I don't have an account but I'm sure b789 can add your success to the ever-growing list!
From: Emirul Husnee <EmirulH@dcblegal.co.uk>
Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2025 at 11:36
Subject: Our ref:
Dear
We act for the Claimant in the above matter.
Our client has instructed us to discontinue Court proceedings and close our file. Therefore, please find enclosed the Claimant’s N279 Notice of Discontinuance for your records.
The attached has also been filed with the Court.
We will now proceed to close our file accordingly.
Kind Regards,
Emirul Husnee
Case Manager
DCB Legal Ltd
Good afternoon,
Your email dated 7th March 2025 was referred to Deputy District Judge Aikman who has commented as follows:
‘Please inform the Defendant that she must comply with the directions order dated 24th February 2025 and that the hearing of the matter will proceed on 30th April 2025.’
As long as the point is made clearly, it really doesn’t matter.
I am the Defendant in this matter, and I write regarding the Order made on 21 February 2025 by DDJ Vickers, which lists the trial for 30 April 2025 and directs both parties to file and serve evidence by 24 March 2025.
Given that witness statements are required to be submitted by 24 March 2025, I respectfully request the Court to respond within seven days to allow sufficient time for procedural fairness to be restored.
[Your Name]
[Your Address]
[Your Email]
[Your Phone Number]
[Date]
The Court Manager
Coventry Combined Court Centre
140 Much Park Street
Coventry
CV1 2SN
By email to: civilenquiries.coventry.countycourt@justice.gov.uk
CC: info@dcblegal.co.uk
Claim Number: [Claim Number]
Claimant: UK Parking Control Ltd
Defendant: [Defendant’s Name]
URGENT: Procedural Unfairness – Request for Reconsideration of the Order Dated 21 February 2025
Dear Sirs,
I am the Defendant in this matter, and I write regarding the Order made on 21 February 2025 by DDJ Vickers, which lists the trial for 24 March 2025 and directs both parties to file and serve evidence by the same deadline.
I respectfully submit that this Order is procedurally unfair, wrong and prejudicial to my ability to defend myself at trial. If the situation remains unchanged, I will be severely disadvantaged and unable to defend myself despite having filed a proper Defence.
1. Why the Order is wrong and Procedurally Unfair
In my Defence, I clearly stated that I was unable to respond properly to the Claimant’s claim for no fewer than eight separate reasons, due to deficiencies in the Particulars of Claim (PoC). To rectify this, I attached to my Defence a draft order requesting the Court to require the Claimant to file properly particularised PoC, after which I would be permitted to file an amended Defence in response.
However, instead of granting this order, the Court’s Order of 21 February 2025 has directed the Claimant to introduce these missing details for the first time within its witness statement. This is procedurally irregular because:• I am not given an opportunity to amend my Defence once the missing details are provided.
• I am required to file my witness evidence at the same time as the Claimant, meaning I have no opportunity to respond to their new evidence.
• As things stand, I will be denied a fair trial because I have not been able to properly defend myself due to the Claimant’s failure to plead its case in compliance with CPR 16.4.
This is not only unfair but contrary to the Overriding Objective (CPR 1.1), which requires cases to be dealt with fairly, justly, and with both parties on an equal footing.
2. What I Request the Court to Do
I respectfully request the Court to set aside the Order of 21 February 2025 in its entirety, as it is procedurally unjust.
I further request the Court to instead make the order I originally attached to my Defence, which would require the Claimant to:1. File and serve properly particularised PoC that comply with CPR 16.4.
2. Permit me, as the Defendant, to file and serve an amended Defence in response to the properly pleaded claim.
This ensures that I have a fair opportunity to defend myself properly and on equal footing with the Claimant.
3. Why I Am Not Filing a Formal Application
Under normal circumstances, I would make a formal application using Form N244. However, this would require a £303 application fee, which is disproportionate and unfair in a Small Claims Track case, where costs are generally unrecoverable.
As the claim is for a sum far lower than £303, requiring me to pay this fee would be wholly unreasonable and contrary to the Overriding Objective (CPR 1.1). The Court is empowered to vary its own order under CPR 3.3(1) and should consider doing so in the interests of justice, without requiring an unnecessary application fee.
4. Urgency of the Matter
Given that the hearing is listed for 24 March 2025, I respectfully request the Court to respond within seven days to allow sufficient time for procedural fairness to be restored.
In accordance with CPR 39.8, I have copied this letter to the Claimant’s solicitors.
I appreciate the Court’s consideration of this urgent matter and look forward to your response.
Yours faithfully,
[Your Name]
Defendant (Litigant in Person)
Did you counter claim?
How long before the hearing date is the claimant ordered to pay the ring fee?
Let us know when you receive the notice of allocation. As already stated, they will eventually discontinue.
order deadlines for the clamant to pay the hearing fee
I've been told by the claimant that this is a copy and paste defense that has been used many times by many people.So exactly like their particulars of claim, then ;D
1. The Defendant denies any liability for this claim. The allegation that the vehicle was on site in excess of the paid-for time or parked without making a valid payment is refuted.
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 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 CPR PD 16.7.5;
(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 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 exactly how the claim for statutory interest is calculated;
(f) The PoC do not state what proportion of the claim is the parking charge and what proportion is damages;
(g) The PoC states that the Claimant is suing the Defendant as the driver or the keeper. However, the Defendant is, in fact, the hirer of the vehicle. The Claimant should not be permitted to plead alternative causes of action without accurately identifying the correct legal status of the Defendant.
4. The Defendant has attached to this defence a copy of an order made at another court which the allocating judge ought to make at this stage so that the Defendant can then know and understand the case which he/she/it faces and can then respond properly to the claim.
According to discussions on ftla.uk, the majority of cases involving DCB Legal do not proceed to a court hearing. Users have reported that DCB Legal often discontinues claims before the hearing stage, particularly when a robust defence is presented. For instance, in one case, a user noted that DCB Legal discontinued their claim just before a fee was due, suggesting a pattern of withdrawal when faced with strong opposition. Another user mentioned that DCB Legal typically discontinues claims before any hearing, especially if the defence is solid. This trend indicates that while DCB Legal initiates many claims, they often do not follow through to a court hearing, especially when defendants actively contest the claims.
The name of the court is "Civil National Business Centre".
To be completed by "Your full name" and you are the "Defendant".
C1: "YES"
D1: "NO". Reason: "I wish to question the Claimant about their evidence at a hearing in person and to expose omissions and any misleading or incorrect evidence or assertions.
Given the Claimant is a firm who complete cut & paste parking case paperwork for a living, having this case heard solely on papers would appear to put the Claimant at an unfair advantage, especially as they would no doubt prefer the Defendant not to have the opportunity to expose the issues in the Claimants template submissions or speak as the only true witness to events in question."
F1: Whichever is your nearest county court. Use this to find it: https://www.find-court-tribunal.service.gov.uk/search-option
F3: "1".
IN THE COUNTY COURTClaim No: [Claim Number]BETWEEN:
[Claimant's Full Name]
Claimant
- and -
[Defendant's Full Name]
Defendant
DEFENCE
1. The Defendant denies any liability for this claim. The allegation that the vehicle was on site in excess of the paid-for time or parked without making a valid payment is refuted.
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 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 CPR PD 16.7.5;
(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 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 exactly how the claim for statutory interest is calculated;
(f) The PoC do not state what proportion of the claim is the parking charge and what proportion is damages;
(g) The PoC states that the Claimant is suing the Defendant as the driver or the keeper. However, the Defendant is, in fact, the hirer of the vehicle. The Claimant should not be permitted to plead alternative causes of action without accurately identifying the correct legal status of the Defendant.
4. The Defendant has attached to this defence a copy of an order made at another court which the allocating judge ought to make at this stage so that the Defendant can then know and understand the case which he/she/it faces and can then respond properly to the claim.
Statement of truth
I believe that the facts stated in this Defence are true. I understand that proceedings for contempt of court may be brought against anyone who makes, or causes to be made, a false statement in a document verified by a statement of truth without an honest belief in its truth.
Signed:
Date:
Let us know when you have completed the AoS and we will provide the defence and draft order to go with it which will be submitted as PDF attachments to an email.
I shall proceed with the AoS now.
In their contract, a “parking charge” cannot come under the heading of “Fines”.
Thus, *if* VWFS do act as they have often done, op needs a different approach because they then have a contractual dispute with VWFS instead.Indeed, but so that this thread does not get unduly sidetracked by an issue that may not emerge, I suggest we cross that bridge if we come to it, and for now focus on the OP's dispute with UKPC.
Aren't we off-course.
The creditor is UKPC, not Skoda.
The only other suggestion I can make is that you make a complaint (not an appeal) as the keeper to UKPC advising them that they have failed to issue the NtH in accordance with the requirements of PoFA 14(2) and
so cannot hold you, the keeper liable. This is also a breach of the BPA CoP 21.2 which states:
We're still trying to dig out a copy of the contract hire document. The only thing we've seen so far that references fines is in a summary letter after we took delivery of the car...
Schedule 4 of POFA 2012 creates the new legal basis to claim unpaid parking charges from vehicle keepers and hirers. As long as the strict conditions of Schedule 4 are met, you may claim payment from the keeper or the hirer of the vehicle rather than from the driver. To do this you need to follow the procedures set out in the Schedule. You can do this whether the parking originally took place under the terms of a contract or was an act of trespass.
It will be worth reviewing the wording on your lease agreement with Skoda to see how it mentions parking charges from private parking companies. Unless there is specific wording about private parking charges, they cannot just charge you an admin fee and threaten to pay the PCN.
This from the BVRLA's own guidance (https://www.bvrla.co.uk/static/uploaded/61b3298b-a918-499b-9ac8b8bea2b726a0.pdf):
Paying and recharging
Rental and leasing companies that choose to pay a private parking charge notice and recharge it to their customer should ensure that their rental/leasing agreement allows them to do this. A sample clause, which would allow you to pay and recharge, is: “You will be responsible for paying the following charges: All charges and legal costs for any congestion charge, road traffic offence, parking offence or parking notice, or any other offence involving the rental vehicle, including from the vehicle being clamped, seized or towed away.”
Omission of the "or parking notice" contravenes the advice from the BVRLA's own trade guidance.
@DWMB, I'm not clear from the OP whether they have been supplied with the docs referred to, hence these questions to the OP.Nor am I... I did ask about the documents in my post. If they have supplied everything we'll need to tweak the appeal, but if I were a betting man my money would be on them not having done so.
The only other time we've received a parking charge notice we didn't get advice and my wife confirmed I was the driver. We got a whole barrage of letters, including from Debt Recovery Plus, and we simply ignored them all. They eventually stopped sending letters.As an aside, ignoring them is not usually wise, although you appear to have avoided any further consequences for that case (assuming it's now more than 6 years since the incident, as that's the deadline for the parking company to sue).