DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Private parking tickets
*****************************************************
#Post#: 96425--------------------------------------------------
N180T received courtesy of DCB Legal - Snowdon Car Park 2020
DIR By: ferret
Date: November 1, 2025, 7:27 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Morning folk
I've received the attached N180T relating to an "issue" that
occurred over 5 years ago. We paid the parking fee but the
machine swallowed the cash without issuing a ticket. I replied
to the initial PCN issued at the time stating that full fees had
been paid and never got a reply. Started receiving the
threatening letters some 4 years later and ignored them.
Is there a standard reply I send back to CNBC?
[img]
HTML https://ibb.co/20CH5xNW[/img]
Thanks[img]
HTML https://postimg.cc/PppM8vNv[/img]
[img]
HTML https://www.imagebam.com/view/ME17B5KC[/img]
#Post#: 96426--------------------------------------------------
Re: N180T received courtesy of DCB Legal - Snowdon Car Park 2020
DIR By: jfollows
Date: November 1, 2025, 7:30 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Attached?
HTML https://www.ftla.uk/private-parking-tickets/read-this-first-private-parking-charges-forum-guide/
N180SDT?
N1SDT
#Post#: 96428--------------------------------------------------
Re: N180T received courtesy of DCB Legal - Snowdon Car Park 2020
DIR By: ferret
Date: November 1, 2025, 7:34 am
---------------------------------------------------------
I'm trying, but none of the three suggested image sites seems to
work. The post has a link for all three in it but no picture is
appearing? Let's try it as just a link.
HTML https://www.imagebam.com/view/ME17B5KC
#Post#: 96435--------------------------------------------------
Re: N180T received courtesy of DCB Legal - Snowdon Car Park 2020
DIR By: jfollows
Date: November 1, 2025, 9:46 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Link is fine.
Can you post the PCN and your reply?
At least, did you identify the driver in the latter?
#Post#: 96436--------------------------------------------------
Re: N180T received courtesy of DCB Legal - Snowdon Car Park 2020
DIR By: ferret
Date: November 1, 2025, 9:49 am
---------------------------------------------------------
I'm afraid I can't - any original documentation was from over 5
years ago. I'd forgotten all about it until I started getting
letters earlier this year from various companies.
The one thing I do remember following was the advice not to
identify the driver.
#Post#: 96467--------------------------------------------------
Re: N180T received courtesy of DCB Legal - Snowdon Car Park 2020
DIR By: b789
Date: November 1, 2025, 2:53 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Follow the advice and you won't be paying a penny to (not so)
Smart Parking.
With an issue date of 28th October you have until 4pm on Monday
17th November to submit your defence. If you submit an
Acknowledgement of Service (AoS) before then, you would then
have until 4pm on Monday 1st December 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
MCOL CPR16.4 only 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. 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#: 96469--------------------------------------------------
Re: N180T received courtesy of DCB Legal - Snowdon Car Park 2020
DIR By: ferret
Date: November 1, 2025, 3:19 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Excellent.
Many many thanks and I'll report back on the outcome.
#Post#: 115893--------------------------------------------------
Re: N180T received courtesy of DCB Legal - Snowdon Car Park 2020
DIR By: ferret
Date: April 14, 2026, 3:45 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Update
So I went through the rigmarole of saying no to mediation and
requested a local court date. That was set for next month and we
awaited the payment of the court fee by the claimant.
Final outcome, they withdrew the day before they had to pay the
court fee. Letter received today from "DCB Legal" stating that
"Our client has instructed us to discontinue Court proceedings
and close the file"
I understand that I can now claim expenses against the claimant
- has anyone pursued this angle?
#Post#: 115920--------------------------------------------------
Re: N180T received courtesy of DCB Legal - Snowdon Car Park 2020
DIR By: DWMB2
Date: April 15, 2026, 2:35 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Costs on the small claims track are very limited even if it goes
all the way to a hearing.
You'd need to convince the court that the claimant had behaved
unreasonably - this is a high bar, and on the face of it,
discontinuing is not inherently unreasonable.
You could always write to the court and ask, but they'll
probably insist you make an application, for which you'd have to
pay.
#Post#: 115924--------------------------------------------------
Re: N180T received courtesy of DCB Legal - Snowdon Car Park 2020
DIR By: c4733
Date: April 15, 2026, 2:59 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Great outcome.
*****************************************************
Page 1 of 1