DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Private parking tickets
*****************************************************
#Post#: 100338--------------------------------------------------
Re: PARKINGEYE/DCB LEGAL Mediation
DIR By: H C Andersen
Date: November 29, 2025, 1:05 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
What remedy are you seeking?
This has nothing to do with the substantive issue of the
validity of your parking charge notice, so what are you
pursuing?
And, I'm tempted to ask, why? Surely your primary focus is on
defending yourself?
#Post#: 100366--------------------------------------------------
Re: PARKINGEYE/DCB LEGAL Mediation
DIR By: b789
Date: November 30, 2025, 2:59 am
---------------------------------------------------------
With all due respect, this complaint is about the fact these
HMCTS mediators are not legally trained and, in bulk parking
cases, they end up speaking to the same “litigation support”
staff from the bulk firms day in, day out. That can lead to them
becoming a bit too chummy and accepting things (like anonymous
representatives) that no court would tolerate, while being
dismissive when a litigant in person questions it.
What is being sought here is that this particular mediation
wasn’t handled properly, an assurance it will be used for
training so others aren’t put in the same position, and a
correction of any internal note that might suggest the defendant
refused to engage with mediation when in fact they were
objecting to the process, not walking away.
We already know that this claim is going to be discontinued just
before the £27 trial has to be paid. No one is worried about the
claim as it has been defended. DCB Legal have no intention of
taking this all the way to a hearing.
So, as we are complaining about the issues with the mediator, I
advise the following Stage 3 response, which will let them know
that you are not a pushover, it has been noted that some
mediators are not doing their job properly and they need to get
their house in order:
--- Quote ---
> Subject: Request for Stage 3 Review – Mediation Complaint
(Ref: [insert])
>
> Dear User Investigations Team,
>
> I request a Stage 3 review of my complaint concerning the
mediation appointment of 27 October 2025. I remain dissatisfied
with the Stage 2 response provided by Ms A Lee. I set out below
the parts of that response I do not agree with and wish to be
reviewed.
>
> 1. The mediator’s opening and impartiality were not properly
addressed
> The Stage 2 response states only that the mediator “relayed
the details of the claim” after explaining their role. My
complaint was that the mediator delivered a narrative of the
claimant’s reasons for pursuing the claim, which went beyond
relay and appeared as advocacy. This point was not evaluated; it
was simply stated that the mediator followed process. I request
review of whether it is appropriate for a mediator to present
one party’s motivations in detail before hearing the other party
at all.
>
> 2. Failure to address the refusal of the claimant’s
representative to identify themselves
> The Stage 2 response says neither party is required to confirm
attendance details to the other. My complaint is not about a
requirement but about the mediator accepting a refusal to
provide identity when asked. The mediator did not merely “share
what was authorised”; they relayed that the representative
refused to identify themselves. This has implications for
fairness and transparency. This issue was not dealt with and
requires review.
>
> 3. Confidentiality was applied incorrectly to justify refusing
to record procedural matters
> The Stage 2 response repeats that mediation is confidential
but does not address the specific concern: the mediator refused
to record even the procedural fact that the claimant’s
representative would not identify themselves. Confidentiality is
about the content of negotiations, not about suppressing
procedural irregularities. I request a review of whether
“confidentiality” was applied correctly in this context.
>
> 4. Mischaracterisation of the reason the call ended
> The Stage 2 response says mediation “cannot continue” once a
defendant disputes the claim. This is factually incorrect. HMCTS
mediators deal with many cases where the defendant disputes
liability; mediation proceeds unless both parties refuse to make
any offer. My position was that I would not negotiate with an
unidentified representative. That is materially different from
refusing mediation outright. The Stage 2 response incorrectly
states the call ended because I disputed the claim. I request
review of this mischaracterisation because it affects fairness
and accuracy of the mediation record.
>
> 5. Stage 2 did not address the mediator’s refusal to relay my
stated position
> The mediator refused to relay my position (“liability denied;
£0 offer; claimant’s representative has not confirmed their
identity or authority”). The Stage 2 response does not address
this at all. This is a central procedural failure, and I request
it be reviewed.
>
> For the above reasons, I ask that my complaint be fully
reviewed at Stage 3.
>
> Yours sincerely,
>
> [Name]
> [Address / Email]
--- End Quote ---
#Post#: 100588--------------------------------------------------
Re: PARKINGEYE/DCB LEGAL Mediation
DIR By: c4733
Date: December 1, 2025, 3:00 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Once again, thank you for your support in this matter
[member=26]b789[/member] and drafting something substantial that
I can fire back at them with; I hope this will help others too
in a similar position. I will report the outcome to Stage 3
complaint once I hear from HMCTS. :)
#Post#: 100795--------------------------------------------------
Re: PARKINGEYE/DCB LEGAL Mediation
DIR By: c4733
Date: December 3, 2025, 3:51 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Stage 3 mediation complaint email sent. Will update in due
course with the outcome.
#Post#: 102116--------------------------------------------------
Re: PARKINGEYE/DCB LEGAL Mediation
DIR By: c4733
Date: December 12, 2025, 1:55 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Hi all,
Here is an update to my case. I have recieved a "Notice of
Allocation to the Small Claims Track (Hearing" letter from my
local County Court the other day. The hearing date has been
listed for end of January 2026.
WITNESS STATEMENTS must be provided by all parties by 2nd
January 2026.
HEARING FEE of £27.00 must be paid by the claimant by 25th
Demcember 2025. If the claimant fails to pay the fee or apply
for help the claim will be struck out.
MEDIATION DIRECTIONS (This made me chuckle given I have raised a
complaint with the help of yourselves. ;D )
Not suitable for mediation (eg RTA's DVLA cases, Income Tax
cases) or already mediated at Salford.
The rest of the information on the letter is nonsense to write
about, but I shall upload the letters for all to see obviously
redacting any personal information from it.
Of course I am hoping it will be struck out and we won't have to
attend the hearing but this is wishful thinking. Any advice to
the information above is always welcomed?
What is the best way to upload the information to here and how?
#Post#: 102117--------------------------------------------------
Re: PARKINGEYE/DCB LEGAL Mediation
DIR By: jfollows
Date: December 12, 2025, 2:44 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Try the cunningly hidden
HTML https://www.ftla.uk/private-parking-tickets/read-this-first-private-parking-charges-forum-guide/<br
/>which refers to
HTML https://www.ftla.uk/announcements/posting-images/#new
Expect the case to be discontinued before Christmas, DCB Legal
will not pay the £27 fee. As in Reply #16 above.
#Post#: 102136--------------------------------------------------
Re: PARKINGEYE/DCB LEGAL Mediation
DIR By: b789
Date: December 12, 2025, 5:16 am
---------------------------------------------------------
The one critical deadline you have not told us is the date by
which all parties are to submit their documents the they will be
relying on, such as Witness Statements etc. It is usually hidden
in tiny print and more often than not is 14 days before the
hearing date, but could be earlier or later.
However, I am still prepared to bet that they will discontinue
just before the trial fee deadline, Xmas day!
#Post#: 102137--------------------------------------------------
Re: PARKINGEYE/DCB LEGAL Mediation
DIR By: jfollows
Date: December 12, 2025, 5:28 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote ---
> WITNESS STATEMENTS must be provided by all parties by 2nd
January 2026.
--- End Quote ---
#Post#: 102157--------------------------------------------------
Re: PARKINGEYE/DCB LEGAL Mediation
DIR By: b789
Date: December 12, 2025, 6:51 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Doh! Can't see the wood for the trees! Yup, you will receive a
nice little Xmas present in the form of an N279.
#Post#: 102620--------------------------------------------------
Re: PARKINGEYE/DCB LEGAL Mediation
DIR By: c4733
Date: December 16, 2025, 4:15 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Besides the silly phone calls you receive from DCB Legal, which
I quite happily ignore, you also receive begging emails as well.
Thought I would share this recent communication I received
yesterday from them so others know what to expect.
——————————————————————-
Good afternoon,
We write in relation to the above matter.
WITHOUT PREJUDICE
Our client is prepared to make an offer to potentially conclude
this matter. We ask that you call us on 0203 838 7038 to discuss
this further.
We look forward to hearing from you.
Kind Regards,
Jemma Slater
Trainee CILEX Paralegal
DCB Legal Ltd
Tel: 0203 838 7038 | DX 23457 RUNCORN
———————————————————————
Of course like every piece of communication I have received from
them since the day this all started, I ignored it! ;D
*****************************************************
Page 3 of 4
DIR Previous Page
DIR Next Page