DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Private parking tickets
*****************************************************
#Post#: 83066--------------------------------------------------
Re: Parkmaven NtK and unsuccessful appeal
By: paulpaul1308 Date: July 28, 2025, 5:52 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Don't bother posting debt collectors letters here, they are
toothless and can simply be binned.
#Post#: 83085--------------------------------------------------
Re: Parkmaven NtK and unsuccessful appeal
By: b789 Date: July 28, 2025, 7:02 am
---------------------------------------------------------
We really don;'t need to know about useless debt recovery
letters and all you need to so is recycle them.
#Post#: 87681--------------------------------------------------
Re: Parkmaven NtK and unsuccessful appeal
By: kgw Date: August 29, 2025, 7:57 am
---------------------------------------------------------
I've received another DCBL letter to recycle. 8)
#Post#: 93656--------------------------------------------------
Re: Parkmaven NtK and unsuccessful appeal
By: kgw Date: October 10, 2025, 6:28 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Hello,
I've finally received a claim form from HMCTS dated 8 oct
DCB Legal's particulars of claim in the Civil National Business
Centre are:
1) The defendant is indebted to the claimant for a parking
charge issued to vehicle {plate number} at the Centre Feltham
Surface, Feltham, TW13 4GU.
2) The date of the contravention is 17/12/2024 and the defendant
was issued with a parking charge
3) the defendant is pursued as the driver of the vehicle for
breach of the terms on the signs (the contract). Reason: no
valid parking session
4) In the alternative the defendant is pursued as the keeper
pursuant to POFA 2012 scheduel 4
AND THE CLAIMANT CLAIMS
1) £170 being the total of the parking charge and damages
2) interest at the rate of 8% per annum pursuant to s69 of the
county courts act 1984 from the date hereof at a daily rate of
£0.03 until judgment or sooner payment
3) Costs and court fees
There are pages of response forms which I will share when I get
a chance if there is interest.
It looks like the first step is to file an acknowledgment of
service.
#Post#: 93659--------------------------------------------------
Re: Parkmaven NtK and unsuccessful appeal
By: jfollows Date: October 11, 2025, 3:22 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Front and back of the N1SDT form only, please. Only obscure your
details, claim number & password.
#Post#: 93661--------------------------------------------------
Re: Parkmaven NtK and unsuccessful appeal
By: kgw Date: October 11, 2025, 3:42 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Here they are (can't upload on the site anymore and img function
does not work)
front
HTML https://ibb.co/twbTkMKb
back
HTML https://ibb.co/MyYSrdkM
#Post#: 93705--------------------------------------------------
Re: Parkmaven NtK and unsuccessful appeal
By: b789 Date: October 11, 2025, 10:25 am
---------------------------------------------------------
That's the first Claim Form I've ever seen from this firm that
has been properly and by a regulated, authorised person. Every
previous Claim Form they have served (over 100k a year) have
been signed and submitted by a person unauthorised to conduct
litigation, which is a breach of the Legal Services Act and a
criminal offence.
Anyway, with an issue date of 8th October you have until 4pm on
Monday 27th October to submit your defence. If you submit an
Acknowledgement of Service (AoS) before then, you would then
have until 4pm on Monday 10th November to submit your defence.
You only need to submit an AoS if you need extra time to prepare
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
Until very recently, we never advised using the MCOL to submit a
defence. However, due to recent systemic failures within the
CNBC, we feel that it is safer to now submit a short defence
using MCOL as it is instantly submitted and entered into the
"system". Whilst it will deny the use of some formatting or
inclusion of transcripts etc. these can always be included with
the Witness Statement (WS) later, if it ever progresses that
far.
You will need to copy and paste it into the defence text box on
MCOL. It has been checked to make sure that it will fit into the
122 lines limit.
[quote][font=Courier New]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 PD 16, para 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
materially 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.
5. 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 PD 7C, para 5.2, but chose not to do so.
AND upon the Court determining, having regard to the overriding
objective (CPR 1.1), that it would be disproportionate to direct
further pleadings or to allot any further share of the Court’s
resources to this claim (for example by ordering further
particulars of claim and a further defence, with consequent 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 7 days after service of this order,
failing which no such application may be made.[/font][/quote]
#Post#: 93722--------------------------------------------------
Re: Parkmaven NtK and unsuccessful appeal
By: kgw Date: October 11, 2025, 12:20 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Thanks.
So you would stick to procedural issues and wouldn't even bother
to mention the POFA non compliances in the defence ?
#Post#: 93724--------------------------------------------------
Re: Parkmaven NtK and unsuccessful appeal
By: b789 Date: October 11, 2025, 12:25 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
This is never going to get as far as a hearing as it will be
discontinued just before they have to pay the £27 trial fee.
Even if it were to go that ear (it won't), you can challenged
anything in their WS if they bring up liability.
#Post#: 93809--------------------------------------------------
Re: Parkmaven NtK and unsuccessful appeal
By: kgw Date: October 12, 2025, 8:33 am
---------------------------------------------------------
I read in PD 7C (money claim online):
5.2A The requirement in paragraph 7.3 of Practice Direction 16
for documents to be attached to the particulars of contract
claims does not apply to claims started using an online claim
form, unless the particulars of claim are served separately in
accordance with paragraph 5.2 of this practice direction.
So there seems to be no obligation to attach the contract and
T&Cs. Not sure how the defendant is supposed to receive them.
*****************************************************
DIR Previous Page
DIR Next Page