DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Private parking tickets
*****************************************************
#Post#: 86545--------------------------------------------------
COURT CLAIM FORM DCB LEGAL and was not the driver please help
DIR By: regis
Date: August 20, 2025, 12:18 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
hi thanks to everyone, I have tried to gather as much knowledge
as possible
from the forum, I have filed an AOS. but I now have 5 days
remaining to file
a defence, i've looked through the forum with loads of defences
but not sure
of they apply to me. I have received a claim form for which I
replied to with
an acknowledgment of service so now have 5 days left to file a
defence and need
some help.<p>
particulars of claim are as follows:</p><p>
Particulars of Claim</p><p>
1. The Defendant (D) is indebted to the Claimant (C) for a
Parking Charge(s)</p>
(PC) issued to vehicle 7XLVLV at Wickes Hertford Road Barking
Essex, IG11 8BL.
2. The dates of contravention are 14/01/2025 and D was issued
with (PC)s by
the Claimant
3. The Defendant is pursued as the driver of the vehicle for
breach of the
terms on the signs (the contract). Reason:Exceeding The Maximum
Duration
Of Stay Permitted At.
4. In the alternative the Defendant is pursued as the keeper
pursuant to
POFA 2012, Schedule 4.
AND THE CLAIMANT CLAIMS
1. £170 being the total of the PC(s) and damages.
2. Interest at a rate of 8% per annum pursuant to s.69 of the
County Courts
Act 1984 from the date hereof at a daily rate of £0.03 until
judgment or
sooner payment.
3. Costs and court fees
Issue Date 22 JUL 2025
Amount claimed 176.40
Court fee 35.00
Legal representative's costs 50.00
Total amount 261.40
thanks to anyone that can help me urgently.
#Post#: 86605--------------------------------------------------
Re: COURT CLAIM FORM DCB LEGAL and was not the driver please
help
DIR By: b789
Date: August 21, 2025, 3:25 am
---------------------------------------------------------
What is the issue date of the claim? On what date did you submit
the AoS and how did you submit it? Who is the Caimnat?
Once you have answered these questions, we can provide the
advice you need to submit the defence.
#Post#: 86651--------------------------------------------------
Re: COURT CLAIM FORM DCB LEGAL and was not the driver please
help
DIR By: regis
Date: August 21, 2025, 8:08 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Thank you for your swift response.
--- Quote from: b789 link ---
>
> What is the issue date of the claim?
> Issue Date 22 JUL 2025
>
> On what date did you submit the AoS and how did you submit it?
> AoS submitted on 07/08/2025 via MCOL - Money Claim Online
>
> Who is the Claimant?
> G24 Limited
>
> Once you have answered these questions, we can provide the
advice you need to submit the defence.
>
--- End Quote ---
#Post#: 86669--------------------------------------------------
Re: COURT CLAIM FORM DCB LEGAL and was not the driver please
help
DIR By: b789
Date: August 21, 2025, 10:36 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Can you confirm whether they are representing themselves or are
they using DCB Legal?
#Post#: 86671--------------------------------------------------
Re: COURT CLAIM FORM DCB LEGAL and was not the driver please
help
DIR By: b789
Date: August 21, 2025, 10:41 am
---------------------------------------------------------
With an issue date of 22nd July and having submitted an AoS on
7th August, you have until 4pm on Tuesday 26th August to submit
the defence.
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 ---
> 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. For the avoidance of doubt, even if the phrase “Vehicle not
permitted & grace period exceeded” were taken to be a minimal
compliance with CPR 16.4(1)(a), the PoC remain defective. The
Defendant is unable to plead properly to the PoC because:
>
> (a) The claim is put on a contractual footing but no written
terms are pleaded or exhibited, contrary to 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 pleaded bases are internally inconsistent (“vehicle
not permitted” vs “grace period exceeded”): either parking was
prohibited (no contractual offer) or it was permitted subject to
terms; it cannot be both.;
>
> (d) No period of parking is pleaded, nor facts explaining how
any breach is said to have occurred (a timestamp alone is
insufficient);
>
> (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#: 86813--------------------------------------------------
Re: COURT CLAIM FORM DCB LEGAL and was not the driver please
help
DIR By: regis
Date: August 22, 2025, 11:24 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: b789 link ---
>
> Can you confirm whether they are representing themselves or
are they using DCB Legal?
>
--- End Quote ---
Claimant
G24 LIMITED
2-4 PACKHORSE ROAD
GERRARDS CROSS
SL9 7QE
Address for sending documents and payments (if different)
DCB LEGAL LTD - 0330 1744 172
DIRECT HOUSE, GREENWOOD DRIVE
RUNCORN
WA7 1UG
#Post#: 86819--------------------------------------------------
Re: COURT CLAIM FORM DCB LEGAL and was not the driver please
help
DIR By: b789
Date: August 22, 2025, 11:55 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Good. That means that G24 don't believe they have much chance
should it go to a hearing, which is why they have farmed it over
to DCB Legal to deal with.
Using the provided defence, the likelihood is greater than 99%
for sure that this will be struck out or discontinued.
#Post#: 86877--------------------------------------------------
Re: COURT CLAIM FORM DCB LEGAL and was not the driver please
help
DIR By: regis
Date: August 23, 2025, 5:32 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: b789 link ---
>
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------
> defence particulars pasted in to the relevant text input field
box on MCOL with 33 lines remaining.
>
> defence submitted on 22 August 2025.
>
> absolutely grateful to b789
HTML https://www.ftla.uk/index.php?topic=7746.msg86671#msg86671
>
> are you originally from pepipoo or another forum / medium?
>
--- End Quote ---
*****************************************************
Page 1 of 1