DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Private parking tickets
*****************************************************
#Post#: 84978--------------------------------------------------
Re: DCB Legal - Parking Charge - Claim Form
DIR By: b789
Date: August 10, 2025, 6:57 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Just follow this advice... With an issue date of 6th August you
have until 4pm on Tuesday 26th August to submit your defence. If
you submit an Acknowledgement of Service (AoS) before then, you
would then have until 4pm on Monday 8th September 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 ---
If it is not struck out, they will discontinue before they have
to pay the £59 trial fee.
#Post#: 84999--------------------------------------------------
Re: DCB Legal - Parking Charge - Claim Form
DIR By: Gardener
Date: August 10, 2025, 9:10 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: b789 link ---
>
> Just follow this advice...
>
--- End Quote ---
Many, many thanks b789
HTML https://www.ftla.uk/index.php?action=profile;u=26
I have submitted the defence via Money Claim Online
HTML https://i.imgur.com/xWw4BGi.jpeg
#Post#: 85000--------------------------------------------------
Re: DCB Legal - Parking Charge - Claim Form
DIR By: Gardener
Date: August 10, 2025, 9:11 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Thank you to everyone for your replies and your time looking at
this.
#Post#: 85001--------------------------------------------------
Re: DCB Legal - Parking Charge - Claim Form
DIR By: b789
Date: August 10, 2025, 9:16 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Can you please show us what the defence looks like as a PDF and
Plain Text from the links in the MCOL. We don't have access to
see how they finally look in either format. Just redact any
personal info such as your name and the claim number if
necessary.
#Post#: 85005--------------------------------------------------
Re: DCB Legal - Parking Charge - Claim Form
DIR By: Gardener
Date: August 10, 2025, 10:09 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: b789 link ---
>
> Can you please show us what the defence looks like as a PDF...
>
--- End Quote ---
Absolutely, this is the PDF style (4 pages):
Page 1
HTML https://i.imgur.com/T0SRW7t.jpeg
Page 2
HTML https://i.imgur.com/o4eOnNh.jpeg
Page 3
HTML https://i.imgur.com/RNSeHWs.jpeg
Page 4
HTML https://i.imgur.com/51QxSYI.jpeg
#Post#: 85007--------------------------------------------------
Re: DCB Legal - Parking Charge - Claim Form
DIR By: Gardener
Date: August 10, 2025, 10:12 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Plain Text Defence:
---------------------------------------------------------
Defence and Counterclaim
Claim number
************
Claimant
Smart Parking Limited
Defendant
************
How much of the claim do you dispute?
I dispute the full amount claimed as shown on the claim form.
Do you dispute this claim because you have already paid it?
No, for other reasons.
Defence
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.
Signed
I am the Defendant - I believe that the facts stated in this
form are true
************
10/08/2025
Defendant's date of birth
**************
Address to which notices about this claim can be sent to you
************
Telephone number
************
E-mail
***********
#Post#: 85016--------------------------------------------------
Re: DCB Legal - Parking Charge - Claim Form
DIR By: b789
Date: August 10, 2025, 12:21 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Thank you. That is interesting. I am wondering how the defence
would look if I didn't line break each line separately. It used
to be that the defence when entered using MCOL lost all
formatting. However, it appears to keep some semblance of
formatting these days.
#Post#: 86220--------------------------------------------------
Re: DCB Legal - Parking Charge - Claim Form
DIR By: Gardener
Date: August 18, 2025, 3:06 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Update showing acknowledgement of defence from the court
(received a week after the date of the letter):
HTML https://i.imgur.com/F5dcben.jpeg
#Post#: 89571--------------------------------------------------
Re: DCB Legal - Parking Charge - Claim Form
DIR By: Gardener
Date: September 11, 2025, 4:35 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Here is a brief update: email received from DCB Legal:
HTML https://i.imgur.com/vqdQlOJ.png
#Post#: 89579--------------------------------------------------
Re: DCB Legal - Parking Charge - Claim Form
DIR By: b789
Date: September 12, 2025, 2:13 am
---------------------------------------------------------
All normal and as expected. Wait for your N180 Directions
Questionnaire (DQ).
Having received your own N180 (make sure it is not simply a copy
of the claimants N180), do not use the paper form. Ignore all
the other forms that came with it. you can discard those.
Download your own 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 info@dcblegal.co.uk and CC in yourself. Make sure that the
claim number is in the subject field of the email.
*****************************************************
Page 2 of 3
DIR Previous Page
DIR Next Page