DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Private parking tickets
*****************************************************
#Post#: 53406--------------------------------------------------
Re: UKCPS Parking NTK ( Postal -PoFA) issued on private land
Mak Court WF13 4AF
DIR By: b789
Date: January 14, 2025, 10:28 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
I’m not sure if I already stayed earlier on, you can safely
ignore all debt collector letters. We really don’t need to know
about them and you should not be concerned.
The debt collector is not a party to the contract allegedly
breached by the driver. They are powerless to do anything except
to try and scare the low-hanging fruit on the gullible tree into
paying out of ignorance and fear.
Coke back if you receive a Letter of Claim or an actual N1SDT
Claim Form from the CNBC.
#Post#: 53538--------------------------------------------------
Re: UKCPS Parking NTK ( Postal -PoFA) issued on private land
Mak Court WF13 4AF
DIR By: boxer29
Date: January 15, 2025, 4:22 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Thanks for your reply.
Will ignore such letters from debt recovery as advised.
Thanks once again
#Post#: 81731--------------------------------------------------
Re: UKCPS Parking NTK ( Postal -PoFA) issued on private land
Mak Court WF13 4AF
DIR By: boxer29
Date: July 19, 2025, 4:23 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: jfollows link ---
>
> Debt recovery company = ignore and file or use as cat litter.
> They are simply on commission for any money they can extract
from you. They use scary words to intimidate you into paying.
> Don’t fall for it.
> Only reply to a formal letter from UKCPS themselves, such as a
Letter before Claim. UKCPS probably know you’re a lost cause, so
they have sent the bully boys in to hope that you’ll pay up. If
they pay TRACE 10% they still get £90 or more from you.
>
--- End Quote ---
--- Quote from: b789 link ---
>
> I’m not sure if I already stayed earlier on, you can safely
ignore all debt collector letters. We really don’t need to know
about them and you should not be concerned.
>
> The debt collector is not a party to the contract allegedly
breached by the driver. They are powerless to do anything except
to try and scare the low-hanging fruit on the gullible tree into
paying out of ignorance and fear.
>
> Coke back if you receive a Letter of Claim or an actual N1SDT
Claim Form from the CNBC.
>
--- End Quote ---
Hello,
Today in post I have receive claim form N1SDT dated 17 July 2025
from Civil National Business Centre to pay
amount claimed = 170
court fee = 35
legal rep fee =50
Total amount = 255
you have a limited time in which to reply to this claim form.
you can respond to this claim online log on to
www.moneyclaim.gov.uk you will need the claim number
M1MP6F3K and the following password xxxxxxx
There is also a STATEMENT OF TRUTH , RESPONSE PACK ADMISSION (
specified amount)..
Can some one please recommend to me what is the next step which
your expert can advice..
Thanks for your support.
#Post#: 81735--------------------------------------------------
Re: UKCPS Parking NTK ( Postal -PoFA) issued on private land
Mak Court WF13 4AF
DIR By: jfollows
Date: July 20, 2025, 2:26 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Post the front page of the N1SDT you received here, we need to
see the words used. Obscure the password, of course, but not
dates.
Did you not get a Letter of Claim prior to this?
#Post#: 81815--------------------------------------------------
Re: UKCPS Parking NTK ( Postal -PoFA) issued on private land
Mak Court WF13 4AF
DIR By: boxer29
Date: July 20, 2025, 3:36 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
I dont remember to have received a letter or claim.
posting first page of N1SDT
HTML https://i.imgur.com/UR75O28.jpeg
#Post#: 81821--------------------------------------------------
Re: UKCPS Parking NTK ( Postal -PoFA) issued on private land
Mak Court WF13 4AF
DIR By: H C Andersen
Date: July 20, 2025, 4:02 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
From your first post:
Received a letter addressed to me in post dated 03.10.2024,
which I opened today,[23 Oct].
I asked why the delay but you didn't respond.
You've also posted that on or around 14 Jan. you have 'received'
a letter from TRACE dated 31 Dec.
Now we have that on 19th July you have received a claim form
dated 17 July.
But mysteriously you did not previously receive a Letter of
Claim.
OP, so that I can sleep well tonight pl confirm:
Are you the registered keeper of the vehicle;
Are your DVLA details the same now as on the day of the alleged
breach;
Do you actually reside at the registered RK address?
Are the addresses on the Notice to Keeper, TRACE letter and
claim form the same and those registered with DVLA on the
relevant date?
#Post#: 81824--------------------------------------------------
Re: UKCPS Parking NTK ( Postal -PoFA) issued on private land
Mak Court WF13 4AF
DIR By: boxer29
Date: July 20, 2025, 4:42 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: H C Andersen link ---
>
> From your first post:
>
> Received a letter addressed to me in post dated 03.10.2024,
which I opened today,[23 Oct].
>
> I asked why the delay but you didn't respond.
>
> You've also posted that on or around 14 Jan. you have
'received' a letter from TRACE dated 31 Dec.
>
> Now we have that on 19th July you have received a claim form
dated 17 July.
>
> But mysteriously you did not previously receive a Letter of
Claim.
>
> OP, so that I can sleep well tonight pl confirm:
> Are you the registered keeper of the vehicle;
> Are your DVLA details the same now as on the day of the
alleged breach;
> Do you actually reside at the registered RK address?
> Are the addresses on the Notice to Keeper, TRACE letter and
claim form the same and those registered with DVLA on the
relevant date?
>
--- End Quote ---
yes these all are correct
#Post#: 81908--------------------------------------------------
Re: UKCPS Parking NTK ( Postal -PoFA) issued on private land
Mak Court WF13 4AF
DIR By: b789
Date: July 21, 2025, 6:57 am
---------------------------------------------------------
With an issue date of 17th July, you have until 4pm on Tuesday
5th August to submit your defence. If you submit an
Acknowledgement of Service (AoS) before then, you would then
have until 4pm on Tuesday 19th August to submit your defence.
If you want to submit an AoS then follow the instructions in
this linked PDF:
HTML https://www.dropbox.com/s/xvqu3bask5m0zir/money-claim-online-How-to-Acknowledge.pdf?dl=0
Normally, we would advise not to use the MCOL to submit a
defence due to some limitations with character count and
formatting. However, due to recent systemic failures within the
CNBC with defences submitted by email, we are changing tactics.
I will know later tomorrow and certainly by Wednesday on the
format and wording to use to submit your defence using the MCOL.
Please do not put anything in the defence box until I get back
to you by Wednesday. Please remind me if I haven't responded
with the defence which will need to be copied and pasted into
the MCOL defence text box.
#Post#: 81979--------------------------------------------------
Re: UKCPS Parking NTK ( Postal -PoFA) issued on private land
Mak Court WF13 4AF
DIR By: boxer29
Date: July 21, 2025, 12:26 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: b789 link ---
>
> With an issue date of 17th July, you have until 4pm on Tuesday
5th August to submit your defence. If you submit an
Acknowledgement of Service (AoS) before then, you would then
have until 4pm on Tuesday 19th August to submit your defence.
>
> If you want to submit an AoS then follow the instructions in
this linked PDF:
>
>
HTML https://www.dropbox.com/s/xvqu3bask5m0zir/money-claim-online-How-to-Acknowledge.pdf?dl=0
>
> Normally, we would advise not to use the MCOL to submit a
defence due to some limitations with character count and
formatting. However, due to recent systemic failures within the
CNBC with defences submitted by email, we are changing tactics.
I will know later tomorrow and certainly by Wednesday on the
format and wording to use to submit your defence using the MCOL.
>
> Please do not put anything in the defence box until I get back
to you by Wednesday. Please remind me if I haven't responded
with the defence which will need to be copied and pasted into
the MCOL defence text box.
>
--- End Quote ---
Thanks b789 for your help and support.
Will wait for your reply.
#Post#: 82179--------------------------------------------------
Re: UKCPS Parking NTK ( Postal -PoFA) issued on private land
Mak Court WF13 4AF
DIR By: b789
Date: July 22, 2025, 12:58 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
OK, here is the defence that you should copy and paste, as is,
into the defence text box on MCOL:
--- 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 CPR PD 16.7.3(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
> 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.
> 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 CPR PD 7C.5.2(2), but chose not to do so.
>
> AND upon the claim being for a very modest sum such that the
> court considers it disproportionate and not in accordance with
> the overriding objective to allot to this case any further
share
> of the court's resources by ordering further particulars of
> claim and a further defence, each followed by further
referrals
> to the judge for 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 5 days after service of this order,
> failing which no such application may be made.
--- End Quote ---
The formatting should remain, more or less, as you see it as it
is limited to a max of 65 characters per line and is less than
122 lines.
If you can, and it would assist us greatly, take some screen
shots of the defence as it appears on your screen just before
and after you submit it.
*****************************************************
Page 3 of 8
DIR Previous Page
DIR Next Page