DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Private parking tickets
*****************************************************
#Post#: 91120--------------------------------------------------
Re: Pls help draft urgent defense to County Court Claim -Beckton
DIR By: b789
Date: September 23, 2025, 10:48 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: DearyDiora link ---
>
> Having being advised to put the appeal into UKPC in this
format, in the likelihood that they will close the case given a
blue badge as evidence can be supplied, along side the confusing
and unclear bay markings.
>
> I was further advised to tick 'defend part of the claim' as
they believe it would not be a winning case? So if the judgement
was to reduce it back to the original PCN ticket cost and take
the loss that the blue badge wasn't displayed. It wasn't
something i was happy to do, but I guess I panicked and was
worried about the deadline date looming and the high costs.
>
> Oh my, same person advised me on the jurisdiction and said to
dispute this! I feel so silly to have submitted this in. Please
would you be able to explain to me how this will be handed as
all this time I believed it was at court?
--- End Quote ---
Who has given you this duff "advice" and screwed you in the
process?
You should have selected the option to defend the whole claim
and you do not dispute jurisdiction unless you are resident
outside of England or Wales.
Did you submit the Acknowledgement of Service by post or online
using the MCOL portal? How did you submit the AoS and did you
post it or use the online MCOL portal?
Please confirm whether you put anything at all in the defence
box, either online or in the paper form?
Hopefully the claimant hasn't made a CPR 11 application.
With an issue date of 4th September, you had until 4pm today to
submit your defence or, if you needed longer, submit the
Acknowledgement of Service (AoS) by today and you then have
until 4pm on Tuesday 7th October to submit your defence.
I am not sure whether MCOL will let you submit a defence now
that you've screwed up the tick boxes, but you can try and
submit the following as your defence in MCOL, if it lets you:
--- 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 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.
--- End Quote ---
What you also need to do immediately, besides answering the
questions above, is as follows:
Send a single email addressed to
ClaimResponses.CNBC[member=6517]justice[/member].gov.uk and you
CC info@dcblegal.co.uk and yourself:
--- Quote ---
> Subject: Tick-box errors – rectify under CPR 3.10; defend
claim in full – [Claim No.]
>
> Dear Sir/Madam,
>
> I refer to the AoS filed on [date]. Two tick-box errors were
made: “defend part of the claim” and “contest jurisdiction”.
> For the avoidance of doubt, no sum is admitted, the Defendant
does not contest the court’s jurisdiction, and the Defendant
intends to defend the claim in full.
>
> Please correct the record pursuant to CPR 3.10 and accept the
attached Defence for filing. If the MCOL system flag prevents
online filing, please treat the Defence as filed by email today.
>
> I have copied the Claimant’s solicitor with this
correspondence.
>
> Yours faithfully,
>
> [your full name]
--- End Quote ---
As a back up, you also attach the following copy of the defence
and draft order to that email. You sign any documents, such as
the defence below by simply typing your full name. There is
nothing other than edit in the draft order.
--- Quote ---
>
> [center]IN THE COUNTY COURT[/center]
> [right]Claim No: [Claim Number][/right]
>
> [center]BETWEEN:
>
> UK Parking Control Ltd
> Claimant
>
> - and -
>
> [Defendant's Full Name]
> 
Defendant
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------
>
> DEFENCE[/center]
>
> 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 comply with CPR
16.4.
>
> 3. The Defendant is unable to plead properly to the PoC
because:
>
> [indent](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.[/indent]
>
> 4. The Defendant attaches to this defence a copy of a draft
order approved by a district judge at another court. The court
struck out the claim of its own initiative after determining
that the Particulars of Claim failed to comply with CPR 16.4.
The judge noted that the claimant had failed to:
>
> [indent](i) Set out the exact wording of the clause (or
clauses) of the terms and conditions relied upon;
>
> (ii) Adequately explain the reasons why the defendant was
allegedly in breach of contract;
>
> (iii) Provide separate, detailed Particulars of Claim as
permitted under CPR PD 7C.5.2(2).
>
> (iv) The court further observed that, given the modest sum
claimed, requiring further case management steps would be
disproportionate and contrary to the overriding objective.
Accordingly, the judge struck out the claim outright rather than
permitting an amendment.[/indent]
>
> 5. 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 for the Claimant’s failure to comply with
CPR 16.4.
>
> Statement of truth
>
> I believe that the facts stated in this Defence are true. I
understand that proceedings for contempt of court may be brought
against anyone who makes, or causes to be made, a false
statement in a document verified by a statement of truth without
an honest belief in its truth.
>
> Signed:
>
>
> Date:[
--- End Quote ---
The draft order is here:
Draft Order for the defence
HTML https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/tcewefk7daozuje25chkl/Strikeout-order-v2.pdf?rlkey=wxnymo8mwcma2jj8xihjm7pdx&st=nbtf0cn6&dl=0
#Post#: 91123--------------------------------------------------
Re: Pls help draft urgent defense to County Court Claim -Beckton
DIR By: DWMB2
Date: September 23, 2025, 10:51 am
---------------------------------------------------------
[member=26]b789[/member], the OP notes that the AoS was sent by
post.
#Post#: 91136--------------------------------------------------
Re: Pls help draft urgent defense to County Court Claim -Beckton
DIR By: DearyDiora
Date: September 23, 2025, 11:19 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: b789 link ---
>
> [quote author=DearyDiora link=topic=8145.msg91071#msg91071
date=1758630693]
> Having being advised to put the appeal into UKPC in this
format, in the likelihood that they will close the case given a
blue badge as evidence can be supplied, along side the confusing
and unclear bay markings.
>
> I was further advised to tick 'defend part of the claim' as
they believe it would not be a winning case? So if the judgement
was to reduce it back to the original PCN ticket cost and take
the loss that the blue badge wasn't displayed. It wasn't
something i was happy to do, but I guess I panicked and was
worried about the deadline date looming and the high costs.
>
> Oh my, same person advised me on the jurisdiction and said to
dispute this! I feel so silly to have submitted this in. Please
would you be able to explain to me how this will be handed as
all this time I believed it was at court?
--- End Quote ---
Who has given you this duff "advice" and screwed you in the
process?
You should have selected the option to defend the whole claim
and you do not dispute jurisdiction unless you are resident
outside of England or Wales.
Did you submit the Acknowledgement of Service by post or online
using the MCOL portal? How did you submit the AoS and did you
post it or use the online MCOL portal?
Please confirm whether you put anything at all in the defence
box, either online or in the paper form?
Hopefully the claimant hasn't made a CPR 11 application.
With an issue date of 4th September, you had until 4pm today to
submit your defence or, if you needed longer, submit the
Acknowledgement of Service (AoS) by today and you then have
until 4pm on Tuesday 7th October to submit your defence.
I am not sure whether MCOL will let you submit a defence now
that you've screwed up the tick boxes, but you can try and
submit the following as your defence in MCOL, if it lets you:
--- 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 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.
--- End Quote ---
What you also need to do immediately, besides answering the
questions above, is as follows:
Send a single email addressed to
ClaimResponses.CNBC[member=6517]justice[/member].gov.uk and you
CC info@dcblegal.co.uk and yourself:
--- Quote ---
> Subject: Tick-box errors – rectify under CPR 3.10; defend
claim in full – [Claim No.]
>
> Dear Sir/Madam,
>
> I refer to the AoS filed on [date]. Two tick-box errors were
made: “defend part of the claim” and “contest jurisdiction”.
> For the avoidance of doubt, no sum is admitted, the Defendant
does not contest the court’s jurisdiction, and the Defendant
intends to defend the claim in full.
>
> Please correct the record pursuant to CPR 3.10 and accept the
attached Defence for filing. If the MCOL system flag prevents
online filing, please treat the Defence as filed by email today.
>
> I have copied the Claimant’s solicitor with this
correspondence.
>
> Yours faithfully,
>
> [your full name]
--- End Quote ---
As a back up, you also attach the following copy of the defence
and draft order to that email. You sign any documents, such as
the defence below by simply typing your full name. There is
nothing other than edit in the draft order.
--- Quote ---
>
> [center]IN THE COUNTY COURT[/center]
> [right]Claim No: [Claim Number][/right]
>
> [center]BETWEEN:
>
> UK Parking Control Ltd
> Claimant
>
> - and -
>
> [Defendant's Full Name]
> 
Defendant
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------
>
> DEFENCE[/center]
>
> 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 comply with CPR
16.4.
>
> 3. The Defendant is unable to plead properly to the PoC
because:
>
> [indent](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.[/indent]
>
> 4. The Defendant attaches to this defence a copy of a draft
order approved by a district judge at another court. The court
struck out the claim of its own initiative after determining
that the Particulars of Claim failed to comply with CPR 16.4.
The judge noted that the claimant had failed to:
>
> [indent](i) Set out the exact wording of the clause (or
clauses) of the terms and conditions relied upon;
>
> (ii) Adequately explain the reasons why the defendant was
allegedly in breach of contract;
>
> (iii) Provide separate, detailed Particulars of Claim as
permitted under CPR PD 7C.5.2(2).
>
> (iv) The court further observed that, given the modest sum
claimed, requiring further case management steps would be
disproportionate and contrary to the overriding objective.
Accordingly, the judge struck out the claim outright rather than
permitting an amendment.[/indent]
>
> 5. 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 for the Claimant’s failure to comply with
CPR 16.4.
>
> Statement of truth
>
> I believe that the facts stated in this Defence are true. I
understand that proceedings for contempt of court may be brought
against anyone who makes, or causes to be made, a false
statement in a document verified by a statement of truth without
an honest belief in its truth.
>
> Signed:
>
>
> Date:[
--- End Quote ---
The draft order is here:
Draft Order for the defence
HTML https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/tcewefk7daozuje25chkl/Strikeout-order-v2.pdf?rlkey=wxnymo8mwcma2jj8xihjm7pdx&st=nbtf0cn6&dl=0
[/quote]
Hi [member=26]b789[/member]
Agreed, error on the advice part given to me; point noted for
future reference, that's for sure.
In answer to your questions:
1. Did you submit the Acknowledgement of Service by post or
online using the MCOL portal? How did you submit the AoS and did
you post it or use the online MCOL portal? I did so via post
(recorded delivery) dated 19 September 2025.
Please advise if I should proceed with the email / or try online
using the MCOL portal first? I suppose I should follow it up
with the drafted email you mention below for the error and
avoidance of doubt?
2. Please confirm whether you put anything at all in the defence
box, either online or in the paper form? No, I left the defence
section blank; to be filled in with the extension date.
Should I proceed with how it stands and try upload to MCOL
portal right now? given you mentioned the acknowledgement of
service deadline to submit is today.
Many thanks and really appreciate your advice.
#Post#: 91142--------------------------------------------------
Re: Pls help draft urgent defense to County Court Claim -Beckton
DIR By: DearyDiora
Date: September 23, 2025, 11:53 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: DearyDiora link ---
>
> [quote author=b789 link=topic=8145.msg91120#msg91120
date=1758642510]
> [quote author=DearyDiora link=topic=8145.msg91071#msg91071
date=1758630693]
> Having being advised to put the appeal into UKPC in this
format, in the likelihood that they will close the case given a
blue badge as evidence can be supplied, along side the confusing
and unclear bay markings.
>
> I was further advised to tick 'defend part of the claim' as
they believe it would not be a winning case? So if the judgement
was to reduce it back to the original PCN ticket cost and take
the loss that the blue badge wasn't displayed. It wasn't
something i was happy to do, but I guess I panicked and was
worried about the deadline date looming and the high costs.
>
> Oh my, same person advised me on the jurisdiction and said to
dispute this! I feel so silly to have submitted this in. Please
would you be able to explain to me how this will be handed as
all this time I believed it was at court?
--- End Quote ---
Who has given you this duff "advice" and screwed you in the
process?
You should have selected the option to defend the whole claim
and you do not dispute jurisdiction unless you are resident
outside of England or Wales.
Did you submit the Acknowledgement of Service by post or online
using the MCOL portal? How did you submit the AoS and did you
post it or use the online MCOL portal?
Please confirm whether you put anything at all in the defence
box, either online or in the paper form?
Hopefully the claimant hasn't made a CPR 11 application.
With an issue date of 4th September, you had until 4pm today to
submit your defence or, if you needed longer, submit the
Acknowledgement of Service (AoS) by today and you then have
until 4pm on Tuesday 7th October to submit your defence.
I am not sure whether MCOL will let you submit a defence now
that you've screwed up the tick boxes, but you can try and
submit the following as your defence in MCOL, if it lets you:
--- 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 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.
--- End Quote ---
What you also need to do immediately, besides answering the
questions above, is as follows:
Send a single email addressed to
ClaimResponses.CNBC[member=6517]justice[/member].gov.uk and you
CC info@dcblegal.co.uk and yourself:
--- Quote ---
> Subject: Tick-box errors – rectify under CPR 3.10; defend
claim in full – [Claim No.]
>
> Dear Sir/Madam,
>
> I refer to the AoS filed on [date]. Two tick-box errors were
made: “defend part of the claim” and “contest jurisdiction”.
> For the avoidance of doubt, no sum is admitted, the Defendant
does not contest the court’s jurisdiction, and the Defendant
intends to defend the claim in full.
>
> Please correct the record pursuant to CPR 3.10 and accept the
attached Defence for filing. If the MCOL system flag prevents
online filing, please treat the Defence as filed by email today.
>
> I have copied the Claimant’s solicitor with this
correspondence.
>
> Yours faithfully,
>
> [your full name]
--- End Quote ---
As a back up, you also attach the following copy of the defence
and draft order to that email. You sign any documents, such as
the defence below by simply typing your full name. There is
nothing other than edit in the draft order.
--- Quote ---
>
> [center]IN THE COUNTY COURT[/center]
> [right]Claim No: [Claim Number][/right]
>
> [center]BETWEEN:
>
> UK Parking Control Ltd
> Claimant
>
> - and -
>
> [Defendant's Full Name]
> 
Defendant
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------
>
> DEFENCE[/center]
>
> 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 comply with CPR
16.4.
>
> 3. The Defendant is unable to plead properly to the PoC
because:
>
> [indent](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.[/indent]
>
> 4. The Defendant attaches to this defence a copy of a draft
order approved by a district judge at another court. The court
struck out the claim of its own initiative after determining
that the Particulars of Claim failed to comply with CPR 16.4.
The judge noted that the claimant had failed to:
>
> [indent](i) Set out the exact wording of the clause (or
clauses) of the terms and conditions relied upon;
>
> (ii) Adequately explain the reasons why the defendant was
allegedly in breach of contract;
>
> (iii) Provide separate, detailed Particulars of Claim as
permitted under CPR PD 7C.5.2(2).
>
> (iv) The court further observed that, given the modest sum
claimed, requiring further case management steps would be
disproportionate and contrary to the overriding objective.
Accordingly, the judge struck out the claim outright rather than
permitting an amendment.[/indent]
>
> 5. 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 for the Claimant’s failure to comply with
CPR 16.4.
>
> Statement of truth
>
> I believe that the facts stated in this Defence are true. I
understand that proceedings for contempt of court may be brought
against anyone who makes, or causes to be made, a false
statement in a document verified by a statement of truth without
an honest belief in its truth.
>
> Signed:
>
>
> Date:[
--- End Quote ---
The draft order is here:
Draft Order for the defence
HTML https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/tcewefk7daozuje25chkl/Strikeout-order-v2.pdf?rlkey=wxnymo8mwcma2jj8xihjm7pdx&st=nbtf0cn6&dl=0
[/quote]
Hi [member=26]b789[/member]
Agreed, error on the advice part given to me; point noted for
future reference, that's for sure.
In answer to your questions:
1. Did you submit the Acknowledgement of Service by post or
online using the MCOL portal? How did you submit the AoS and did
you post it or use the online MCOL portal? I did so via post
(recorded delivery) dated 19 September 2025.
Please advise if I should proceed with the email / or try online
using the MCOL portal first? I suppose I should follow it up
with the drafted email you mention below for the error and
avoidance of doubt?
2. Please confirm whether you put anything at all in the defence
box, either online or in the paper form? No, I left the defence
section blank; to be filled in with the extension date.
Should I proceed with how it stands and try upload to MCOL
portal right now? given you mentioned the acknowledgement of
service deadline to submit is today.
Many thanks and really appreciate your advice.
[/quote]
To add to this, I have since managed to login to MCOL and I have
submitted the Acknowledgement of Service via the portal, with
the summary page confirming I have done so (HERE):-
HTML https://1drv.ms/b/c/657cd71f0e9ce301/EWDbySA9fsdPsn-H8A4iPGkBOmV_MwE0a7ExjrlDcFlUpA?e=pFT4vo
HTML https://1drv.ms/b/c/657cd71f0e9ce301/EVCeX5Y6s91AijOL0iOh4A8B5do9GUe3Qt3SSrg9h7SBEQ?e=qWjioN
I shall be proceeding to send the email you mentioned in your
post to cover my basis on the error in case the postal form also
comes through today.
#Post#: 91154--------------------------------------------------
Re: Pls help draft urgent defense to County Court Claim -Beckton
DIR By: b789
Date: September 23, 2025, 12:19 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Please don't quote the answers you are given. It just means
having to scroll through the same stuff interminably!
If you sent your AoS by post, there it has not yet been
processed. As you have managed to submit your AOS through MCOL,
you do not need to send the email with the pdf of the defence.
Just copy and paste the MCOL defence into the MCOL webform for
the defence.
Make sure when you electronically sign any forms, statements
etc, you type your full name. Do not use initials.
#Post#: 91158--------------------------------------------------
Re: Pls help draft urgent defense to County Court Claim -Beckton
DIR By: b789
Date: September 23, 2025, 12:26 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Send a 3-line email asking the CNBC to disregard the paper AoS
if/when it arrives, so it doesn’t accidentally overwrite the
online one.
Email it to AOS.CNBC[member=6517]justice[/member].gov.uk and CC
info@ dcblegal.co.uk
--- Quote ---
> Subject: “AoS correction – please disregard paper AoS – [Claim
no.]”
>
> A paper Acknowledgment of Service posted on [date] contained
tick-box errors. A corrected AoS was submitted electronically on
MCOL on [date/time]. Please disregard the paper AoS if received.
The Defendant will defend the claim in full and does not dispute
jurisdiction.
--- End Quote ---
#Post#: 91161--------------------------------------------------
Re: Pls help draft urgent defense to County Court Claim -Beckton
DIR By: DearyDiora
Date: September 23, 2025, 12:37 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Thank you for your guidance and noted on the matter of not using
'quote'.
I've begun the defence submission online, using the defence you
provided in MCOL.
There are questions on counter claim, please could you clarify
this; if this is seeking costs, than I am not interested in that
route, but wanted to double check here first on the
clarification of this?
Also noted on the amended email to send noting the change from
paper to corrected portal submission for AoS.
#Post#: 91234--------------------------------------------------
Re: Pls help draft urgent defense to County Court Claim -Beckton
DIR By: b789
Date: September 24, 2025, 5:42 am
---------------------------------------------------------
No, you do not want to counterclaim. All you are doing is
defending the whole claim made against you.
If you wanted to counterclaim, on what basis would you want to
do so? If your only concern is "costs", what costs are those?
In small claims, the general rule is no recovery of costs for
the losing party, but CPR 27.14(2)(g) allows recovery for
unreasonable behaviour, such as a claimant pursuing a vexatious
claim or a defendant unreasonably refusing to respond to a
reasonable request. To be awarded costs, a party must apply to
the court, which then considers the conduct against the
Ridehalgh v Horsefield test of whether the behaviour "permits of
no reasonable explanation". If successful, the court can order
the unreasonable party to pay costs, subject to summary
assessment.
What constitutes unreasonable behaviour? There's no specific
definition, and each case is judged on its own facts. However,
examples could include:
[indent]• A claimant with no real prospect of success: who
brings or pursues a weak case without a reasonable explanation.
• A defendant who fails to provide a reasonable explanation for
their actions or refusal to settle a claim.
• Conduct causing unnecessary costs, such as a very late
discontinuance.[/indent]
In order to recover costs under CPR 27.14(2)(g), the party
seeking costs must apply to the court to have them assessed. The
court will consider if the conduct "permits of no reasonable
explanation".
The court will consider the specific circumstances of the case
to determine if the behaviour was unreasonable. If the court
finds unreasonable behaviour, it can then assess and order the
payment of costs, which can be a substantial amount but unlikely
in these small claims.
There are some important considerations to take into account.
The threshold for establishing unreasonable behaviour is high,
especially in the small claims track where the presumption is
generally against costs recovery.
The standard of behaviour expected from a represented party may
differ from that of a Litigant in Person (LiP).
#Post#: 93039--------------------------------------------------
Re: Pls help draft urgent defense to County Court Claim -Beckton
DIR By: DearyDiora
Date: October 6, 2025, 7:58 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Hi,
Thank you so much [member=26]b789[/member] for your guidance on
my court defense paperwork.
I have used MCOL to submit my defence and draft order as per
your guidance just now.
I note the summary status confirms this as: Your defence was
submitted on 06/10/2025 at 12:41:06.
Would you kindly let me know what are the next steps from here?
Is there a particular time-frame in which I should hear back
from the courts?
Once again, I appreciate your updates on guidance.
#Post#: 93041--------------------------------------------------
Re: Pls help draft urgent defense to County Court Claim -Beckton
DIR By: jfollows
Date: October 6, 2025, 8:06 am
---------------------------------------------------------
If you search the forum, you’ll see a lot of similar cases.
But
- Mandatory mediation
- Claimant sends you N180 Directions Questionnaire
- You submit your own N180
- Case allocated to your local court
- DCB Legal discontinues before the payment due date
*****************************************************
Page 2 of 4
DIR Previous Page
DIR Next Page