: 65331--------------------------------------------------
Re: Group Nexus Claim form received £270 – 4HR Limit exceeded–
Kimberlow Hill Retail Park, York - AoS sent.
DIR By: b789
Date: April 2, 2025, 3:58 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Please don't tell us that you simply copied and pasted the
defence into the MCOL webform. If you have done so, you have
proverbially blown both feet off with a single shot.
You were quite clearly told to send it as an attachment to an
email for very good reason. Anything in the MCOL defence webform
is stripped of any and all formatting and has a very limited
character count that will have been exceeded which means that
anything beyond the character count limit has been truncated.
So, are you confirming that you simply used the MCOL webform to
submit your defence?
#Post#: 65333--------------------------------------------------
Re: Group Nexus Claim form received £270 – 4HR Limit exceeded–
Kimberlow Hill Retail Park, York - AoS sent.
DIR By: DWMB2
Date: April 2, 2025, 4:02 am
---------------------------------------------------------
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.
#Post#: 65335--------------------------------------------------
Re: Group Nexus Claim form received £270 – 4HR Limit exceeded–
Kimberlow Hill Retail Park, York - AoS sent.
DIR By: sacerd
Date: April 2, 2025, 4:06 am
---------------------------------------------------------
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?
*****************************************************
Page 1 of 2
DIR Next Page