DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Private parking tickets
*****************************************************
#Post#: 102269--------------------------------------------------
Letter of claim from DCB legal
DIR By: settop23
Date: December 13, 2025, 3:30 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Hello,
I have receieved a letter of claim which is attached. I have
today submitted an AoS for the claim, and i believe I have 28
days to submit a defence. Could anybody help with this defence
and let me know if it is worth pursuing. I would not leave my
vehicle in a disabled bay as the leisure centre had an abundance
of spaces, I think I may have parked there for a few minutes
whilst waiting in the car. It could also be that somebody else
was using my car.
HTML https://ibb.co/5xSNj71H
Thank you
#Post#: 102275--------------------------------------------------
Re: Letter of claim from DCB legal
DIR By: jfollows
Date: December 13, 2025, 4:28 am
---------------------------------------------------------
DCB Legal’s particulars of claim are woeful, so there will be a
defence on this basis. Please post the original Notice to Keeper
which will be more meaningful.
PS It’s not a Letter of Claim, that will have preceded this.
It’s the N1SDT Claim Form from the Civil National Business
Centre. In due course the case will be allocated to your local
court.
#Post#: 102293--------------------------------------------------
Re: Letter of claim from DCB legal
DIR By: b789
Date: December 13, 2025, 7:13 am
---------------------------------------------------------
With an issue date of 27th November, you have until 4pm on
Tuesday 16th December to submit your defence. If you submit an
Acknowledgement of Service (AoS) before then, you would then
have until 4pm on Tuesday 30th 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#: 104015--------------------------------------------------
Re: Letter of claim from DCB legal
DIR By: settop23
Date: December 29, 2025, 4:23 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
I do not remember receiving the original notice.
Thank you kindly for the defence it is tremendously helpful, as
is the advice on how to submit the defence. I can confirm I have
done this so will sit tight and wait now
#Post#: 104035--------------------------------------------------
Re: Letter of claim from DCB legal
DIR By: jfollows
Date: December 30, 2025, 1:25 am
---------------------------------------------------------
You might want to verify that your car’s V5C is accurate; it’s
not going to alter things here but it might explain why you
didn’t get the original notice, plus it’ll potentially cause you
other problems in future if it’s wrong.
*****************************************************
Page 1 of 1