DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Private parking tickets
*****************************************************
#Post#: 115716--------------------------------------------------
Claim form received. What now?
DIR By: Empty123
Date: April 13, 2026, 9:33 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Back in July 2025 a letter was received alleging that a car had
been parked 'illegally'. Where the alleged infringement happened
was in a car park that was next to another car park. The car
alleged was parked in one car park and a correct pay and display
ticket purchased (ticket is still available as evidence). The
ANPR camera from the car park next door picked up the
registration of the alleged car and the owner was subsequently
sent a PCN in the post.
This was contested as it would appear it's an obvious error and
the situation explained to bank park management via the online
challenge form.
This was then refused and following the usual threatening
letters from solicitors and bailiffs a county claim form has
been received.
The only problem being that the claim form was issued on the
25th March and the owner has only just returned home from
holiday to this letter so it doesn't fall within the 14 day
period.
What's the best course of action to take now?
#Post#: 115720--------------------------------------------------
Re: Claim form received. What now?
DIR By: RichardW
Date: April 13, 2026, 11:08 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Post up the claim form, and if you've still got it PCN / appeal
/ refusal etc. Also a Street View link to the location.
#Post#: 115723--------------------------------------------------
Re: Claim form received. What now?
DIR By: Empty123
Date: April 13, 2026, 11:37 am
---------------------------------------------------------
HTML https://ibb.co/Kxynvmy2
HTML https://ibb.co/q3DRkSQX
HTML https://ibb.co/pBKNfpYX
HTML https://ibb.co/Ld8dz2Xd
HTML https://ibb.co/20tsj4Pp
HTML https://ibb.co/VWCnq7x6
HTML https://ibb.co/YFZZWSqK
HTML https://ibb.co/B2thrwc5
#Post#: 115724--------------------------------------------------
Re: Claim form received. What now?
DIR By: Empty123
Date: April 13, 2026, 11:39 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Unfortunately I'm not home until tomorrow so unable to post
pictures of the PCN/ correspondence. Although I did return to
the car park and take pictures as evidence which I'll post
below.
#Post#: 115726--------------------------------------------------
Re: Claim form received. What now?
DIR By: Empty123
Date: April 13, 2026, 11:45 am
---------------------------------------------------------
HTML https://ibb.co/NnQ8pqt7
HTML https://ibb.co/rKwR7LVt
HTML https://ibb.co/1JrdnH6P
HTML https://ibb.co/wZbhmSDG
HTML https://ibb.co/Df2Qn6NJ
HTML https://ibb.co/fGYVDNxH
HTML https://ibb.co/dw8Lf43G
HTML https://ibb.co/cK32zn3X
HTML https://ibb.co/YFZmpGQr
HTML https://ibb.co/fVn9svRC
Please note- the individual was parked on 'Brakes Parking' not
'Clough Street Car Park'
#Post#: 115727--------------------------------------------------
Re: Claim form received. What now?
DIR By: Empty123
Date: April 13, 2026, 11:49 am
---------------------------------------------------------
HTML https://ibb.co/CKZCpRJC
#Post#: 115753--------------------------------------------------
Re: Claim form received. What now?
DIR By: Empty123
Date: April 13, 2026, 1:41 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Any help would be really appreciated as I feel I may have gone
past the deadline. Should I still try to file an acknowledgement
of service?
#Post#: 115764--------------------------------------------------
Re: Claim form received. What now?
DIR By: RichardW
Date: April 13, 2026, 3:20 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Log onto MCOL ASAP and see if you can still put in AOS, you
should be just in time. That will buy another 2 weeks to sort
out the defence.
#Post#: 115769--------------------------------------------------
Re: Claim form received. What now?
DIR By: Empty123
Date: April 13, 2026, 4:02 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
HTML https://ibb.co/CKpjgWNf
I've filed it but it says this so not sure whether I've missed
the deadline? Is there anything I can do?
#Post#: 115786--------------------------------------------------
Re: Claim form received. What now?
DIR By: RichardW
Date: April 14, 2026, 2:35 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Get the defence in pronto before DCBL have time to push the
default judgement button! The POC are the usual waffle from
DCBL, but in this case you would appear to have a defence along
the lines that the vehicle was not parked on the claimant's land
so you can work round that. In general where DCBL use this
vague POC template, they discontinue before paying the fee as
long as some defence is entered - sample defence by b789 below,
you will need to adjust to suit your case - for instance you
have probably identified the driver?
--- Quote from: b789 link ---
>
>
> Until very recently, we never advised using the MCOL to submit
a defence. However, due to recent systemic failures within the
CNBC, we feel that it is safer to now submit a short defence
using MCOL as it is instantly submitted and entered into the
"system". Whilst it will deny the use of some formatting or
inclusion of transcripts etc. these can always be included with
the Witness Statement (WS) later, if it ever progresses that
far.
>
> You will need to copy and paste it into the defence text box
on MCOL. It has been checked to make sure that it will fit into
the 122 lines limit.
>
> [quote]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 adequately 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 PD 16, para 7.3(1);
>
> (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 submits that courts have previously struck
out materially similar claims of their own initiative for
failure to adequately comply with CPR 16.4, particularly where
the Particulars of Claim failed to specify the contractual terms
relied upon or explain the alleged breach with sufficient
clarity.
>
> 5. In comparable cases involving modest sums, judges have
found that requiring further case management steps would be
disproportionate and contrary to the overriding objective.
Accordingly, strike-out was deemed appropriate. 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
due to the Claimant’s failure to adequately comply with CPR
16.4, rather than permitting an amendment. The Defendant
proposes that the following Order be made:
>
> Draft Order:
>
> Of the Court's own initiative and upon reading the particulars
of claim and the defence.
>
> AND the court being of the view that the particulars of claim
do not adequately comply with CPR 16.4(1)(a) because: (a) they
do not set out the exact wording of the clause (or clauses) of
the terms and conditions of the contract which is (or are)
relied on; and (b) they do not adequately set out the reason (or
reasons) why the claimant asserts that the defendant was in
breach of contract.
>
> AND the claimant could have complied with CPR 16.4(1)(a) had
it served separate detailed particulars of claim, as it could
have done pursuant to PD 7C, para 5.2, but chose not to do so.
>
> AND upon the Court determining, having regard to the
overriding objective (CPR 1.1), that it would be
disproportionate to direct further pleadings or to allot any
further share of the Court’s resources to this claim (for
example by ordering further particulars of claim and a further
defence, with consequent case management).
>
> ORDER:
>
> 1. The claim is struck out.
>
> 2. Permission to either party to apply to set aside, vary or
stay this order by application on notice, which must be filed at
this Court not more than 7 days after service of this order,
failing which no such application may be made.
--- End Quote ---
[/quote]
*****************************************************
Page 1 of 2
DIR Next Page