URI:
   DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
  HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       *****************************************************
   DIR Return to: Private parking tickets
       *****************************************************
       #Post#: 118725--------------------------------------------------
       Judgement for Claimant (in default) - Gladstones Sol. - Parking
       for Patrons whilst on the premises only
   DIR By: Lynch004
       Date: May 14, 2026, 7:08 pm
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       Hi all,
       I was hoping someone could assist me
       As it stands Judgement has been passed, defence was struck out
       because defendant has not replied to the claim for.
       Defendant acknowledges the DQ N180 was filed late but as soon as
       the became aware of the Judgement Order. Defendant is adamant
       that they never received a Notice of Proposal Allocation to
       Track.
       From my own uneducated point of view the claimants case handling
       has been poor to the point where I question if it was
       intentionally.
       I have bullet pointed the Case History in an attempt to make it
       easier to understand. Further details will be present on the
       correspondence. This will follow tomorrow as I have had to
       redact and also blank out defendants comments.
       In summary, I guess what we would like to know is…
       Is it worth trying to get the case set aside? Can the fee
       required to forward an N244 and to try and have the case set
       aside be claimed back if successful, and would this have to be
       filed as a counter claim.
       If the Court allow for the Judgement to be set aside, what are
       the chances of contesting the claim successfully?
       MCOL Status
       Claim  was issued 03/12/25
       Defence submitted 27/12/25
       Defence received 29/12/25
       Correspondence
       • 03/12/25 Claim Form from CNBC.
       • 29/12/25 Letter from CNBC to Defendant acknowledging receipt
       of Defence. A copy is being served on the Claimants Sol. The
       court will then inform the defendant on what will happen next.
       Where he wishes to proceed the claimant must contact the court
       within 28 days after receipt of defence.
       • 13/02/26 from Gladstones the Claimants Solicitor.
       State they have notified the Court of the claimants intention to
       proceed.
       Please find enclosed a copy of the claimant’s completed
       Directions Questionnaire, which has also been filed with the
       Court.
       The DQ N180 was blank and it obviously wasn’t filed with the
       Court as MCOL states it was filed on the 03/02/26. Three weeks
       after Filing a blank N180 and 30+ days after defence being
       served.
       • 01/02/26 Acting in good faith the Defendant contacted the
       Claimants Solicitors via email (exhibit)  Advising that the DQ
       N180 they had provided was blank and that they were open to
       mediation.
       • 09/02/26 Claimant provides a copy of their completed DQ N180.
       With no instruction or response to any of the concerns the
       defendant raised.
       MCOL status
       03/02/26 Case Stay lifted
       03/02/26 DQ sent to you
       03/02/26 DQ filed by claimant
       Correspondence
       • 18/03/26 General Form of Judgement/Order letter. Which states
       “the Defendant, you have been sent Notice of Proposal Allocation
       to Track which specified the date by which you were required to
       return the Directions Questionnaire. You have failed to file the
       Directions Questionnaire with the CNBC by the date specified in
       the Notice.” been sent a Notice of Proposal Allocation to Track
       which specified a date for them (Defendant) to return.
       It is ordered that the Defendant must file the DQ with the CNBC
       on or before 7 days of this service.
       Defendant is adamant that they never received the Notice of
       Proposal. As the Defendant works away, they only became aware of
       the General Form of Judgement upon returning home on the
       27/03/26.
       Defendant still does not know the actual date they were required
       to file the DQ N180 originally.
       • 27/03/26 Defendant emailed the DQ N180 to both parties on the
       27/03/26. Receiving automatic responses from both parties
       informing them that the Email had been received.
       The Defendant regularly checked MCOL for an update and concerned
       that MCOL had not been updated called the CNBC number. The
       automated system stated that it could take upto 10/11 weeks for
       them to respond to emails. Although not ideal, this allayed the
       defendants concerns about the lack of update on MCOL.
       • 20/04/26 Defendant received Judgement for Claimant (in
       default) dated 20/04/26. The judgement stated that the defendant
       had failed to reply to the claim form.
       Defendant has since called the CNBC number and they still could
       not find the Filed DQ N180 but that it was irrelevant as it had
       not been filed in time.
       Defendant was told they had to pay the Fee stated in the
       Judgement or pay £313 and complete an N244 asking for the
       judgement to be set aside.
       Photos to follow
       Thanks in advance.
       D
       #Post#: 119005--------------------------------------------------
       Re: Judgement for Claimant (in default) - Gladstones Sol. -
       Parking for Patrons whilst on the premises only
   DIR By: Lynch004
       Date: May 17, 2026, 5:27 pm
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       Relevant documents.
  HTML https://ibb.co/ynx07gpd
  HTML https://ibb.co/Xk4Hm3SJ
  HTML https://ibb.co/yFx8RvCf
  HTML https://ibb.co/84LjmZWZ
  HTML https://ibb.co/Sw8Bd8b7
  HTML https://ibb.co/xKGqG0F8
  HTML https://ibb.co/yFgxdsMD
  HTML https://ibb.co/FLv2BsxF
  HTML https://ibb.co/7dVWjvW0
  HTML https://ibb.co/spmF8fgM
  HTML https://ibb.co/Zzxs02Fs
  HTML https://ibb.co/svvWPFsh
  HTML https://ibb.co/XrrSwFqS
       #Post#: 119013--------------------------------------------------
       Re: Judgement for Claimant (in default) - Gladstones Sol. -
       Parking for Patrons whilst on the premises only
   DIR By: jfollows
       Date: May 18, 2026, 1:04 am
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       You should consider the payment deadline to avoid a 6 year
       credit record. As long as you pay within 1 month you can get the
       judgement removed from the register.
       If you can demonstrate the court’s mistake in handling your
       case, for example claiming a lack of response whereas you have
       confirmation of its submission and acceptance, you should be
       getting the court to reopen the case at no expense to you.
       #Post#: 119120--------------------------------------------------
       Re: Judgement for Claimant (in default) - Gladstones Sol. -
       Parking for Patrons whilst on the premises only
   DIR By: Lynch004
       Date: May 18, 2026, 5:35 pm
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       Thank you for that. So would the defendant need to pay the £313
       fee to set aside and counter claim if the case is reopened? or
       not be required to pay the fee?
       What are your thoughts on the claimants process handling.
       They contacted the defendant with in 14 days but provided a
       blank N180 as a claimants completed DQ. They stated that this
       had also been filed with the court.
       DQ Questionnaire wasn't actually file with the court until 3
       weeks later and upon the defendant 4 weeks later (so a week
       later than the court).
       I am of opinion that if the defendant had not emailed them
       querying the blank N180 they would not have been aware of the
       failure in the process.
       The MCOL history states the Case stay lifted, is this because
       the claimant requested it, or is this just common case
       terminology?
       Sorry for all the questions, they may not be relevant at this
       stage if indeed relevant.
       Does anyone else have any additional advice?
       Thanks
       *****************************************************
       Page 1 of 1