DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Private parking tickets
*****************************************************
#Post#: 83764--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN BaySentry Solutions - No Valid Parking permit - CitiPark
Gade Car Park, Watford
DIR By: b789
Date: August 2, 2025, 3:09 am
---------------------------------------------------------
You don't need any of the other forms that came with the claim.
With an issue date of 25th July you have until 4pm on Wednesday
13th August to submit your defence. If you submit an
Acknowledgement of Service (AoS) before then, you would then
have until 4pm on Wednesday 27th August 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
65 characters per line and 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 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.
>
> 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 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 ---
#Post#: 83961--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN BaySentry Solutions - No Valid Parking permit - CitiPark
Gade Car Park, Watford
DIR By: markeman
Date: August 3, 2025, 5:01 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Fantastic, defence uploaded to MCOL as advised. One question
before I submit - Section 3 of the defence states:
--- Quote ---
>
> (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.
>
--- End Quote ---
The PoC on the claim form state:
--- Quote ---
>
> 3. The Defendant is pursued as the driver of the vehicle...
[snip]
>
--- End Quote ---
--- Quote ---
>
> 4. In the alternative the Defendant is pursued as the keeper
pursuant to.. [snip]
>
--- End Quote ---
Is it the fact the PoC refers to both the driver and "in the
alternative" the keeper that is the source of the lack of
clarity?
#Post#: 83974--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN BaySentry Solutions - No Valid Parking permit - CitiPark
Gade Car Park, Watford
DIR By: jfollows
Date: August 4, 2025, 3:12 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: markeman link ---
>
> Is it the fact the PoC refers to both the driver and "in the
alternative" the keeper that is the source of the lack of
clarity?
>
--- End Quote ---
Yes
They use the same boilerplate for everyone, it’s a sausage
machine, they spend no time and effort modifying it to match the
circumstances.
#Post#: 84109--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN BaySentry Solutions - No Valid Parking permit - CitiPark
Gade Car Park, Watford
DIR By: markeman
Date: August 4, 2025, 4:30 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Understood, defence submitted today via MCOL.
Any sense of what period they must respond in? I provided an
email address in the defence, will they use this for all
correspondence instead of post or do they issue via email and
post?
#Post#: 84136--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN BaySentry Solutions - No Valid Parking permit - CitiPark
Gade Car Park, Watford
DIR By: jfollows
Date: August 5, 2025, 2:17 am
---------------------------------------------------------
The court will send you a N180 form in due course, but you
should complete it online. The court will later on post you
information about allocation to your local court and deadlines.
#Post#: 88166--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN BaySentry Solutions - No Valid Parking permit - CitiPark
Gade Car Park, Watford
DIR By: markeman
Date: September 2, 2025, 3:54 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
No N180 from the court yet but below email received today from
DCBLegal (without even a signature from the author!). They
attached a copy of their completed N180 where they have said yes
to small claims track, yes to being suitable for determination
without a hearing and requested the hearing venue is the
claimant's home court.
FWIW I'm happy to settle by paying the original parking amount
that was due (~£3). Is there any downside in contacting them as
below, now that they have offered to settle in writing? I
assume if a settlement can't be reached, or your guidance is not
to settle due to legal concerns, then I wait for the N180
questionnaire to land?
--- Quote ---
>
> Good morning
>
> Having reviewed the content of your defence, we write to
inform you that our client intends to proceed with the claim.
>
> In due course, the Court will direct both parties to each file
a directions questionnaire. In preparation for that, please find
attached a copy of the Claimant's, which we confirm has been
filed with the Court.
>
> Without Prejudice to the above, in order to assist the Court
in achieving its overriding objective, our client may be
prepared to settle this case - in the event you wish to discuss
settlement, please call us on 0203 434 0433 within 7 days and
make immediate reference to this correspondence.
>
> If you have provided an email address within your Defence, we
intend to use it for service of documents (usually in PDF
format) hereon in pursuant to PD 6A (4.1)(2)(c). Please advise
whether there are any limitations to this (for example, the
format in which documents are to be sent and the maximum size of
attachments that may be received). Unless you advise otherwise,
we will assume not.
>
>
--- End Quote ---
#Post#: 88169--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN BaySentry Solutions - No Valid Parking permit - CitiPark
Gade Car Park, Watford
DIR By: jfollows
Date: September 2, 2025, 4:02 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
It’s normal that parking companies such as BaySentry get £0 from
the money people pay to park, in return for which they get to
keep every penny they can extract from those who don’t comply
with their terms and conditions.
So offering to pay the original fee is of no interest to them.
They just want your credit card details.
Their offer to ‘settle’ is just boilerplate. Ignore it.
#Post#: 88189--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN BaySentry Solutions - No Valid Parking permit - CitiPark
Gade Car Park, Watford
DIR By: b789
Date: September 3, 2025, 3:33 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Offer even a penny and you admit liability. If you follow the
advice, this will either be struck out or discontinued in due
course.
Wait for your own N180.
#Post#: 97559--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN BaySentry Solutions - No Valid Parking permit - CitiPark
Gade Car Park, Watford
DIR By: markeman
Date: November 10, 2025, 8:24 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Still waiting for the N180 after a few months.. logged onto
Money Claim Online to check status and it showed:
- Case Stay Lifted on 17/09/2025
- DQ sent to you on 17/09/2025
- DQ filed by claimant on 17/09/2025
So the DQ has clearly gotten lost somewhere (I've been keeping
eye on junk email folders). Spoke to MCO support, they emailed
me a PDF N180 and advised I email a completed copy to
DQ.CNBC[member=6517]justice[/member].gov.uk and all other
parties, in this case I assume DCB Legal's email address on
their DQ (info@dcblegal.co.uk)?
Is it possible I've missed a deadline to submit the N180?
The DQ seems pretty straightforward, any particular things to
watch out for? Some specific questions:
- D1 Suitable for determination without a hearing - assume yes?
- F1 Hearing venue - ok to put "Defendant's home court"?
- F2 Expert evidence - assume no?
- F3 Witnesses - if I would like my partner to support me do I
need to put 2 rather than 1?
- Signature - do I tick "Legal representative" or just
"Defendant" or neither
To [member=26]b789[/member] 's comment, as per my OP in my
earlier correspondence with BaySentry / DCB I offered to pay any
difference if they could tell me what that difference was. Have
I inadvertently admitted liability, and will this impact the
County Court Case outcome?
#Post#: 97562--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN BaySentry Solutions - No Valid Parking permit - CitiPark
Gade Car Park, Watford
DIR By: jfollows
Date: November 10, 2025, 8:40 am
---------------------------------------------------------
If you search the forum for
N180
you will see that it’s probably the most answered question, for
example
--- Quote ---
> Having received your own N180 (make sure it is not simply a
copy of the claimants N180) or been notified on MCOL that yours
has been sent, do not use the paper form. Ignore all the other
forms that came with it. you can discard those. Download your
own N180 DQ 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[member=6517]justice[/member].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 ---
By making it a hearing in person at your local court you almost
ensure that DCB Legal will discontinue rather than spending time
and money to attend.
*****************************************************
Page 2 of 3
DIR Previous Page
DIR Next Page