DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Private parking tickets
*****************************************************
#Post#: 33355--------------------------------------------------
Re: Harbour Exchange - PCN despite being permitted - Parking
Longer than permitted - No PCN & Claim sent to previous add
DIR By: b789
Date: August 14, 2024, 9:17 am
---------------------------------------------------------
It would cost you £319 to apply for a strike out with no
guarantee of success. If the Claimant does not respond to the
defence within 28 days of service, the case is automatically
stayed and the Claimant would have to apply to have it unstayed
at a cost of £319, again with no guarantee that it will and they
wold have to explain to the court why they had not responded
within the required timeline.
Just leave it alone for now. The Claimant's solicitor will
respond, most likely, that they intend to continue with the
claim and also make "without prejudice" offer to settle for some
stupid amount that is definitely not with settling for.
Here is a list of the steps you should be following:
--- Quote ---
> THE NEXT 6 STEPS:
>
> 1. Send your signed & dated pdf as an email attachment to
ClaimResponses.CNBC@justice.gov.uk but you MUST get an
acknowledgement email straight back or it is NOT submitted.
>
> 2. Just put the claim number (check it very carefully) and the
word Defence in the email title, and in the body of the email
something like 'URGENT - CLAIM XXXXXXXX - Defence attached.
> IMPORTANT - MAKE SURE YOU GET AN EMAIL ACKNOWLEDGEMENT BACK
FROM THE CNBC! After filing your Defence, there is more to do.
>
> 3. Do not be surprised to receive an early copy of the
Claimant's Directions Questionnaire and the usual intimidating
template letter saying they 'intend to proceed'. Nothing of
interest there. Just file it. YOU MAY HAVE TO WAIT TWO MONTHS
OR SO FOR THE NEXT STEP TO HAPPEN:
>
> 4. Wait for your own Directions Questionnaire from the CNBC
and then complete it. Early telephone Mediation is now
compulsory for any claims issued after 22nd May 2024.
>
> 5. Except in cases where you have filed a counterclaim (which
are allocated to your local court quicker and the CNBC is no
longer involved) the completed DQ should be returned by email to
the CNBC to this address: DQ.CNBC@justice.gov.uk. Cc a copy of
your completed DQ to the Claimant (or their solicitor if they
are using one). Their postal address is on your Claim Form but
you can find an email for them by searching. DO NOT USE RECORDED
(OR SPECIAL) DELIVERY FOR ANYTHING TO A PARKING FIRM OR THEIR
SOLICITOR. DO NOT EXPECT ROGUE FIRMS TO SIGN FOR YOUR LETTERS.
IF THEY DON'T, ALL YOU HAVE IS PROOF OF NON-DELIVERY, WHICH IS
THE EXACT OPPOSITE OF WHAT YOU NEED! USE THE FREE PROOF OF
POSTING CERTIFICATE FROM ANY POST OFFICE.
>
> 6. Will you have to attend a hearing? MAYBE yes - but often
these claims are struck out or the PPC discontinues (very common
with DCB Legal!). Will that hearing be at Northampton? NO!
That's just a central starting point for claims. If you are an
individual, you get to choose your local court. You do NOT want
your case 'heard on the papers' (absolutely no). You want a
hearing. You can claim your costs if you win, the hearing might
never happen and you risk nothing (no CCJ, no huge costs) by
defending, because if you were among the handful who report a
loss you'd have 30 days to pay and it would be less than on the
claim form (£185 - £212 total).
--- End Quote ---
#Post#: 33700--------------------------------------------------
DCB Legal claims the client has asked them to close the file
DIR By: FaeLLe
Date: August 18, 2024, 10:11 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Dear all,
The below letter was received by post this week. Thank you for
bearing with my several posts and helping deal with this PCN in
the most effective manner (procedurally).
[img width=1100
height=1555]
HTML https://i.imgur.com/VUTGcGz.png?1[/img]
#Post#: 33707--------------------------------------------------
Re: Harbour Exchange - PCN despite being permitted - Parking
Longer than permitted - No PCN & Claim sent to previous add
DIR By: b789
Date: August 18, 2024, 10:52 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Did they ever notify you that they have received the defence and
intend to continue? Did they not include a copy of the N279
Notice of Discontinuation? You must make sure that they provide
you with a copy of that notice.
It seems that they took one look at that defence and the draft
order and have run away with their fail between their legs.
Well done.
#Post#: 33710--------------------------------------------------
Re: Harbour Exchange - PCN despite being permitted - Parking
Longer than permitted - No PCN & Claim sent to previous add
DIR By: FaeLLe
Date: August 18, 2024, 11:18 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: b789 link ---
>
> Did they ever notify you that they have received the defence
and intend to continue? Did they not include a copy of the N279
Notice of Discontinuation? You must make sure that they provide
you with a copy of that notice.
>
> It seems that they took one look at that defence and the draft
order and have run away with their fail between their legs.
>
> Well done.
>
--- End Quote ---
N279 is not included.
I should probably send the below, or would you advice against
it?
I am writing to request that you promptly file a Notice of
Discontinuance (Form N279) with the court, as required under the
Civil Procedure Rules.
Please ensure that a copy of the N279 Notice of Discontinuance
is served on me no later than 7 days from the date of this
email.
Should you fail to comply with this request within the specified
timeframe, I will have no choice but to apply for a court order
seeking a Default Judgement along with costs, including those
associated with dealing with the current proceedings to date.
I trust that further court intervention will not be necessary
and look forward to your prompt action in this matter.
Best regards.
#Post#: 33716--------------------------------------------------
Re: Harbour Exchange - PCN despite being permitted - Parking
Longer than permitted - No PCN & Claim sent to previous add
DIR By: b789
Date: August 18, 2024, 11:40 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Bear with me on this. As they have not acknowledged the defence,
it may not be required. I am seeking clarification.
--- Quote ---
> 1. Defendant's Defence and Claimant's Response:
>
> The defendant has filed a defence, which means the case is now
in a contested state.
>
> The defence has been served on the claimant (or their
solicitor) by the CNBC.
>
> The claimants solicitor has sent a letter to the defendant
stating they are "closing the file" and no further action will
be taken by them.
>
> 2. Discontinuance of Claim:
>
> [indent]Discontinuance of a claim is a formal process under
the Civil Procedure Rules (CPR), specifically CPR Part 38.
>
> To formally discontinue a claim, the claimant (or their
solicitor) must file a Notice of Discontinuance (Form N279) with
the court and serve a copy on the defendant.
>
> The discontinuance takes effect when the notice is served on
the defendant and there are implications for costs that may
arise.[/indent]
>
> 3. Implications of Not Filing a Notice of Discontinuance:
>
> [indent]If the claimant does not file an N279 Notice of
Discontinuance, the claim remains active.
>
> Simply stating in a letter that they are "closing the file"
does not legally discontinue the claim.
>
> The court may still consider the claim as ongoing unless a
formal discontinuance notice is filed.[/indent]
>
> 4. Acknowledging the Defence:
>
> [indent]The claimant is expected to respond to the defence. If
they intend to withdraw or discontinue the claim, filing an N279
is the correct procedure.
>
> If the claimant takes no further action after the defence is
filed, the court may issue directions or strike out the claim
due to inactivity.[/indent]
>
> In summary, the letter from DCB Legal stating they are
"closing the file" is not equivalent to a formal discontinuance
of the claim. The claimant must file and serve a Notice of
Discontinuance (Form N279) to properly discontinue the claim.
Until that is done, the claim remains active, and procedural
consequences could follow if the claimant does not take the
appropriate formal steps.
--- End Quote ---
#Post#: 33722--------------------------------------------------
Re: Harbour Exchange - PCN despite being permitted - Parking
Longer than permitted - No PCN & Claim sent to previous add
DIR By: FaeLLe
Date: August 18, 2024, 12:22 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
I also understand that per CPR 38.5(3), withdrawing a Claim
under Part 38 procedure does not affect proceedings to deal with
any question of costs.
Does the costs provision under CPR 38.6(1) apply? I understand
the below from access to my legal research database/application.
--- Quote ---
>
> 38.6 Liability for costs.
>
> (1) Unless the court orders otherwise, a claimant who
discontinues1 is liable for the costs which a defendant against
whom the claimant discontinues incurred on or before the date on
which notice of discontinuance was served on the defendant.
>
--- End Quote ---
1 The court has to take into account the factors set out in CPR
44.2. A costs order will be deemed to have been made for costs
to be assessed on the standard basis unless a party makes an
application to reverse or vary the general rule: CPR 44.9. The
defendant may wish to make application to override the automatic
provisions of CPR 44.9 to seek an order for costs on the
indemnity basis. Guidance on the issue of costs where there is
discontinuance is comprehensively provided in Brookes v HSBC
Bank plc [2011] EWCA Civ 354, [2012] 3 Costs LR 285 at [6]–[8]
per Moore-Bick LJ.
The court should not, without good reason, depart from the usual
rule that the discontinuing party should pay the costs of the
other party and, if it does, it should state why: Walker v
Walker [2005] EWCA Civ 247, [2006] 1 All ER 272, [2006] 1 WLR
2194. The impact of the Coronavirus pandemic as a reason for
discontinuance is not, by itself, a sufficient reason for
departing from the normal rule that the claimant should pay the
defendant’s costs: Khan v Governor of HMP The Mount [2020] EWHC
1367 (Admin), [2020] All ER (D) 60 (Jul).
The fact that the discontinuing claimant would have, or might
well have, succeeded at trial is not itself a good reason for
disapplying the presumption that the defendant’s costs should be
paid: Teasdale v HSBC Bank plc [2010] EWHC 612 (QB), [2010] 4
All ER 630, [2010] NLJR 878.
In general, a claimant who discontinues will have to bear the
costs of the defendant’s claim to be indemnified by a third
party. However, the court may order otherwise where the
defendant’s claim is shown to have been unlikely to succeed:
Young v J R Smart (Builders) Ltd (7 February 2000, unreported)
(Trans Ref QBENI 99/0742/1), [2000] CLY 456, CA.
When exercising discretion, a court will consider all the
circumstances but a defendant’s conduct is not unreasonable if
during proceedings it exercises a contractual right to engage in
mediation in relation to an aspect of the claim, and the fact of
doing so does not amount to a change of circumstances such that
the normal costs provisions applicable to a claimant’s
discontinuance of that aspect of the claim should be disapplied:
Epoq Legal Ltd v DAS Legal Expenses Insurance Co Ltd [2022] EWHC
1577 (Comm), [2022] Costs LR 1123.
#Post#: 33725--------------------------------------------------
Re: Harbour Exchange - PCN despite being permitted - Parking
Longer than permitted - No PCN & Claim sent to previous add
DIR By: b789
Date: August 18, 2024, 12:51 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Check CPR 38.6(3):
“This rule does not apply to claims allocated to the small
claims track.”
Unless the defendant can show unreasonable behaviour by the
claimant or their solicitor, which is a fairly high bar to
achieve.
#Post#: 33728--------------------------------------------------
Re: Harbour Exchange - PCN despite being permitted - Parking
Longer than permitted - No PCN & Claim sent to previous add
DIR By: FaeLLe
Date: August 18, 2024, 2:12 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: b789 link ---
>
> Check CPR 38.6(3):
>
> “This rule does not apply to claims allocated to the small
claims track.”
>
> Unless the defendant can show unreasonable behaviour by the
claimant or their solicitor, which is a fairly high bar to
achieve.
>
--- End Quote ---
Thanks [member=26]b789[/member] , I thought the Claim is only
allocated after the directions questionnaire.
Are claims considered as 'small claims' for the purpose of CPR
38.6(3) or otherwise if raised through MCOL?
This appeal has been very educational for me. Thanks to all of
you!
#Post#: 33730--------------------------------------------------
Re: Harbour Exchange - PCN despite being permitted - Parking
Longer than permitted - No PCN & Claim sent to previous add
DIR By: b789
Date: August 18, 2024, 2:19 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: FaeLLe link ---
>
> I thought the Claim is only allocated after the directions
questionnaire.
>
> Are claims considered as 'small claims' for the purpose of CPR
38.6(3) or otherwise if raised through MCOL?
>
--- End Quote ---
Dunno, is the short answer. Whilst allocation is done later, it
would automatically go to that track for such a relatively small
sum.
--- Quote ---
> Small Claims Track: Most claims under £10,000, excluding
personal injury and housing disrepair.
> Fast Track: Between £10,000 to £25,000
> Multi Track: Claims for over £25,000, or for lesser money sums
where the case involves complex points of law and/or evidence.
--- End Quote ---
Still waiting for clarification about discontinuation. Without
an N279, it's still "live".
#Post#: 33739--------------------------------------------------
Re: Harbour Exchange - PCN despite being permitted - Parking
Longer than permitted - No PCN & Claim sent to previous add
DIR By: b789
Date: August 18, 2024, 3:20 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: FaeLLe link ---
>
>
> N279 is not included.
>
> I should probably send the below, or would you advice against
it?
>
>
>
> I am writing to request that you promptly file a Notice of
Discontinuance (Form N279) with the court, as required under the
Civil Procedure Rules.
>
> Please ensure that a copy of the N279 Notice of Discontinuance
is served on me no later than 7 days from the date of this
email.
>
> Should you fail to comply with this request within the
specified timeframe, I will have no choice but to apply for a
court order seeking a Default Judgement along with costs,
including those associated with dealing with the current
proceedings to date.
>
> I trust that further court intervention will not be necessary
and look forward to your prompt action in this matter.
>
> Best regards.
>
--- End Quote ---
Never, ever sign off a letter dealing with legalities or other
business with "Best regards". You may as well sign it off with
"Love and kisses". >:(
Always address this type of correspondence with "Dear Sirs" and
sign off with "Yours faithfully".
Back to the issue at hand... I have it on good authority from up
on high after querying this:
--- Quote ---
> Q) Should the defendant write to DCB Legal and request that
they file an N279 and serve it?
> A) Nope. No need. Their letter is sufficient for the
defendant.
--- End Quote ---
*****************************************************
Page 3 of 4
DIR Previous Page
DIR Next Page