DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Private parking tickets
*****************************************************
#Post#: 46890--------------------------------------------------
Re: Hampstead Heath Car Park - Did Not Receive Penalty Notice
DIR By: b789
Date: November 25, 2024, 1:47 am
---------------------------------------------------------
No. The claim is regarding an alleged parking event at MOTO
Reading West. However, that is irrelevant at this stage. The
generic defence has been submitted is order to force the
claimant to provide further PoC and for the defendant to plead a
full defence should the claimant comply with the draft order.
As this is a DCB Legal issued claim, I fully expect that they
will discontinue as long as the claim is defended at all, or it
will be struck out at allocation.
In the unlikely event that this ever goes beyond that stage, the
OP can review why they believe that this is to do with Hampstead
Heath and not a motorway service station.
Please clarify that the response you provided above was the
contents of the reason for requesting a hearing in person box in
question D1 on your N180 DQ form and not submitted separately as
an email to the CNBC.
#Post#: 46901--------------------------------------------------
Re: Hampstead Heath Car Park - Did Not Receive Penalty Notice
DIR By: LemonTootski
Date: November 25, 2024, 4:15 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Hi
Indeed, that blurb was in D1 of the N180, of which, the entire
N180 form sent to the CNBC court, with dcb legal copied in.
The only reason why i think it was a car park in Hampstead was
because of the Claim details:
HTML https://i.ibb.co/ynhnTgr/1-Redacted.jpg
But you've got me worried now in case I'm getting something
mixed up. Can you clarify where you get the information
regarding Reading, This might be a new track of thinking.
(Do feel free to DM me, as this i don't want to clog up./side
track this thread which should be linearly about this PCN, the
rejection of contravention, and the outcome).
Best
#Post#: 46911--------------------------------------------------
Re: Hampstead Heath Car Park - Did Not Receive Penalty Notice
DIR By: b789
Date: November 25, 2024, 5:19 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Your thread title says "Hampstead Heath Car Park - Did Not
Receive Penalty Notice".
The claim says that the alleged contravention was at "MOTO
Reading West".
Did you read the claimants address as the location of the
supposed parking event? CP Plus is based in Reading.
It won't make any difference to the claim or the defence
submitted, so nothing to worry about.
#Post#: 46935--------------------------------------------------
Re: Reading Moto West - Did Not Receive Penalty Notice
DIR By: LemonTootski
Date: November 25, 2024, 7:14 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Gosh,I see now.
I clearly looked at the top address assuming where the
contravention happened, not the particulars of the claim. But i
do now see it is Moto West. So confusing, but sorry. (Wonder if
there's possibility to change the Subject Title.)
Okay, considering it's at Moto West Reading, I've put my generic
claim and N180 in and we'll take it from there.
Will keep you posted, thanks.
#Post#: 46943--------------------------------------------------
Re: Reading Moto West - Did Not Receive Notice
DIR By: DWMB2
Date: November 25, 2024, 7:27 am
---------------------------------------------------------
I don't think you can edit your thread title so long after first
posting (there's a time limit to prevent misuse), so I've
updated it for you.
#Post#: 46946--------------------------------------------------
Re: Reading Moto West - Did Not Receive Notice
DIR By: LemonTootski
Date: November 25, 2024, 7:32 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Thank you.
#Post#: 53805--------------------------------------------------
Re: Reading Moto West - Did Not Receive Notice
DIR By: LemonTootski
Date: January 17, 2025, 8:11 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Hi [member=26]b789[/member], [member=103]DWMB2[/member],
[member=428]H C Andersen[/member] et all ...
Just to bump this.
HTML https://i.ibb.co/YD0ybR6/Moto-Reading-CXP-Redacted.jpg
Basically, I refused all correspondence with the Claimant, (DCB
Legal) but filed the Acknowledgement of Service, and eventually
posted my defence on MCOL:
IN THE COUNTY COURT
Claim No: XXXXXX
BETWEEN:
Cp Plus Ltd T/a Groupnexus
Claimant
- and -
Mr XXXX XXXXX
Defendant
DEFENCE
1. The Defendant denies any liability for this claim.
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.
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 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 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 exactly how the claim for statutory
interest is calculated;
(f) The PoC do not state what proportion of the claim is the
parking charge and what proportion is damages;
(g) The PoC states that the Claimant is suing the defendant as
the driver or the keeper. The claimant obviously knows whether
the defendant is being sued as the driver or the keeper and
should not be permitted to plead alternative causes of action.
4. The Defendant has attached to this defence a copy of an order
made at another court which the allocating judge ought to make
at this stage so that the Defendant can then know and understand
the case which he/she/it faces and can then respond properly to
the claim.
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: 20 October 2024
Things have moved on from then. Today, I had a telephone
Mediation, where I re-iterated:
--- Quote ---
> The Defendant argues that the Claimant's Particulars of Claim
lack sufficient detail and fail to comply with legal
requirements (CPR 16.4). The PoC does not provide enough
information about the alleged contract, the specific breaches,
or the breakdown of the claim. This makes it impossible for the
Defendant to respond properly. The Defendant has included a
suggested order from another case to clarify the issues and
allow a proper defence.
>
> To this end, to reach a mutually agreeable resolution or
settlement, and save both time and costs, I propose the
dismissal of the claim.
--- End Quote ---
So this is going to a county court. My N180 directions have been
filed, and i look forward to preparing a WS and a hearing in my
local court in the future.
I'm just wondering in case I've missed anything out.
Is this the right thing to do? Any tips?
#Post#: 53829--------------------------------------------------
Re: Reading Moto West - Did Not Receive Notice
DIR By: b789
Date: January 17, 2025, 10:03 am
---------------------------------------------------------
No, you've not missed anything out. The mediation call is a
waste of time but it is now mandatory to attend it. You only had
to offer £0 and it is usually over in minutes.
It is not part of the judicial process and no judge or
solicitors were involved. The mediator is not legally trained
and should not offer an opinion on what the merits or otherwise
of your defence is. Did the mediator offer an opinion? If they
did, what was it?
You are now waiting for allocation to your local county court
and then there will be case management orders were, hopefully,
the claim will be struck-out or further particulars ordered. You
do not need to submit a WS yet and, knowing how this is likely
to go, it will eventually be discontinued before they have to
pay the £27 trial fee.
Patience.
#Post#: 53847--------------------------------------------------
Re: Reading Moto West - Did Not Receive Notice
DIR By: LemonTootski
Date: January 17, 2025, 10:55 am
---------------------------------------------------------
It's funny you should say that, b789.
When the mediator called and asked if I'd attended an SCMS
mediation before, I played dumb.
The mediator tried to throw some intimidating phrases at me,
like, "The legal team is NOT likely to drop these cases, and you
will end up in court."
Then came the soft persuasion tactic, gently encouraging me to
reach an offer.
I quickly shot this to pieces though, pointing out that of the
65,430 tickets issued this year, only 381 ended up in court—and
most of those cases were struck out.
She stayed respectfully quiet after that, clearly realising I
knew my sh*t.
So, it seems the SCMS service might not be as impartial as it
claims to be.
As an aside, if you haven't done so already, you should read
this:
HTML https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5870795/parking-ticket-now-at-mediation-stage
It's soooo funny and clearly put ! ::)
#Post#: 53849--------------------------------------------------
Re: Reading Moto West - Did Not Receive Notice
DIR By: b789
Date: January 17, 2025, 11:10 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Where did you get the "65,430 tickets issued this year"
information from? Do you mean that 65,430 claims actually ended
up in court?
The private parking companies issue well over 40,000 PCNs a
day!!! I can guarantee that the number of claims issued for
unpaid PCNs amounts to many hundreds of thousands a year. Sadly,
the vast majority of those end up as default CCJs.
What we handle here is barely the tip of the iceberg.
The link you provided is a very old one. The mediation service
has been massively enlarged because mediation has become
mandatory for all claims since 22nd May 2024.
Thankfully, it is only mandatory to "attend" the call, not to
engage.
If your mediator offered an opinion on your defence or the
outcome, you should file a complaint against them.
*****************************************************
Page 3 of 5
DIR Previous Page
DIR Next Page