DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Private parking tickets
*****************************************************
#Post#: 61768--------------------------------------------------
Re: Civil Enforcement Ltd - N1SDT Claim form recieved for PCN
isssued for Swanley Park parking in New Barn Rd
DIR By: DWMB2
Date: March 10, 2025, 5:16 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: Eryobotrya link ---
>
> If they call me, do I pick up?
>
--- End Quote ---
I wouldn't. Correspondence should be in writing.
#Post#: 61772--------------------------------------------------
Re: Civil Enforcement Ltd - N1SDT Claim form recieved for PCN
isssued for Swanley Park parking in New Barn Rd
DIR By: Eryobotrya
Date: March 10, 2025, 5:27 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
👍
Exactly what I said to the defendant.
#Post#: 61798--------------------------------------------------
Re: Civil Enforcement Ltd - N1SDT Claim form recieved for PCN
isssued for Swanley Park parking in New Barn Rd
DIR By: b789
Date: March 10, 2025, 9:35 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: Eryobotrya link ---
>
> As I thunked. Ok, thx.
>
> If they call me, do I pick up?
>
--- End Quote ---
Nah... block their number.
#Post#: 69723--------------------------------------------------
Re: Civil Enforcement Ltd - N1SDT Claim form recieved for PCN
isssued for Swanley Park parking in New Barn Rd
DIR By: Eryobotrya
Date: May 2, 2025, 7:36 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Hey guys,
Please see uploaded images of N157 here:
HTML https://ibb.co/album/7bzpXm
I've used a different hosting site, so hopefully the link will
work.
Hmm .... well, the suggested draft defence and order on #2 seems
to have had zero effect on the allocations judge. This begs two
questions:
1. Shouldn't the judge at least have given his reasons for
rejecting both the strike out and amended PoC requests?
2. I'm concerned about para. # 4) of the N157, (hilited) which
appears to contradict advice I've received here about attempts
by DCBL to contact the defendant. Could her failure to take
their calls prejudice her defence at a hearing - if it goes that
far?
#Post#: 69726--------------------------------------------------
Re: Civil Enforcement Ltd - N1SDT Claim form recieved for PCN
isssued for Swanley Park parking in New Barn Rd
DIR By: b789
Date: May 2, 2025, 7:52 am
---------------------------------------------------------
In response to your two questions...
--- Quote ---
> 1. Shouldn't the judge at least have given reasons for
rejecting both the strike out and amended PoC requests?
> Yes, ideally — but in practice, not necessarily at this stage.
--- End Quote ---
This was an allocation order, not a hearing or formal judgment.
While the defence included a request for strike-out or an order
for further particulars, the judge was not obliged to rule on
that at the allocation stage. Many District Judges will simply
allocate to track and defer any substantive issues to the final
hearing.
As the draft order was attached as part of the defence but no
N244 application was submitted with a fee (and the matter was
not listed for a hearing), the court may treat it as a request,
not a formal application requiring reasons. This omission (i.e.
not filing an N244 for directions or strike-out) may be why no
explicit decision or reason is provided.
--- Quote ---
> 2. Does paragraph 4) of the N157 mean the defendant should
have answered DCBL’s calls? Could ignoring them prejudice the
case?
--- End Quote ---
No, ignoring calls from DCBL will not prejudice the defence at
trial.
Paragraph 4 of the N157 states:
[indent]“The parties are encouraged to contact each other with a
view to trying to settle the case or narrow the
issues.”[/indent]
This is a general encouragement, not a compulsory direction, and
it applies to both sides. The defendant is not obliged to
negotiate with DCB Legal or respond to unsolicited calls or
emails, particularly if those calls are vague, coercive, or
unclear about their purpose. The court cannot and does not
penalise a party for failing to engage with a debt collector's
phone calls.
However, if this were a party-to-party discussion or a properly
made Part 36 offer or Calderbank settlement letter, the court
might consider unreasonable refusal to engage in settlement
discussions when deciding costs after judgment. But that doesn’t
apply here.
In summary:
[indent]• Not answering DCB Legal’s phone calls cannot prejudice
the defence.
• The paragraph encourages negotiation between parties, not
between a defendant and a third-party agent using vague or
harassing tactics.[/indent]
I am still very confident that DCB Legal will discontinue before
the trial fee has to be paid. That deadline will come in a
further order with the hearing date.
#Post#: 69727--------------------------------------------------
Re: Civil Enforcement Ltd - N1SDT Claim form recieved for PCN
isssued for Swanley Park parking in New Barn Rd
DIR By: DWMB2
Date: May 2, 2025, 7:59 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: b789 link ---
>
> Many District Judges will simply allocate to track and defer
any substantive issues to the final hearing.
>
--- End Quote ---
If I were a betting man I'd wager this is due in part to the
sheer number of civil claims filed these days (caused in no
small part by firms like this). If there were fewer claims being
raised, they'd probably have more time to consider cases
pre-hearing.
As for paragraph #4... what b789 said. You have attempted to
settle the matter without the need for a hearing, by setting out
your position both to the PPC and DCB Legal. What judges don't
like is cases that wind up in their courtroom, where one or both
parties has made no attempt to engage with the matter outside of
court. That is not the case here.
#Post#: 69728--------------------------------------------------
Re: Civil Enforcement Ltd - N1SDT Claim form recieved for PCN
isssued for Swanley Park parking in New Barn Rd
DIR By: Eryobotrya
Date: May 2, 2025, 8:00 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Got it, and thx for the prompt advice.
#Post#: 80630--------------------------------------------------
Re: Civil Enforcement Ltd - N1SDT Claim form recieved for PCN
isssued for Swanley Park parking in New Barn Rd
DIR By: Eryobotrya
Date: July 11, 2025, 12:21 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
So, both the strike-out and amended PoC requests are still
[apparently] being ignored/going begging:
HTML https://imgur.com/a/odkP6dj
Would I be correct to assume that those same arguments can still
be deployed at the hearing? IOW, as a key part of her defence?
In the meantime, the defendant received this email from the
Claimant's legal reps:
--- Quote ---
> From: Katie Walsh <KatieW.bpo@dcblegal.co.uk>
> Date: 9 July 2025 at XX:XX:XX BST
> To: xxxxxxxxx.co.uk
> Subject: Our ref: xxxxxxxxxx / Civil Enforcement Limited v
xxxxxxxxxx / Your ref:
>
> 
> Dear xxxxxxxxxxx,
>
> Re: Our Client: Civil Enforcement Limited
>
> Claim Number: XXXXXXXX　
>
> WITHOUT PREJUDICE SAVE AS TO COSTS
>
> We write to you in relation to the above matter.
>
> To assist the Court in achieving its overriding objective, our
Client may be prepared to settle this case. I can confirm our
Client would be agreeable to £145 in full and final settlement
of this Claim. The current outstanding balance is
£289.04.　　　
>
> Should you be agreeable to this offer, please confirm the same
within 7 days. Payment can be made via our website
www.dcblegal.co.uk, by calling our office on 0203 838 7038 or
via bank transfer:　
>
> DCB Legal Ltd Client Account
> Sort Code: 20-24-09
> Account no: 60964441　　　
>
> When making payment please ensure you include the following
reference number, xxxxxxxxxxxxx, to enable us to allocate it to
the correct case.
>
> Upon receipt of the settlement sum of £145 we will update the
Court that the matter has been settled. If you are not
agreeable, we will continue to follow the Court process as
normal.　
>
>
> Kind Regards,
> Katie Walsh
>
> Litigation Associate
> DCB Legal Ltd
--- End Quote ---
This was after she failed to pick up on around a dozen or so of
their tel/calls. Ignore, or reply to reject their kind 'offer'?
If the latter, can I reject on her behalf - as her 'Mackie'
friend?
Many thanks.
#Post#: 80632--------------------------------------------------
Re: Civil Enforcement Ltd - N1SDT Claim form recieved for PCN
isssued for Swanley Park parking in New Barn Rd
DIR By: Eryobotrya
Date: July 11, 2025, 12:42 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
PS: Oh, and BTW, I read somewhere [MSE I think] that Pepipoo
threads/files have been archived somewhere, and found a link for
the site that I'm fairly sure I'll be able to dig up. It runs v.
slowly, apparently, but might still be worth interrogating for
those fotos of the signage. OTOH, if they were merely links to a
hosting site, well ......... I'll cross that bridge when I get
there.
#Post#: 80640--------------------------------------------------
Re: Civil Enforcement Ltd - N1SDT Claim form recieved for PCN
isssued for Swanley Park parking in New Barn Rd
DIR By: DWMB2
Date: July 11, 2025, 3:47 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
WayBack Machine / Internet Archive probably has some. Can be
difficult to use to navigate forums I believe.
*****************************************************
Page 10 of 18
DIR Previous Page
DIR Next Page