DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Private parking tickets
*****************************************************
#Post#: 74237--------------------------------------------------
Re: DCB Legal - Letter of Claim received and responded
DIR By: jfollows
Date: June 2, 2025, 3:01 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: karan323 link ---
>
> [quote author=jfollows link=topic=6326.msg74008#msg74008
date=1748679026]
> Also obscure the password which appears in your first post at
least, simply because anyone wanting to cause you problems could
use it - obviously not any of the ‘regulars’ but you never know.
>
--- End Quote ---
I can't understand what you are referring to? Can you see my
login password for this website on my first post? I dont see it
myself so not sure how to obscure it
[/quote]
It’s as clear as day, so I don’t really know how you can’t see
it. In the box headed “Important Note”.
#Post#: 74241--------------------------------------------------
Re: DCB Legal - Letter of Claim received and responded
DIR By: karan323
Date: June 2, 2025, 3:12 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Heres a screen shot of my first post as I see it on my screen so
cant see important note box here ::)
[attachment deleted by admin]
#Post#: 74245--------------------------------------------------
Re: DCB Legal - Letter of Claim received and responded
DIR By: jfollows
Date: June 2, 2025, 3:17 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: karan323 link ---
>
> Heres a screen shot of my first post as I see it on my screen
so cant see important note box here ::)
>
--- End Quote ---
Reply #2 above
#Post#: 74246--------------------------------------------------
Re: DCB Legal - Letter of Claim received and responded
DIR By: b789
Date: June 2, 2025, 3:20 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Sigh!
HTML https://i.imgur.com/sxsnFmX.jpeg
#Post#: 74249--------------------------------------------------
Re: DCB Legal - Letter of Claim received and responded
DIR By: karan323
Date: June 2, 2025, 3:27 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Can't edit the image and post as I cant see the option. ::)
The modify option I am seeing for posts that I uploaded today is
not showing on the old posts
#Post#: 74250--------------------------------------------------
Re: DCB Legal - Letter of Claim received and responded
DIR By: karan323
Date: June 2, 2025, 3:28 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Can you suggest the response to the letter please?
#Post#: 74251--------------------------------------------------
Re: DCB Legal - Letter of Claim received and responded
DIR By: b789
Date: June 2, 2025, 3:30 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: karan323 link ---
>
> The letter I received was definitely letter of claim earlier
this year when I created this post. However I have a bad habit
of just reading such warning letters and chucking them in the
bin should keep them from now onwards. The letter did say letter
of claim on the top hence I came to this forum to create the
post.
>
--- End Quote ---
--- Quote from: karan323 link ---
>
> Please note that DCB Legal were solely instructed to send the
Solicitor Reminder Letter in this matter. DCBL (Direct
Collections Bailiffs Limited) continue to remain instructed on
the matter, and as such, all further correspondence should be
sent to them directly.
>
--- End Quote ---
If that was the response you received then it was definitely NOT
an LoC. It sounds more like you responded to a powerless letter
from DCBL (not DCB Legal) that was threatening to escalate to a
claim. DCBL cannot issue an LoC or make a claim. All debt
recovery companies are powerless to do anything except to try
and make the low-hanging fruit on the gullible tree pay up out
of ignorance and fear.
Anyway, can you show us their "LoC" or a more recent issue of
one?
With an issue date of 28th May, you have until 4pm on Monday
16th June to submit your defence. If you submit an
Acknowledgement of Service (AoS) before then, you would then
have until 4pm on Monday 30th June 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
Otherwise, here is the defence and link to the draft order that
goes with it. You only need to edit your name and the claim
number. You sign the defence by typing your full name for the
signature and date it. There is nothing to edit in the draft
order.
When you're ready you combine both documents as a single PDF
attachment and send as an attachment in an email to
claimresponses.cnbc@justice.gov.uk and CC in yourself. The claim
number must be in the email subject field and in the body of the
email just put: "Please find attached the defence and draft
order in the matter of Euro Car Parks Ltd v [your full name]
Claim no.: [claim number]."
--- Quote ---
>
> [center]IN THE COUNTY COURT[/center]
> [right]Claim No: [Claim Number][/right]
>
> [center]BETWEEN:
>
> Euro Car Parks Ltd
> Claimant
>
> - and -
>
> [Defendant's Full Name]
> 
Defendant
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------
>
> DEFENCE[/center]
>
> 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 comply with CPR
16.4.
>
> 3. The Defendant is unable to plead properly to the PoC
because:
>
> [indent](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 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.[/indent]
>
> 4. The Defendant attaches to this defence a copy of a draft
order approved by a district judge at another court. The court
struck out the claim of its own initiative after determining
that the Particulars of Claim failed to comply with CPR 16.4.
The judge noted that the claimant had failed to:
>
> [indent](i) Set out the exact wording of the clause (or
clauses) of the terms and conditions relied upon;
>
> (ii) Adequately explain the reasons why the defendant was
allegedly in breach of contract;
>
> (iii) Provide separate, detailed Particulars of Claim as
permitted under CPR PD 7C.5.2(2).
>
> (iv) The court further observed that, given the modest sum
claimed, requiring further case management steps would be
disproportionate and contrary to the overriding objective.
Accordingly, the judge struck out the claim outright rather than
permitting an amendment.[/indent]
>
> 5. 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 for the Claimant’s failure to comply with
CPR 16.4.
>
> 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:
--- End Quote ---
Draft Order for the defence
HTML https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/tcewefk7daozuje25chkl/Strikeout-order-v2.pdf?rlkey=wxnymo8mwcma2jj8xihjm7pdx&st=nbtf0cn6&dl=0
#Post#: 74256--------------------------------------------------
Re: DCB Legal - Letter of Claim received and responded
DIR By: karan323
Date: June 2, 2025, 3:59 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Email sent just now with all your valuable inputs. I am so
delighted with the help you have provided thanks a lot
#Post#: 75793--------------------------------------------------
Re: DCB Legal - Letter of Claim received and responded
DIR By: karan323
Date: June 10, 2025, 9:12 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Got this letter today from HM courts and tribunal service after
submitting the email as per above last week
HTML https://imgur.com/a/ipssGtd
#Post#: 79095--------------------------------------------------
Re: DCB Legal - Letter of Claim received and responded
DIR By: karan323
Date: July 1, 2025, 9:36 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: b789 link ---
>
> [quote author=karan323 link=topic=6326.msg74234#msg74234
date=1748851125]
> The letter I received was definitely letter of claim earlier
this year when I created this post. However I have a bad habit
of just reading such warning letters and chucking them in the
bin should keep them from now onwards. The letter did say letter
of claim on the top hence I came to this forum to create the
post.
>
--- End Quote ---
--- Quote from: karan323 link ---
>
> Please note that DCB Legal were solely instructed to send the
Solicitor Reminder Letter in this matter. DCBL (Direct
Collections Bailiffs Limited) continue to remain instructed on
the matter, and as such, all further correspondence should be
sent to them directly.
>
--- End Quote ---
If that was the response you received then it was definitely NOT
an LoC. It sounds more like you responded to a powerless letter
from DCBL (not DCB Legal) that was threatening to escalate to a
claim. DCBL cannot issue an LoC or make a claim. All debt
recovery companies are powerless to do anything except to try
and make the low-hanging fruit on the gullible tree pay up out
of ignorance and fear.
Anyway, can you show us their "LoC" or a more recent issue of
one?
With an issue date of 28th May, you have until 4pm on Monday
16th June to submit your defence. If you submit an
Acknowledgement of Service (AoS) before then, you would then
have until 4pm on Monday 30th June 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
Otherwise, here is the defence and link to the draft order that
goes with it. You only need to edit your name and the claim
number. You sign the defence by typing your full name for the
signature and date it. There is nothing to edit in the draft
order.
When you're ready you combine both documents as a single PDF
attachment and send as an attachment in an email to
claimresponses.cnbc@justice.gov.uk and CC in yourself. The claim
number must be in the email subject field and in the body of the
email just put: "Please find attached the defence and draft
order in the matter of Euro Car Parks Ltd v [your full name]
Claim no.: [claim number]."
--- Quote ---
>
> [center]IN THE COUNTY COURT[/center]
> [right]Claim No: [Claim Number][/right]
>
> [center]BETWEEN:
>
> Euro Car Parks Ltd
> Claimant
>
> - and -
>
> [Defendant's Full Name]
> 
Defendant
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------
>
> DEFENCE[/center]
>
> 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 comply with CPR
16.4.
>
> 3. The Defendant is unable to plead properly to the PoC
because:
>
> [indent](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 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.[/indent]
>
> 4. The Defendant attaches to this defence a copy of a draft
order approved by a district judge at another court. The court
struck out the claim of its own initiative after determining
that the Particulars of Claim failed to comply with CPR 16.4.
The judge noted that the claimant had failed to:
>
> [indent](i) Set out the exact wording of the clause (or
clauses) of the terms and conditions relied upon;
>
> (ii) Adequately explain the reasons why the defendant was
allegedly in breach of contract;
>
> (iii) Provide separate, detailed Particulars of Claim as
permitted under CPR PD 7C.5.2(2).
>
> (iv) The court further observed that, given the modest sum
claimed, requiring further case management steps would be
disproportionate and contrary to the overriding objective.
Accordingly, the judge struck out the claim outright rather than
permitting an amendment.[/indent]
>
> 5. 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 for the Claimant’s failure to comply with
CPR 16.4.
>
> 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:
--- End Quote ---
Draft Order for the defence
HTML https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/tcewefk7daozuje25chkl/Strikeout-order-v2.pdf?rlkey=wxnymo8mwcma2jj8xihjm7pdx&st=nbtf0cn6&dl=0
[/quote]
Thanks for your help with the letter
I received the letter from DCBL today in response to above which
is a form N180 from HM courts and Tribunals service called
Directions Questionnaire
Should I respond to this one or just let it be?
*****************************************************
Page 2 of 3
DIR Previous Page
DIR Next Page