DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Private parking tickets
*****************************************************
#Post#: 100941--------------------------------------------------
PCN smarting parking limited- unauthorised parking. Willow court
wallasey
DIR By: Rapidph
Date: December 3, 2025, 5:07 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
PCN- the defendant is pursued as the driver of the vehicle
breach of the terms on the sign (the contract)- unauthorised
parking.
Back in july 2023 one of my employee attended to a plumbing job
at a block of flat, he parks the work van at flat's private car
park managed by Smart parking limited. There are no signs on any
bays. And there are signs which have vandalised with spray
paint.
After my employee completed the job. A few hours later The
customer has phoned and told me that the driver has parked in
the car park and requested the van's registration number so he
can phone up and inform them so i wont get a parking charge. A
few months gone by and i have received a parking charge notice
which i have ignored as its a private car park charge notice
(aka invoice).
Then we havent heard anything since till today. 2 and a bit uwar
later. A claim form- CCJ Came through the door. Claiming-
The defendant is indebted to the claimant for a parking charge
issue to vehicle x at Willow court wallasey.
The defendant is pursued as the driver of the vehicle for breach
of term on the signs (the contract) reason unauthorised parking.
I have been back today and taken some photos of the place and
there are no signs by each parking bay. There are walls with
graffitis and signs by the front and back been vandalised with
black spray paint which we cant see or read the content.
We have been authorised to park at the car by the customer and
he has phoned and informed them but still they are trying on.
Dcb legal ltd is firm acting on behalf of smart parking limited.
Please help so i can fill in the defendant form online please.
#Post#: 100943--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN smarting parking limited- unauthorised parking. Willow
court wallasey
DIR By: Rapidph
Date: December 3, 2025, 5:17 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Here are the photos i have uploaded
HTML https://ibb.co/CpsWQKSx
HTML https://ibb.co/R46Kgp4S
HTML https://ibb.co/Wvh0ZkzR
HTML https://ibb.co/gbHrXqvN
HTML https://ibb.co/jkhrkZWZ
HTML https://ibb.co/N6Wj1vjz
#Post#: 100951--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN smarting parking limited- unauthorised parking. Willow
court wallasey
DIR By: b789
Date: December 4, 2025, 2:19 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Repost the image of the N1SDT Claim Form with the Particulars of
Claim (PoC) and show the date of issue of the claim and the name
of the claimant and their solicitor if using one.
It is NOT a CCJ. There is absolutely no danger of a CCJ and
calling it a CCJ sends alarm bells that you may be unaware of
what a CCJ even is. So, please show us the N1SDT form in full,
redacting only your personal details and the claim number and
MCoL password.
In the meantime, here is some advice on CCJs:
These unregulated private parking firms and their pet debt
collectors thrive on one thing: the public’s ignorance of how
County Court claims and CCJs actually work. They know that if
they can make you believe that “a claim” or a “debt recovery”
letter somehow wrecks your credit rating, you will panic and pay
them. The gullible tree is full of low-hanging fruit, and they
make a very good living shaking it.
Here is the reality, which you should read and take a “life
lesson” from...
A Parking Charge Notice (PCN) from a private firm is not a fine.
It is just a speculative invoice for an alleged breach of
contract by the driver. At that stage, nothing touches your
credit file.
If you are not successful in appealing the PCN – and appeals are
almost never successful at the initial stage and rarely at the
secondary, supposedly “independent” (but not) appeal – most
low-hanging fruit do not understand that those decisions are not
binding on them and they should never just pay. Many do,
however, because they are ignorant of the process and fearful of
imaginary consequences.
If you then get “debt recovery” letters from so-called debt
collectors, those are just more speculative invoices dressed up
in scary language designed to prey on your ignorance and fear.
Debt collectors have no legal powers whatsoever to come to your
door, take goods, or report anything to credit reference
agencies. You could receive fifty of those letters and your
credit rating would be unchanged.
As part of the modus operandi of these unregulated firms, the
next formal step is usually a Letter of Claim (LoC). That is
just a threat that they may start a County Court claim. Even
then, your credit record is still untouched. It is simply a
threat of legal action, not the result of it. Just more attempts
to intimidate the low-hanging fruit on the gullible tree into
paying out of ignorance and fear.
Only if they go ahead and issue a County Court claim do you
enter the court (judicial) process. A Claim Form comes from the
court, not from a useless and powerless debt collector. Getting
a claim issued against you does not, by itself, affect your
credit rating. A claim is simply an allegation that you owe
money. You have the right to defend it. As long as you read your
post, acknowledge the claim in time, and either defend it or
settle it, your credit file remains untouched.
A County Court Judgment (CCJ) only arises if the court actually
makes a judgment against you. That happens either because you
defended and were unsuccessful at a hearing, or because you
ignored the claim and the parking firm got judgment in default.
Even then, you still have a crucial safety net that the
low-hanging fruit do not realise exists. If you pay the full
judgment sum within 30 days of the date of judgment, the CCJ is
not registered on your credit file. It is expunged completely
from the record. It is as if it never happened as far as lenders
are concerned.
A CCJ only appears on your credit record if you fail to pay
within that 30-day window. That is the point at which it gets
recorded and can affect your ability to obtain credit. Up to
that point, no amount of tickets, no stack of debt recovery
letters, no Letter of/Before Claim, and not even the issuing of
a County Court claim has any impact on your credit history.
Bailiffs are a separate step again. They cannot simply be sent
because you have ignored an unregulated private parking invoice
or a useless debt recovery letter. Bailiffs (enforcement agents)
only become relevant after there is a CCJ and it has not been
paid.
For most smaller PCN CCJs, it is not even worth the creditor’s
time and cost to instruct bailiffs, especially when the amount
is under £600 and stuck in the slower County Court enforcement
system. But the key point is this: no unpaid CCJ, no lawful
bailiff.
So when people say things like “I had a debt recovery letter so
I might not get a mortgage now” or “if I defend, I will get a
CCJ,” they are simply wrong. It is precisely that ignorance and
fear that these firms trade on. They rely on ordinary motorists
incorrectly assuming that a red-letter demand automatically
means ruined credit and bailiffs at the door.
There is nothing in the advice given here that will affect your
credit record. On the contrary, proper advice is what keeps you
away from CCJs. If you engage with the process, defend where
appropriate, and, in the extremely rare instance where you are
unsuccessful defending a claim, pay any judgment within 30 days,
your credit file will remain completely unaffected and no
bailiff will lawfully darken your doorstep over a private
parking charge.
These companies rely on being able to intimidate the low-hanging
fruit on the gullible tree into paying out of ignorance and
fear.
#Post#: 101038--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN smarting parking limited- unauthorised parking. Willow
court wallasey
DIR By: Rapidph
Date: December 4, 2025, 1:29 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Thanks for the information and help [member=26]b789[/member].
Here's the n1sdt form
HTML https://ibb.co/8nvKb2kc
#Post#: 101075--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN smarting parking limited- unauthorised parking. Willow
court wallasey
DIR By: b789
Date: December 5, 2025, 3:48 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Please also confirm whether that N1SDT Claim Form is signed by
David Croot.
With an issue date of 25th November, you have until 4pm on
Monday 15th December to submit your defence. If you submit an
Acknowledgement of Service (AoS) before then, you would then
have until 4pm on Monday 29th 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 ---
> 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#: 101099--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN smarting parking limited- unauthorised parking. Willow
court wallasey
DIR By: Rapidph
Date: December 5, 2025, 5:23 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Thanks very much for your help. Yes N1SDT Claim Form is signed
by David Croot.
#Post#: 118704--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN smarting parking limited- unauthorised parking. Willow
court wallasey
DIR By: Rapidph
Date: May 14, 2026, 1:20 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Hello, after a meditation on the 8th april. The case still not
settled. On MCOL the case has transferred to local court. Today
i have received a letter from my local county court "General
form of judgement or order."
Contents as follow:
"Before District Judge Baldwin sitting at the County Court at
Birkenhead, 76 Hamilton Street, Birkenhead
Merseyside, CH41 5EN.
UPON reading the court file and in particular the Defence filed
AND UPON the Court being of the view that the claim is
sufficiently
particularised to understand the factual
basis upon which the claim is based
AND UPON the Defendant having failed to put forward any
substantive defence beyond the technical legal issues
raised in the Defence
AND UPON the Court requiring compliance with rule 16.5 of the
Civil Procedure Rules 1998
IT IS ORDERED THAT
1. Unless the Defendant sends to the Court and to the Claimant,
to be received by 4pm 26th May 2026 a formal
Amended Defence addressing all the allegations in the
Particulars of Claim as to whether they are admitted, denied
or are required to be proved and any reasons for any denial, the
Defence shall stand struck out and the Claimant
shall be entitled to enter judgment for the amount claimed.
2. This order has been made by the court of its own
initiative under CPR 3.3. Any party affected by this order
may apply to have it set aside, varied or stayed within 7 days
of the date on which the order is served on that party
Dated 1 May 2026"
What shall i do next?
#Post#: 118707--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN smarting parking limited- unauthorised parking. Willow
court wallasey
DIR By: DWMB2
Date: May 14, 2026, 3:34 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Essentially, what the order says you must do. We could do with
seeing the PoC again, your Imgbb links have expired.
#Post#: 118712--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN smarting parking limited- unauthorised parking. Willow
court wallasey
DIR By: Rapidph
Date: May 14, 2026, 3:59 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[member=103]DWMB2[/member] Thanks for the quick reply. Please
see attached link of PoC
HTML https://ibb.co/4wzx3DVf
#Post#: 118714--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN smarting parking limited- unauthorised parking. Willow
court wallasey
DIR By: DWMB2
Date: May 14, 2026, 4:14 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
For the record (and for future folks reading this thread), we're
seeing more and more cases where defences are being struck out
for not properly responding to the claim, and as a result I
would generally advise people to avoid the 'generic' template
defences that you'll see dotted around this forum. Defences
should be case specific and respond to the allegations in
question.
One thing I can't establish from the thread so far is who the
defendant is. You mention an employee, which suggests some sort
of business - is the claim against you as a person, or against a
limited company of which you are a director?
*****************************************************
Page 1 of 2
DIR Next Page