DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Private parking tickets
*****************************************************
#Post#: 97017--------------------------------------------------
Re: EURO CAR PARKS - OVERSTAYED WHILE CHARGING - HIRE CAR
DIR By: thierry24
Date: November 6, 2025, 4:12 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: thierry24 link ---
>
> [quote author=jfollows link=topic=5616.msg66254#msg66254
date=1744195296]
> It looks like you’re in the usual process now.
>
> Not being able to appeal isn’t huge because your appeal would
have been rejected anyway. But you could still write to ECP for
the record to state that you won’t be paying because, as hirer,
their notice to hirer fails the requirements of PoFA 2012 to
transfer liability from the driver to you.
>
> Ignore DCBL/Debt Recovery Plus completely.
>
> DCB Legal or someone may then issue a Letter of Claim, come
back here when they do, but essentially you can reiterate that
you’re not going to pay. You would win in court if it came to
that. All their nonsense in the meantime is designed to make you
give up or be frightened into paying.
>
> ECP didn’t used to go to court anyway, so you may just have to
put up with bluster until they give up.
>
--- End Quote ---
Thank you for your advice!
[/quote]
Hello, Following this advice, AOS said the following to my
formal complaint.
"Good Afternoon,
Thank you for your enquiry.
Our role as an Accredited Trade Association is to investigate
alleged breaches of our Code of Practice by members of our
Approved Operator Scheme where evidence can be supplied and
where the operator’s internal complaints process has been
exhausted.
We are unable to advise if the operator is acting unlawfully,
this would not fall within the remit of the Code of Practice.
As you have received a copy of the Notice to Hirer, we would not
become involved further as we cannot determine what has been
sent or received by either party. It would be at Euro Car Parks
discretion to send letters via recorded delivery or accept a
late appeal.
Based on the information you have supplied, I have not
identified a breach of point raised in the Code of Practice and
therefore I am unable to investigate your complaint further."
Taking the advice to ignore DCB legal, I recently received a
claim form (money claim/cicil national business centre) stating
I am being taken to court for this PCN also and have until today
to respond. I lost this website but have since found it through
google. The court summons says I must either pay the claimant or
go to court in essence. Advice on what to do? Can't afford a CCJ
for work purposes.
#Post#: 97032--------------------------------------------------
Re: EURO CAR PARKS - OVERSTAYED WHILE CHARGING - HIRE CAR
DIR By: jfollows
Date: November 6, 2025, 5:24 am
---------------------------------------------------------
You were advised to ignore DCBL but not DCB Legal, did you
receive a Letter of Claim from the latter and did you reply to
it?
Regardless, please post redacted copies of what you have now
received.
HTML https://www.ftla.uk/announcements/posting-images/#new
You can not get a CCJ registered long term unless you lose in
court and do not pay within 30 days. You won’t even go to court
if you stay on track and follow advice here.
HTML https://www.gov.uk/county-court-judgments-ccj-for-debt/ccjs-and-your-credit-rating
If you have a N1SDT form then you can file an acknowledgment of
service which gives you extra time to file a defence.
#Post#: 97088--------------------------------------------------
Re: EURO CAR PARKS - OVERSTAYED WHILE CHARGING - HIRE CAR
DIR By: thierry24
Date: November 6, 2025, 10:02 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Please see links below for the images of the claim form
received.
HTML https://ibb.co/pj6gYFHs
HTML https://ibb.co/b5YqfF81
HTML https://ibb.co/Kz0PMg91
HTML https://ibb.co/9m4nGTrM
HTML https://ibb.co/GQDPgTJw
HTML https://ibb.co/B5cBgGB3
HTML https://ibb.co/BHsKPD7s
HTML https://ibb.co/VYz8C4nQ
I thought DCB Legal and DCBL were the same.
Let me know thoughts on next steps, thank you
#Post#: 97117--------------------------------------------------
Re: EURO CAR PARKS - OVERSTAYED WHILE CHARGING - HIRE CAR
DIR By: b789
Date: November 6, 2025, 12:41 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
First, respond to the BPA fob-off with the following:
--- Quote ---
> Subject: Re: Euro Car Parks – Formal Complaint – PCN [insert
reference]
>
> FAO: AOS Investigations Team
>
> Dear Sir/Madam,
>
> Thank you for your response. I must respectfully point out
serious flaws in your reasoning and conclusions.
>
> This matter is now the subject of formal legal proceedings in
the County Court. Nevertheless, your dismissal of the concerns
raised reveals a fundamental misunderstanding of both the
Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA) and the Private Parking
Single Code of Practice (Version 1.1, 17 February 2025) to which
all BPA members are bound.
>
> 1. Your refusal to investigate fails to address the core
complaint
> You state that since I “have received a copy of the Notice to
Hirer”, you will not investigate further. This fails to
acknowledge the specific complaint:
> [indent]• that the original Notice to Hirer was never served,
and that no appeal opportunity was offered.[/indent]
>
> The issue is not whether the document exists but whether it
was lawfully served within the time and manner required by
Schedule 4 Paragraph 14 of PoFA. The operator has produced no
proof of service compliant with the Interpretation Act 1978,
such as a certificate of posting or equivalent evidence.
>
> 2. You misrepresent the purpose of the Code
> You assert that your remit excludes assessing whether the
operator is “acting unlawfully”. That is not the complaint made.
The complaint is that:
> [indent]• The operator pursued liability without properly
serving a Notice to Hirer;
> • The operator denied access to the appeals process;
> • The operator escalated the charge to a debt collector
without resolving a valid complaint.[/indent]
>
> These actions amount to direct breaches of the Private Parking
Single Code of Practice v1.1, in particular:
> [indent]• Clause 8.4.1 (c) – requires operators to consider
appeals received outside the normal 28-day period where
exceptional circumstances exist (such as a missing NtH).
> • Clause 8.4.9 – requires that when rejecting an appeal, the
operator must give the option to appeal to the relevant
Independent Appeals Service and must suspend enforcement or debt
recovery until that appeal is determined.
> • Clause 11.2 – requires any complaint that includes or may
include an appeal to be treated as such until it is clear
otherwise, and to be handled fairly and transparently.[/indent]
>
> The operator has disregarded all three of these mandatory
requirements.
>
> 3. BPA’s failure to investigate supports abuse of process
> Your refusal to investigate may now be relied upon by the
Claimant as supposed evidence that the operator acted
“reasonably” or “in accordance with the Code”, which is
demonstrably false. This undermines the BPA’s stated role as an
impartial regulatory body and facilitates misuse of DVLA keeper
data contrary to the KADOE contract obligations referenced in
Section 3 of the Code.
>
> 4. Next steps
> I request that the BPA:
> [indent]1. Reconsider the complaint based on whether the
Notice to Hirer was served, not merely issued;
> 2. Confirm whether Euro Car Parks was compliant with the Code
when denying access to the independent appeals process; and
> 3. Provide a written position that can be disclosed to the
court as part of my defence.[/indent]
>
> If you maintain your refusal to investigate, I will escalate
this matter to both:
> [indent]• The DVLA’s Accredited Trade Association oversight
function, and
> • The Independent Complaints Assessor (ICA) for failure to
discharge your investigatory obligations under the Code.
> I look forward to your revised position.[/indent]
>
> Yours faithfully,
>
> [Your Name]
> [Your Address]
--- End Quote ---
#Post#: 97118--------------------------------------------------
Re: EURO CAR PARKS - OVERSTAYED WHILE CHARGING - HIRE CAR
DIR By: b789
Date: November 6, 2025, 12:44 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
With an issue date of 23rd October, you have until 4pm on
Tuesday 18th November to submit your defence. If you submit an
Acknowledgement of Service (AoS) before then, you would then
have until 4pm on Tuesday 2nd December 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
MCOL CPR16.4 only defence
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 ---
> 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.
--- End Quote ---
#Post#: 97204--------------------------------------------------
Re: EURO CAR PARKS - OVERSTAYED WHILE CHARGING - HIRE CAR
DIR By: thierry24
Date: November 7, 2025, 5:55 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: b789 link ---
>
> First, respond to the BPA fob-off with the following:
>
> [quote]Subject: Re: Euro Car Parks – Formal Complaint – PCN
[insert reference]
>
> FAO: AOS Investigations Team
>
> Dear Sir/Madam,
>
> Thank you for your response. I must respectfully point out
serious flaws in your reasoning and conclusions.
>
> This matter is now the subject of formal legal proceedings in
the County Court. Nevertheless, your dismissal of the concerns
raised reveals a fundamental misunderstanding of both the
Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA) and the Private Parking
Single Code of Practice (Version 1.1, 17 February 2025) to which
all BPA members are bound.
>
> 1. Your refusal to investigate fails to address the core
complaint
> You state that since I “have received a copy of the Notice to
Hirer”, you will not investigate further. This fails to
acknowledge the specific complaint:
> [indent]• that the original Notice to Hirer was never served,
and that no appeal opportunity was offered.[/indent]
>
> The issue is not whether the document exists but whether it
was lawfully served within the time and manner required by
Schedule 4 Paragraph 14 of PoFA. The operator has produced no
proof of service compliant with the Interpretation Act 1978,
such as a certificate of posting or equivalent evidence.
>
> 2. You misrepresent the purpose of the Code
> You assert that your remit excludes assessing whether the
operator is “acting unlawfully”. That is not the complaint made.
The complaint is that:
> [indent]• The operator pursued liability without properly
serving a Notice to Hirer;
> • The operator denied access to the appeals process;
> • The operator escalated the charge to a debt collector
without resolving a valid complaint.[/indent]
>
> These actions amount to direct breaches of the Private Parking
Single Code of Practice v1.1, in particular:
> [indent]• Clause 8.4.1 (c) – requires operators to consider
appeals received outside the normal 28-day period where
exceptional circumstances exist (such as a missing NtH).
> • Clause 8.4.9 – requires that when rejecting an appeal, the
operator must give the option to appeal to the relevant
Independent Appeals Service and must suspend enforcement or debt
recovery until that appeal is determined.
> • Clause 11.2 – requires any complaint that includes or may
include an appeal to be treated as such until it is clear
otherwise, and to be handled fairly and transparently.[/indent]
>
> The operator has disregarded all three of these mandatory
requirements.
>
> 3. BPA’s failure to investigate supports abuse of process
> Your refusal to investigate may now be relied upon by the
Claimant as supposed evidence that the operator acted
“reasonably” or “in accordance with the Code”, which is
demonstrably false. This undermines the BPA’s stated role as an
impartial regulatory body and facilitates misuse of DVLA keeper
data contrary to the KADOE contract obligations referenced in
Section 3 of the Code.
>
> 4. Next steps
> I request that the BPA:
> [indent]1. Reconsider the complaint based on whether the
Notice to Hirer was served, not merely issued;
> 2. Confirm whether Euro Car Parks was compliant with the Code
when denying access to the independent appeals process; and
> 3. Provide a written position that can be disclosed to the
court as part of my defence.[/indent]
>
> If you maintain your refusal to investigate, I will escalate
this matter to both:
> [indent]• The DVLA’s Accredited Trade Association oversight
function, and
> • The Independent Complaints Assessor (ICA) for failure to
discharge your investigatory obligations under the Code.
> I look forward to your revised position.[/indent]
>
> Yours faithfully,
>
> [Your Name]
> [Your Address]
--- End Quote ---
[/quote]
Thank you, Actioned
#Post#: 97211--------------------------------------------------
Re: EURO CAR PARKS - OVERSTAYED WHILE CHARGING - HIRE CAR
DIR By: thierry24
Date: November 7, 2025, 6:18 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: b789 link ---
>
> With an issue date of 23rd October, you have until 4pm on
Tuesday 18th November to submit your defence. If you submit an
Acknowledgement of Service (AoS) before then, you would then
have until 4pm on Tuesday 2nd December 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
>
> MCOL CPR16.4 only defence
>
> 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]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.
--- End Quote ---
[/quote]
Thank you, I have just submitted the defence directly on MCOL.
I appreciate your help.
#Post#: 103176--------------------------------------------------
Re: EURO CAR PARKS - OVERSTAYED WHILE CHARGING - HIRE CAR
DIR By: thierry24
Date: December 19, 2025, 6:05 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: b789 link ---
>
> With an issue date of 23rd October, you have until 4pm on
Tuesday 18th November to submit your defence. If you submit an
Acknowledgement of Service (AoS) before then, you would then
have until 4pm on Tuesday 2nd December 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
>
> MCOL CPR16.4 only defence
>
> 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]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.
--- End Quote ---
[/quote]
Hello, Following submission of the defence on the 7th November,
I have since received a letter on 12th December from the Civil
National Business Centre titled "Notice of proposed allocation
to the small claims track"
It states
"Take notice that
1. This is now a defended claim - A copy of the defence has been
sent to you by the defendent
2. It appears that this case is suitable for allocation to the
small claims track.
If you believe that this track is not the appropriate track for
the claim, you must complete box C1 on the small claims
directions questionnaire (Form N180) and explain why.
3. You must by 29 December 2025 complete the small claims
directions directions questionnaire (Form N180) and file it with
the court office"
Is there anything I must do with this? I've received no other
correspondence to my defence
#Post#: 103187--------------------------------------------------
Re: EURO CAR PARKS - OVERSTAYED WHILE CHARGING - HIRE CAR
DIR By: jfollows
Date: December 19, 2025, 7:16 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Please stop repeatedly quoting posts, it makes this thread very
hard to read.
You need to check your MCOL account and file your own N180 when
appropriate, ie when it says that you have been sent the forms.
If you search the forum you will find
--- Quote ---
> Having received your own N180 (make sure it is not simply a
copy of the claimants N180), do not use the paper form. Ignore
all the other forms that came with it. you can discard those.
Download your own here and fill it in on your computer. You sign
it by simply typing your full name in the signature box.
>
>
HTML https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/673341e779e9143625613543/N180_1124.pdf
>
> Here are the answers to some of the less obvious questions:
>
> • The name of the court is "Civil National Business Centre".
>
> • To be completed by "Your full name" and you are the
"Defendant".
>
> • C1: "YES"
>
> • D1: "NO". Reason: "I wish to question the Claimant about
their evidence at a hearing in person and to expose omissions
and any misleading or incorrect evidence or assertions.
> Given the Claimant is a firm who complete cut & paste parking
case paperwork for a living, having this case heard solely on
papers would appear to put the Claimant at an unfair advantage,
especially as they would no doubt prefer the Defendant not to
have the opportunity to expose the issues in the Claimants
template submissions or speak as the only true witness to events
in question.."
>
> • F1: Whichever is your nearest county court. Use this to find
it:
HTML https://www.find-court-tribunal.service.gov.uk/search-option
>
> • F3: "1".
>
> • Sign the form by simply typing your full name for the
signature.
>
> When you have completed the form, attach it to a single email
addressed to both dq.cnbc@justice.gov.uk and info@dcblegal.co.uk
and CC in yourself. Make sure that the claim number is in the
subject field of the email.
--- End Quote ---
#Post#: 103197--------------------------------------------------
Re: EURO CAR PARKS - OVERSTAYED WHILE CHARGING - HIRE CAR
DIR By: thierry24
Date: December 19, 2025, 7:44 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Thank you, much appreciated. N180 form filled in and sent the
addresses mentioned with myself cc'd.
*****************************************************
Page 2 of 4
DIR Previous Page
DIR Next Page