DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Private parking tickets
*****************************************************
#Post#: 92151--------------------------------------------------
Claim form dcb legal
DIR By: Sel1700
Date: September 30, 2025, 6:35 am
---------------------------------------------------------
I have received this in the post. I'm not sure about the actual
parking and I may have had a letter that I ignored from dcb
legal. Should I fight this?
#Post#: 92167--------------------------------------------------
Re: Claim form dcb legal
DIR By: jfollows
Date: September 30, 2025, 7:56 am
---------------------------------------------------------
HTML https://www.ftla.uk/private-parking-tickets/read-this-first-private-parking-charges-forum-guide/
Without this information we’d only be guessing and unable to
give you good advice.
#Post#: 92218--------------------------------------------------
Re: Claim form dcb legal
DIR By: b789
Date: September 30, 2025, 12:11 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: Sel1700 link ---
>
> I have received this in the post. I'm not sure about the
actual parking and I may have had a letter that I ignored from
dcb legal. Should I fight this?
>
--- End Quote ---
Your post is as informative as "how long is a piece of string"?
However, any claim issued by DCB Legal is easily defended and
will in 99.9% of cases, either be struck out or discontinued in
due course if you follow the advice you receive here.
Before we can give any further advice, host an image of the
N1SDT Claim Form (only) with the Particulars of Claim (PoC) and
tell us the issue date of the claim.
#Post#: 92411--------------------------------------------------
Re: Claim form dcb legal
DIR By: Sel1700
Date: October 1, 2025, 12:58 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
HTML https://ibb.co/LDNfY77n
sorry I thought I had posted it. this is
the letter of claim.
#Post#: 92425--------------------------------------------------
Re: Claim form dcb legal
DIR By: b789
Date: October 1, 2025, 2:27 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
With an issue date of 23ed September you have until 4pm on
Monday 13th October to submit your defence. If you submit an
Acknowledgement of Service (AoS) before then, you would then
have until 4pm on Monday 27th October 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 ---
> 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 ---
#Post#: 94701--------------------------------------------------
Re: Claim form dcb legal
DIR By: Sel1700
Date: October 19, 2025, 9:38 am
---------------------------------------------------------
thank you I've submitted the defense on the mcol website. seemed
straight forward.
*****************************************************
Page 1 of 1