DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Private parking tickets
*****************************************************
#Post#: 83054--------------------------------------------------
MCOL received - assistance required
By: Unknown_Driver? Date: July 28, 2025, 4:15 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Hi, I`m a newbie & have read the recommended notes for users new
to this forum.
I would appreciate someone who has the legal knowledge to take a
peek at my recently arrived POC & to then advise necessary.
I shall definitely be preparing a defence and do require further
advice.
Thanks.
#Post#: 83058--------------------------------------------------
Re: MCOL received - assistance required
By: DWMB2 Date: July 28, 2025, 4:18 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Once you've uploaded them, and any other relevant documents at
backstory as per READ THIS FIRST - Private Parking Charges Forum
guide
HTML https://www.ftla.uk/private-parking-tickets/read-this-first-private-parking-charges-forum-guide/<br
/>then we will advise.
#Post#: 83074--------------------------------------------------
Re: MCOL received - assistance required
By: Unknown_Driver? Date: July 28, 2025, 6:19 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Hi
Here is the POC.
Apologies as my scanner was acting naughty, so my first post did
not include it.[attach=1]
[attachment deleted by admin]
#Post#: 83079--------------------------------------------------
Re: MCOL received - assistance required
By: Unknown_Driver? Date: July 28, 2025, 6:27 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Backstory:-
I received this Claim after previous letters from DCBL.
The facts surrounding their claim I am sure will be backed up
with as much evidence as they have already collected, including
camera footage, their client operating on so called private land
etc...so I do not feel any added value trying to go down that
road as it may well be wasted.
I am not going to go into any further details about this
company, as I am very aware they scrutinise these forums.
I am just planning to produce the most relevant defence, which
will hopefully halt this pending legal action.
#Post#: 83090--------------------------------------------------
Re: MCOL received - assistance required
By: Unknown_Driver? Date: July 28, 2025, 7:13 am
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote author=Unknown_Driver? link=topic=7434.msg83074#msg83074
date=1753701559]
Hi
Here is the POC.
Apologies as my scanner was acting naughty, so my first post did
not include it.[attach=1]
[/quote]
Also, as per my upload, the POC does not give full explicit
details of the location, just a certain type of car park in a
Town but without a post-code. Not sure if this gives a defence
any added weight?
#Post#: 83093--------------------------------------------------
Re: MCOL received - assistance required
By: b789 Date: July 28, 2025, 7:16 am
---------------------------------------------------------
What is the issue date of the claim?
#Post#: 83101--------------------------------------------------
Re: MCOL received - assistance required
By: Unknown_Driver? Date: July 28, 2025, 7:23 am
---------------------------------------------------------
I am estimating, based on the Claim Date, the AOS needs to be
reached to MCOL by 06/08/2025 & defence 14 days after. I am
unsure about current timescales for submitting anything through
MCOL. If it is a live system, surely the date you submit, should
also be the accepted date of receipt?
My concern regarding stipulating dates of claim on my post, are
that the Claimant may well have their spreadsheet (Court Claims)
in view, which may tally with dates we state on this forum.
Yes, I am sure they have seen lots of defences published, and
then may well alter their own tactics going forward. But if
there is an obvious weakness to their legal argument & the date
of claim will not affect their tactics, then I can state it.
#Post#: 83104--------------------------------------------------
Re: MCOL received - assistance required
By: b789 Date: July 28, 2025, 7:28 am
---------------------------------------------------------
You can take off your tin-foil hat, if you are imagining someone
monitoring this in order to somehow trip you up. Even if there
was, what on earth do you imagine they could do about it? They
are going to receive the defence anyway!
Working on the assumption that it was no earlier than 21st July,
then consider the following:
With an issue date of 21st July, you have until 4pm on Monday
11th August to submit your defence. If you submit an
Acknowledgement of Service (AoS) before then, you would then
have until 4pm on Tuesday 26th August 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
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][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 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.[/font][/quote]
#Post#: 83116--------------------------------------------------
Re: MCOL received - assistance required
By: Unknown_Driver? Date: July 28, 2025, 8:24 am
---------------------------------------------------------
I see your point regards stating dates, but my point was that
they have adequate time after receiving the AOS, to possibly
then "divert" their already made points/arguments. I guess 28
days is going to be very adequate for them anyway, whether or
not they realise the defence they read on here is for one of
their live cases.
I shall use this, thank you.
I had spent many days/weeks studying similar cases and the
associated arguments/defences, prior to this Claim Form
arriving, so only had a basic idea which was the best direction
to go in.
I have had previous use of the Courts in cases involving
Consumer Credit Law, but these private parking companies require
further regulation moving towards a full Government regulatory
law, along with a Statutory Code of Practice. What we currently
have, appears not to be fully supportive on the side of the
driver.
I shall post again after I have submitted my defence.
#Post#: 83121--------------------------------------------------
Re: MCOL received - assistance required
By: b789 Date: July 28, 2025, 8:45 am
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote author=Unknown_Driver? link=topic=7434.msg83116#msg83116
date=1753709048]
...then "divert" their already made points/arguments.
[/quote]
What do you mean? These unregulated private parking firms issue
over 40,000 PCN's a day. It was over 12 million last year. Many
hundreds of thousands of county court claims were issued.
Once claim is issued, they cannot change the Particulars of
Claim (PoC). In the vast majority of the claims we see, the PoC
are deficient and don't comply with CPR 16.4. The majority of
claims issued are not responded to or defended resulting in CCJs
in default.
The tip of the iceberg we see here, is not indicative of the
problem. However, if you really think that these firms employ
people to scour forums for specific cases in the hope that
something will be revealed that they can then use to somehow
divert the course of the claim, you really need to think this
through a bit more.
[img width=700 height=700]
HTML https://i.imgur.com/0s1wly4.jpeg[/img]
*****************************************************
DIR Next Page