URI:
   DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
  HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       *****************************************************
   DIR Return to: Private parking tickets
       *****************************************************
       #Post#: 99316--------------------------------------------------
       DCB - HM Courts and tribunals
       By: Banks28 Date: November 22, 2025, 9:28 am
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       Hello,
       In July, I received letters from DCB stating that I had a £160
       fine for “failure to pay for parking,” supposedly from 5 January
       2023. No time, CCTV, or photographs were provided to show that I
       was actually there. I also made no returns that day, spent no
       money on my card (I rarely carry cash), and had no reason to be
       in Bolton Town Centre.
       I ignored the first letter because I assumed it was a scam—this
       was the first I had ever heard of it and I hadn’t received
       anything before July. I’ve now received some worrying letters,
       but I’ve seen that situations like this are often resolved with
       some guidance. I’d really appreciate help understanding where to
       start and what the process is. I’ve read a lot of forums but the
       acronyms are confusing, and I don’t want to make any mistakes.
       Thank you so much!
  HTML https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/18zepowvu5kln2lombzo7/11DEA5D7-8A4A-4B69-B868-29C12ABAFF83.jpeg?rlkey=423tfymm58bb9tzy902z2ijch&st=jfqybxi6&dl=0
  HTML https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/52qepeak9mwcx31qbbuuf/A3F38344-364F-41DE-B039-DED779313470.jpeg?rlkey=iks3ysviysapnw03ts253lurl&st=t19do5r9&dl=0
  HTML https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/c5vuezg24ft73hxb8fpdr/IMG_2450.jpeg?rlkey=7xqgbg3cw3j7m2gs6lfh4eveq&st=wkktc5ph&dl=0
  HTML https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/c5vuezg24ft73hxb8fpdr/IMG_2450.jpeg?rlkey=7xqgbg3cw3j7m2gs6lfh4eveq&st=0vprxea3&dl=0
  HTML https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/al0l3ibrmt00u1858tv4b/IMG_2454.jpeg?rlkey=wdivp7m4tzdend4z4l4kv1gqk&st=16ycam7x&dl=0
  HTML https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/9znel6zfm2irx0umi4a6m/IMG_2455.jpeg?rlkey=llpfsle21uqehkmwoie2u0t0w&st=5fqefqyo&dl=0
       #Post#: 99322--------------------------------------------------
       Re: DCB - HM Courts and tribunals
       By: b789 Date: November 22, 2025, 10:01 am
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       I will bet you £100 that there is absolutely no mention of the
       word "fine" in any of the correspondence you have about this.
       #Post#: 99323--------------------------------------------------
       Re: DCB - HM Courts and tribunals
       By: b789 Date: November 22, 2025, 10:06 am
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       If you follow the advice (and please don't show us any more
       documents unless requested to do so) you will not be paying a
       penny to anyone over this.
       With an issue date of 18th November, you have until 4pm on
       Monday 8th December to submit your defence. If you submit an
       Acknowledgement of Service (AoS) before then, you would then
       have until 4pm on Monday 22nd 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
       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][font=Courier New]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.[/font][/quote]
       #Post#: 99331--------------------------------------------------
       Re: DCB - HM Courts and tribunals
       By: Banks28 Date: November 22, 2025, 10:30 am
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       Thank you so much. That is all done. I cannot thank you enough
       as I had no idea where to start! What usually happens next? It
       has been completely stressful. And yes, "Unpaid Parking Charge."
       #Post#: 99333--------------------------------------------------
       Re: DCB - HM Courts and tribunals
       By: b789 Date: November 22, 2025, 10:32 am
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       [quote author=Banks28 link=topic=8878.msg99331#msg99331
       date=1763829030]
       What usually happens next?
       [/quote]
       Just have a search of the forum and read any of the hundreds of
       similar claims.
       #Post#: 106309--------------------------------------------------
       Re: DCB - HM Courts and tribunals
       By: Banks28 Date: January 17, 2026, 2:08 pm
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       Hello again,
       I have received the Notice of Proposed Allocation to the Small
       Claims Track. I am able to complete most of the form but would
       appreciate some advice regarding the mediation appointment. I am
       a teacher, so it is very difficult for me to leave a class in
       order to take part in a phone call. Should I therefore limit my
       availability quite strictly on the form?
       The notice is dated 9 January, but I only received it yesterday
       and the deadline given is 26 January. This feels like a short
       turnaround — is this normal?
       The form also states that I must “serve copies on all other
       parties.” I find the wording of the court letters quite
       confusing and would appreciate clarification on what this means
       in practice.
       Finally, DCB Legal have been calling me weekly and leaving
       automated messages asking me to return the call urgently. Is
       this standard practice?
       Thank you very much in advance for your help.
       #Post#: 106340--------------------------------------------------
       Re: DCB - HM Courts and tribunals
       By: jfollows Date: January 18, 2026, 3:12 am
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       [list type=decimal]
       [li]Yes, be precise about your availabilty.[/li]
       [li]Send copies of anything you send to court to DCB Legal as
       well, at the same time.[/li]
       [li]Do not return their calls, hang up if you answer, block
       their number if you can.[/li]
       [/list]
       #Post#: 106380--------------------------------------------------
       Re: DCB - HM Courts and tribunals
       By: Banks28 Date: January 18, 2026, 8:00 am
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       Thank you so much.
       Do I get a date or time for mediation or is it just anytime in
       the next three months?
       When I do get the phone call, what are the specific things I
       ask?
       Thanks again!
       #Post#: 106381--------------------------------------------------
       Re: DCB - HM Courts and tribunals
       By: jfollows Date: January 18, 2026, 8:06 am
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       [list type=decimal]
       [li]They give you a vague time interval, so you need to be clear
       if you’re only available between specific times, ie lunch hour
       or whatever.[/li]
       [li]You offer £0 to settle, your offer will not be accepted, it
       will be over in minutes. More discussion if you search the forum
       for “mediation”.[/li]
       [/list]
       *****************************************************