URI:
   DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
  HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       *****************************************************
   DIR Return to: Private parking tickets
       *****************************************************
       #Post#: 97570--------------------------------------------------
       Re: PCN BaySentry Solutions - No Valid Parking permit - CitiPark
       Gade Car Park, Watford
   DIR By: markeman
       Date: November 10, 2025, 9:44 am
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       Thanks [member=636]jfollows[/member], much appreciated.  DQ has
       been filed.
       (I should have searched the forum first, apologies)
       #Post#: 101078--------------------------------------------------
       Re: PCN BaySentry Solutions - No Valid Parking permit - CitiPark
       Gade Car Park, Watford
   DIR By: markeman
       Date: December 5, 2025, 4:01 am
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       A couple of updates.
       A little while after proactively submitting the DQ a very formal
       letter arrived, essentially warning that the DQ must be
       submitted.  I'm putting this down to some lag in the system.
       However, MoneyClaimOnline transaction history now shows:
       - DQ sent to you on 17/09/2025
       - DQ filed by claimant on 17/09/2025
       - General sanctions order was made on 18/11/2025
       - You filed a DQ on 22/11/2025
       I assume the "General sanctions order" refers to the formal
       letter received.  Does this entry matter?  Any action required
       on my part now they've received my DQ?
       Since then an email from HM Courts & Tribunals Service has
       landed - "Your telephone mediation appointment".  It advises a
       contact number must be provided to
       scmreferrals[member=6517]justice[/member].gov.uk and any
       delegation of authority.
       I'm assuming the mediation call is mandatory.  Could someone
       advise on impact of delegating (does it introduce any material
       risk?) and a steer on how to drive the mediation call?  Many
       thanks as always
       #Post#: 101134--------------------------------------------------
       Re: PCN BaySentry Solutions - No Valid Parking permit - CitiPark
       Gade Car Park, Watford
   DIR By: b789
       Date: December 5, 2025, 9:01 am
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       Yes, the General Sanctions Order is the reminder you received
       about the N180 DQ. As MCOL now shows your DQ as "filed" that is
       all you need to do regarding that.
       For the mediation call, the only requirement is for you "attend"
       the call. It is not part of the judicial process and no judge is
       involved.
       This is what I advise you to say when you receive the call from
       the mediator:
       “Before I set out my position, please confirm from the
       claimant’s side:[/I]
       [indent][I]• the full name of the person attending for them;
       • their role/position at their legal representative’s firm; and
       • whether they hold written authority to negotiate and settle
       today.[/indent]
       Please relay that back to me before we continue.”
       After the mediator calls back...
       If identified and authority confirmed:
       [indent]“Thank you. I’m content to proceed on that basis. My
       settlement offer is £0, or I invite the claimant to discontinue
       with no order as to costs.”[/indent]
       If no/unclear authority:
       [indent]“Please record that the claimant’s attendee has not
       confirmed settlement authority. My position remains that
       liability is denied and my offer is £0, subject to prompt
       approval by an authorised solicitor if they choose to
       discontinue.”[/indent]
       If the mediator probes your defence:
       [indent]”[I]In what capacity are you asking that question? Are
       you legally trained?  If not, please refrain from offering
       opinions. I will be reporting any attempt to do so as
       inappropriate[/I].”
       All you need to know is the name and the position of the person
       acting for the claimant and report that back to us. It will be
       over within minutes. Complete waste of time otherwise.
       #Post#: 101188--------------------------------------------------
       Re: PCN BaySentry Solutions - No Valid Parking permit - CitiPark
       Gade Car Park, Watford
   DIR By: markeman
       Date: December 5, 2025, 11:52 am
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       Thank you [member=26]b789[/member], very clear.
       Should the mediator say yes to being legally trained, is it best
       to just repeat my position "liability is denied and my offer is
       £0"?
       Should the the claimant offer to settle for the original actual
       parking cost (or equivalent figure of insignificance) is there
       any value / risk entertaining this to guarantee closure?
       #Post#: 101194--------------------------------------------------
       Re: PCN BaySentry Solutions - No Valid Parking permit - CitiPark
       Gade Car Park, Watford
   DIR By: b789
       Date: December 5, 2025, 12:16 pm
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       If the mediator says they are not legally trained, or refuses to
       say:
       [indent]“Thank you. In that case I’ll simply rely on my filed
       defence. For settlement purposes my position is that liability
       is denied and my offer is £0, or the claimant can discontinue
       with no order as to costs. I don’t wish to go into the legal
       arguments in detail; that is a matter for the trial
       judge.”[/indent]
       If the mediator says they are legally trained:
       [indent]“Thank you. I appreciate that, but I am not here to
       debate the legal merits with you. I will explain my case to the
       judge if it goes to a hearing. For settlement purposes my
       position is that liability is denied and my offer is £0, or the
       claimant can discontinue with no order as to costs. I’d be
       grateful if you could relay that.”[/indent]
       If the mediator starts probing the defence or expressing
       opinions on its strength:
       [indent]“May I ask in what capacity you are raising that – as a
       neutral mediator or as a legal adviser to one of the parties? I
       do not expect legal opinions from the mediator. I will rely on
       my filed defence and I will set out my arguments to the judge.
       For today, my settlement position is that liability is denied
       and my offer is £0, or the claimant can discontinue with no
       order as to costs.”[/indent]
       As for your second question about tiny “tariff level”. if the
       claimant offers to settle for the original parking tariff or
       some nominal amount, you have a straight choice: principle
       versus guaranteed closure.
       If you want closure and are not absolutely wedded to principle:
       [indent]"Without any admission of liability, I am prepared to
       pay £[tariff/nominal amount] in full and final settlement of all
       claims arising from this PCN and this court claim, on the basis
       that the claimant discontinues the claim and there is no order
       as to costs.”[/indent]
       If you are driven by principle and are comfortable going as far
       as a hearing (99.9% for sure will never happen):
       [indent]“My position remains that liability is denied and my
       offer is £0, or the claimant can discontinue with no order as to
       costs.”[/indent]
       There is no hidden legal trap in accepting a trivial sum,
       provided the mediator records that it is without admission of
       liability, in full and final settlement, with the claim to be
       discontinued and no order as to costs. But it is entirely
       legitimate for you to refuse and stand on a £0 offer if that is
       your preference.
       I have already explained that this will never get as far as a
       hearing and will be either struck out or discontinued if you let
       it run its course.
       #Post#: 102330--------------------------------------------------
       Re: PCN BaySentry Solutions - No Valid Parking permit - CitiPark
       Gade Car Park, Watford
   DIR By: markeman
       Date: December 13, 2025, 11:06 am
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       Thank you [member=26]b789[/member], helpful to know the options
       #Post#: 106834--------------------------------------------------
       Re: PCN BaySentry Solutions - No Valid Parking permit - CitiPark
       Gade Car Park, Watford
   DIR By: markeman
       Date: January 21, 2026, 11:11 am
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       HM Courts Mediation call took place earlier, played out as
       described above:
       - Other party confirmed they were a Case Manager and had
       authority to settle but wouldn't provide a name on basis it's
       not required for mediation
       - He offered to settle for a slightly reduced amount than the
       amount being claimed.  I offered £0, invited to discontinue at
       no order as to costs.
       - He refused to discontinue, mediator concluded a settlement was
       not reached
       - Mediator sent email confirming attendance and advised it's up
       to 9 months wait for court to hear the case due to backlog
       Any steer on the typical wait time until the case is reviewed
       and potentially struck out?
       *****************************************************
       Page 3 of 3
   DIR Previous Page