DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Private parking tickets
*****************************************************
#Post#: 96308--------------------------------------------------
Re: Smart Parking/DCB Legal LoC for incident in 2021
By: bishbashbosh Date: October 31, 2025, 7:40 am
---------------------------------------------------------
[img width=640
height=887]
HTML https://i.ibb.co/TqNYk6Nt/IMG-2784.jpg[/img]
HTML https://ibb.co/vvMVHpMk
#Post#: 96340--------------------------------------------------
Re: Smart Parking/DCB Legal LoC for incident in 2021
By: b789 Date: October 31, 2025, 11:04 am
---------------------------------------------------------
With an issue date of 28th October you have until 4pm on Monday
17th November to submit your defence. If you submit an
Acknowledgement of Service (AoS) before then, you would then
have until 4pm on Monday 1st 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
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][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 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.[/font][/quote]
#Post#: 96384--------------------------------------------------
Re: Smart Parking/DCB Legal LoC for incident in 2021
By: bishbashbosh Date: October 31, 2025, 5:57 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Thank you.
#Post#: 100541--------------------------------------------------
Re: Smart Parking/DCB Legal LoC for incident in 2021
By: bishbashbosh Date: December 1, 2025, 10:02 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Thanks again for your previous help. The above was sent and
we’ve been awaiting a response. Received the attached email from
DCB Legal under the heading “Bulk Litigation” (which is humorous
in some way). Form N180 was also attached.
I assume this is part of a last ditch effort to achieve a
settlement; having already been paid and instructed by Smart
Parking they have every incentive to continue on. They never
provided any evidence that they had followed POFA in regard to
keeper liability etc. as their claim did not specify their
intended course of action. Any advice other than to play out the
string?
[img width=587
height=839]
HTML https://i.ibb.co/xtQc29Ky/IMG-2803.jpg[/img]
HTML https://ibb.co/JwPbc6WN
#Post#: 100561--------------------------------------------------
Re: Smart Parking/DCB Legal LoC for incident in 2021
By: b789 Date: December 1, 2025, 11:36 am
---------------------------------------------------------
All standard boilerplate. It's just a copy of their N180
Directions Questionnaire. Just read on...
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:
[indent]• 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.[/indent]
When you have completed the form, attach it to a single email
addressed to both dq.cnbc[member=6517]justice[/member].gov.uk
and [claimant to their legal representative]and CC in yourself.
Make sure that the claim number is in the subject field of the
email.
#Post#: 100604--------------------------------------------------
Re: Smart Parking/DCB Legal LoC for incident in 202
By: bishbashbosh Date: December 1, 2025, 4:21 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Many thanks. I have not received anything from MCOL or via post
just yet. Expect it this week.
One question, is it *likely* that signalling a desire to have
the case heard will result in a hearing? Obviously, it’s
understood that signalling this opens up the possibility.
In other reading I’ve done on the matter, mediation is often
described as the eventual endpoint. Is the challenge to have it
heard an attempt to put paid to their lack of specific
documentation, I.e. to call their bluff? I’m just trying to
understand the logic behind this strategy.
#Post#: 100605--------------------------------------------------
Re: Smart Parking/DCB Legal LoC for incident in 202
By: DWMB2 Date: December 1, 2025, 4:35 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote author=bishbashbosh link=topic=7442.msg100604#msg100604
date=1764627706]
One question, is it *likely* that signalling a desire to have
the case heard will result in a hearing? Obviously, it’s
understood that signalling this opens up the possibility.
[/quote]
It increases the chances of a hearing, which is one of the
reasons it increases the chances of them discontinuing.
If you opt for an in-person hearing and they proceed, they'll
have to spend the money to send someone to your local county
court to argue their case. If you agree for the case to be heard
on the papers, this suits the claimant, as their solicitors can
simply submit written evidence and have the matter decided by a
judge without them having to turn up.
[quote author=bishbashbosh link=topic=7442.msg100604#msg100604
date=1764627706]
In other reading I’ve done on the matter, mediation is often
described as the eventual endpoint.[/quote]
Mediation is only the endpoint if both parties agree to a
settlement, which, given your position is that you owe nothing,
is unlikely.
#Post#: 100628--------------------------------------------------
Re: Smart Parking/DCB Legal LoC for incident in 202
By: bishbashbosh Date: December 2, 2025, 1:25 am
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote author=DWMB2 link=topic=7442.msg100605#msg100605
date=1764628544]
[quote author=bishbashbosh link=topic=7442.msg100604#msg100604
date=1764627706]
One question, is it *likely* that signalling a desire to have
the case heard will result in a hearing? Obviously, it’s
understood that signalling this opens up the possibility.
[/quote]
It increases the chances of a hearing, which is one of the
reasons it increases the chances of them discontinuing.
If you opt for an in-person hearing and they proceed, they'll
have to spend the money to send someone to your local county
court to argue their case. If you agree for the case to be heard
on the papers, this suits the claimant, as their solicitors can
simply submit written evidence and have the matter decided by a
judge without them having to turn up.
[quote author=bishbashbosh link=topic=7442.msg100604#msg100604
date=1764627706]
In other reading I’ve done on the matter, mediation is often
described as the eventual endpoint.[/quote]
Mediation is only the endpoint if both parties agree to a
settlement, which, given your position is that you owe nothing,
is unlikely.
[/quote]
This makes sense. Thanks.
#Post#: 100667--------------------------------------------------
Re: Smart Parking/DCB Legal LoC for incident in 2021
By: b789 Date: December 2, 2025, 7:31 am
---------------------------------------------------------
I will bet you £100 that this will NEVER reach a hearing. DCB
Legal NEVER go as far as a hearing is the claim is defended.
Their MO is to take this as far as allocation to your local
county court and then discontinue just before they have to pay
the £27 trial fee. They work on the assumption that you are
low-hanging fruit on the gullible tree and can be intimidated
into paying out of ignorance and fear. If you don't, then they
move on to their next victim.
#Post#: 100759--------------------------------------------------
Re: Smart Parking/DCB Legal LoC for incident in 2021
By: bishbashbosh Date: December 2, 2025, 2:05 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote author=b789 link=topic=7442.msg100667#msg100667
date=1764682316]
I will bet you £100 that this will NEVER reach a hearing. DCB
Legal NEVER go as far as a hearing is the claim is defended.
Their MO is to take this as far as allocation to your local
county court and then discontinue just before they have to pay
the £27 trial fee. They work on the assumption that you are
low-hanging fruit on the gullible tree and can be intimidated
into paying out of ignorance and fear. If you don't, then they
move on to their next victim.
[/quote]
I won’t take you up on that bet. This sounds about right from
what I can see and have learned along the way. I do very much
appreciate all your assistance here and, having not been through
this exact scenario before, your confidence is reassuring
against the niggles of doubt I sometimes have. Stay the course!
*****************************************************
DIR Next Page