So, are you saying that you haven't yet sent the original letter as a pdf attachment to an email addressed to both the court and DCB Legal?
If you, have, then just send the extra letter I provided. Otherwise just send this letter:
[Your Name]
[Your Address]
[Postcode]
[Email Address]
[Phone Number]
[Date]
To: The Court Manager
County Court at Uxbridge
501 Uxbridge Road
Hayes
Middlesex
UB4 8HL
Re: Claim No. [Insert Claim Number]
Claimant: Britannia Parking Group Ltd
Defendant: [Your Name]
Subject: Request to Vacate Hearing & Procedural Concerns Regarding Allocation Order
Dear Sir/Madam,
I write in relation to the Notice of Allocation to the Small Claims Track dated 4 April 2025, which lists a hearing on 25 June 2025 at 11:30 AM. This letter serves as both a request to vacate the hearing and to place on record a number of serious procedural concerns regarding the directions in the order.
1. Request to Vacate Hearing
The Defendant respectfully requests that the hearing be vacated and relisted to a date after [insert your return date], as they will be unavailable and out of the country on the listed date. At the time of submitting the Directions Questionnaire (Form N180) in November 2024, there were no known conflicts. Since then, however, essential travel has been arranged for a brief five-day period, during which the hearing has now been scheduled.
This request is made promptly and well in advance of the seven-day minimum notice set out in the allocation order. The Defendant is available at any time except [insert unavailable dates] and wishes to attend the hearing in person.
Given the low value of the claim (£329), the Defendant asks that this matter be dealt with administratively under the Court’s case management powers (CPR 3.1(2)(b)). It would be wholly disproportionate and procedurally unfair to require a formal N244 application and a £123 fee simply to request the hearing be rescheduled where the conflict was unforeseeable, the application is timely, and no prejudice arises to the Claimant.
2. Procedural Concerns – Trial Fee Deadline and Prejudice to the Defendant
I would also like to raise separate concerns regarding apparent administrative inconsistencies within the Notice of Allocation to the Small Claims Track dated 4 April 2025 and wish to place on record several concerns regarding apparent administrative inconsistencies in the order, which risk prejudicing the Defendant’s position.
Of particular concern is the direction that the Claimant may pay the trial fee by 4:00pm on the date of the hearing itself (25 June 2025). This is highly irregular and inconsistent with established HMCTS guidance, which stipulates that trial fees should be paid not less than 14 days before the hearing. For example:
• The EX50 – Civil and Family Court Fees guidance confirms at section 2.1 that hearing fees are payable “not less than 14 days before the hearing”.
The accompanying EX306 leaflet on small claims hearings also states:
“If the court has told you to pay a hearing fee, you must pay it at least 14 days before the hearing. If you do not, the court may strike out your claim.”
Allowing the Claimant to wait until 4pm on the hearing day to pay the fee puts the Defendant at a serious disadvantage. It provides the Claimant with an unfair degree of flexibility, particularly as their legal representative is known for routinely discontinuing defended claims shortly before the hearing fee becomes payable.
While both parties are directed to serve their witness statements and supporting documents by 2 May 2025, the order grants the Claimant until 4:00pm on the day of the hearing to decide whether to proceed by paying the trial fee. This is procedurally unfair. The Claimant is represented by DCB Legal, a bulk-litigation firm known for its habitual practice of discontinuing defended claims at the very last moment—often immediately before the trial fee becomes payable. This pattern has been widely observed and documented in over 500 recent, nearly identical claims, and appears to be their standard modus operandi. The current order facilitates this behaviour, enabling the Claimant to defer any real commitment to the trial until the Defendant has already expended considerable time and effort preparing their case. This risks wasting court resources and undermines the overriding objective of dealing with cases justly and on an equal footing.
I also note in passing that the trial fee specified in the order appears to be one usually associated with a fast track claim, despite this matter being clearly allocated to the small claims track. While it is not for the Defendant to assist the Claimant in resolving any such irregularity, it may point to further administrative oversight within the order that warrants review.
In light of the above, the Defendant respectfully invites the Court to review the current directions to ensure they reflect standard practice and do not unfairly disadvantage one party. I trust this submission will be considered before the deadline for service of the witness statement on 2 May 2025.
The Claimant’s solicitor has been copied into this correspondence in accordance with the rules.
Yours faithfully,
[Your Name]
CC: DCB Legal Ltd – info@dcblegal.co.uk
There is also the fact that the claimant has been given right up to the actual hearing date to pay the trial fee which is highly unusual. As you have already sent the letter to request a date change, I advise you to send the following to Uxbridge county court immediately:
[Your Name]
[Your Address]
[Postcode]
[Email Address]
[Phone Number]
Date: [Insert Date]
To: The Court Manager
County Court at Uxbridge
501 Uxbridge Road, Hayes, Middlesex, UB4 8HL
Re: Claim No. [Insert Claim Number]
Claimant: Britannia Parking Group Ltd
Defendant: [Your Name]
Subject: Request for Review of Procedural Fairness in Allocation Order
Dear Sir/Madam,
Further to my recent letter requesting that the hearing listed for 25 June 2025 be vacated due to the Defendant’s unavailability, I now write to raise separate concerns regarding apparent administrative inconsistencies within the Notice of Allocation dated 4 April 2025.
I write in connection with the Notice of Allocation to the Small Claims Track dated 4 April 2025 and wish to place on record several concerns regarding apparent administrative inconsistencies in the order, which risk prejudicing the Defendant’s position.
Of particular concern is the direction that the Claimant may pay the trial fee by 4:00pm on the date of the hearing itself (25 June 2025). This is highly irregular and inconsistent with established HMCTS guidance, which stipulates that trial fees should be paid not less than 14 days before the hearing. For example:
• The EX50 – Civil and Family Court Fees guidance confirms at section 2.1 that hearing fees are payable “not less than 14 days before the hearing”.
The accompanying EX306 leaflet on small claims hearings also states:
“If the court has told you to pay a hearing fee, you must pay it at least 14 days before the hearing. If you do not, the court may strike out your claim.”
Allowing the Claimant to wait until 4pm on the hearing day to pay the fee puts the Defendant at a serious disadvantage. It provides the Claimant with an unfair degree of flexibility, particularly as their legal representative is known for routinely discontinuing defended claims shortly before the hearing fee becomes payable.
While both parties are directed to serve their witness statements and supporting documents by 2 May 2025, the order grants the Claimant until 4:00pm on the day of the hearing to decide whether to proceed by paying the trial fee. This is procedurally unfair. The Claimant is represented by DCB Legal, a bulk-litigation firm known for its habitual practice of discontinuing defended claims at the very last moment—often immediately before the trial fee becomes payable. This pattern has been widely observed and documented in over 500 recent, nearly identical claims, and appears to be their standard modus operandi. The current order facilitates this behaviour, enabling the Claimant to defer any real commitment to the trial until the Defendant has already expended considerable time and effort preparing their case. This risks wasting court resources and undermines the overriding objective of dealing with cases justly and on an equal footing.
I also note in passing that the trial fee specified in the order appears to be one usually associated with a fast track claim, despite this matter being clearly allocated to the small claims track. While it is not for the Defendant to assist the Claimant in resolving any such irregularity, it may point to further administrative oversight within the order that warrants review.
In light of the above, the Defendant respectfully invites the Court to review the current directions to ensure they reflect standard practice and do not unfairly disadvantage one party. I trust this submission will be considered before the deadline for service of the witness statement on 2 May 2025.
Yours faithfully,
[Your Name]
CC: DCB Legal info@dcblegal.co.uk
I don't advise using the long defence from the MSE forum. It is an overly long boilerplate that judges do not like.
If this sin't struck-out at allocation stage, then it will be discontinued before the trial fee has to be paid, early next year.
Here is suggested defence and also a Draft Order to go with it:
IN THE COUNTY COURT
Claim 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 Defendant has no specific recollection of the parking details from the visit over five years ago but believes they would have complied with any requirements for paying customers and, given the passage of time and lack of adequate particulars in the claim, is unable to provide further details.
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(1)(a).
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. The claimant obviously knows whether the defendant is being sued as the driver or the keeper and should not be permitted to plead alternative causes of action.
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:
You only need to change the claimant and your names, the claim number and then sign it by typing you full name for the signature and date it.
Here is a link to the Draft Order that will accompany the defence. There is nothing to edit in this:
Short Defence Draft Order (https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/z8zcqfdncdoajgj4ag6a4/short-defence-order.pdf?rlkey=at98xmfwj0ehi3w9d0ia15ogp&st=d2ddh6xf&dl=0)
When ready, attach both to an email and send it to claimresponses.cnbc@justice.gov and CC in yourself. Make sure you also get the cut-response from the CNBC.