Free Traffic Legal Advice

Live cases legal advice => Private parking tickets => Topic started by: Me and my boys on September 16, 2024, 12:38:48 pm

Title: Re: ECP Rodnet Street Wigan PCN. Machine was full, coin stuck in machine. DCBL now CNBC
Post by: Me and my boys on October 15, 2024, 09:48:18 am
Thanks again for the advice, will do.
And thank you very much for your patience and for explaining it all so clearly, we've certainly learned a great deal.
Title: Re: ECP Rodnet Street Wigan PCN. Machine was full, coin stuck in machine. DCBL now CNBC
Post by: b789 on October 14, 2024, 11:27:48 pm
It says,
    "1. This is now a defended claim.
        The defendant has filed a defence, a copy of which is enclosed"

 but someone has drawn a pen line though(a copy of which is enclosed).

I see now what you mean. This because the same document is sent to the claimant. However, your copy does not need the copy of the defence attached.

This is all standard and expected. No judge has sen the defence yet. All this administrative procedure has to be completed.

You should download your own N180DQ and complete it. There is no need to print anything out.

You do not want a determination without a hearing. That would be throwing away any chance of success if it ever got that far. So, it is not suitable for determination without a hearing.

Just put the following as the reason:

Quote
I am not content for the case to be heard 'on the papers' because that seems to disproportionately give an advantage to a legally represented party. 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.

You only need the actual N180. None of the other forms are necessary. However, you will also attach two transcripts, a draft order and a covering letter to go with your DQ.

Yes, attach the Draft Order and the transcripts with this as a covering letter to go with your DQ:

CEL v Chan transcript (https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/nb9ypbecuurpmln00dily/CELvChan-appeal-transcript.pdf?rlkey=7mpuvpmpe45s2zbhch21om1ez&st=ux18emlp&dl=0)
CPMS v Akande transcript (https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/y631olc61z1slr6xfrdsk/CPM-v-AKANDE.pdf?rlkey=kltpojedcxiwarxr0sdfyjo05&st=xdrccnh6&dl=0)
Draft Order (https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/z8zcqfdncdoajgj4ag6a4/short-defence-order.pdf?rlkey=at98xmfwj0ehi3w9d0ia15ogp&st=448zinc0&dl=0)

Quote
[Your Name]
[Your Address]
[Date]

The Court Manager
Civil National Business Centre
4th Floor, St Katharine’s House
21-27 St Katharine’s Street
Northampton
NN1 2LH

Claim Number: [Insert Claim Number]
Claimant: [Insert Claimants name]
Defendant: [Your Name]

Dear Sir/Madam,

Re: Request for Strike Out or Alternatively Compliance with Draft Order in Response to N180 Directions Questionnaire

I write concerning the above-referenced claim, for which I have received a Notice of Directions Questionnaire (N180). Due to the vague and deficient nature of the Particulars of Claim (PoC), I have been unable to plead a full defence. Therefore, I respectfully request that the court considers striking out the claim pursuant to CPR 3.4(2)(a) on the grounds that the PoC fail to fully comply with CPR 16.4(1)(a), as they do not provide a concise statement of fact.

Alternatively, should the court decide not to strike out the claim, I request that the Claimant be ordered to comply with the attached draft order, which seeks further and better particulars of claim.

To support my application, I enclose transcripts of two persuasive appeal cases:

Civil Enforcement Ltd v Chan (2023) [E7GM9W44]

CPMS v Akande (2024) [K0DP5J30]

Both cases involved claims that were struck out due to similarly insufficient particulars.

I trust that the attached documents will assist the court in its assessment and in issuing appropriate case management directions.

Yours faithfully,

[Your Name]

Attach all the PDF documents to an email and address the email to both DQ.cnbc@justice.gov.uk and to info@dcblegal.co.uk and CC in yourself.
Title: Re: ECP Rodnet Street Wigan PCN. Machine was full, coin stuck in machine. DCBL now CNBC
Post by: Me and my boys on October 14, 2024, 06:40:32 pm
Sorry for not being clear. This is all new to me.
Having thought about it, yes all these letters are are I guess standard but I've never seen any of them before so didn't realise.

Since the short defence said, "The Defendant is unable to plead properly to the PoC because:(a) The reason stated in the PoC is not factually correct... "
I mistakenly assumed the court was asking the DCBL to answer the points. But I see now, it was just a standard reply.
I was then very surprised that DCBL simply said, we've reviewed your defence. They didn't correct anything. But now I can see this is just another automated reply.

Even the acronyms are new to me. But yes, the latest letter is from the CNBC and is an N149A with attached a seven page N180 DQ
here's the front page, N149A https://imgur.com/a/xg1aqVf
It says,
     "1. This is now a defended claim.
        The defendant has filed a defence, a copy of which is enclosed"

 but someone has drawn a pen line though(a copy of which is enclosed). That seemed strange to me, why not include it if that is standard? It made me wonder if anyone did read it? And will a judge know it was sent? Or is this acknowledging that this was not a full defence?

Page 3, D says, could this be determined without a hearing. Yes it could. But I haven't submitted any witness statement, or photos. Can I do that now?
Or would it be better to say there are factual disputes.
1. There was no PCN on the date they claim.
2. The wording they use for the contract (or anything like it) does not appear on any signage. The defendant has photos from 2022 and from 2024, they have not changed (except the fees). Nothing submitted yet.
3. The interest, as well as not being explained seems to be another mistake. The difference is not very much but a lot more than the alleged missing amount from the parking fee.
Title: Re: ECP Rodnet Street Wigan PCN. Machine was full, coin stuck in machine. DCBL now CNBC
Post by: b789 on October 13, 2024, 11:46:23 pm
Sorry… you’ve not made yourself very clear. What you’ve shown us is the standard response from the CNBC after you’ve submitted your defence.

The response fromDCBLegal is also exactly as expected. If you’ve had the allocation to the small claims track, that usually includes your N180DQ. Have you received your DQ? What does your MCOL history say.

What do you mean “Strangely with a copy of the defence crossed out”.

You have to be perfectly clear. Show us exactly what you’ve received and from who.
Title: Re: ECP Rodnet Street Wigan PCN. Machine was full, coin stuck in machine. DCBL now CNBC
Post by: Me and my boys on October 13, 2024, 09:54:41 pm
Hope I've done this correctly this time.
Here should be the court reply.

A week later DCBL sent a letter saying, "having reviewed the content of your defence and our client intends to proceed, … ring this number to pay up.

Now I've had this allocation to the small claims track. Strangely with copy of defence enclosed crossed out??

https://imgur.com/a/xg1aqVf

Title: Re: ECP Rodnet Street Wigan PCN. Machine was full, coin stuck in machine. DCBL now CNBC
Post by: DWMB2 on September 30, 2024, 04:20:27 pm
READ THIS FIRST - Private Parking Charges Forum guide (https://www.ftla.uk/private-parking-tickets/read-this-first-private-parking-charges-forum-guide/)

This includes a guide to using a third party site to add images.
Title: Re: ECP Rodnet Street Wigan PCN. Machine was full, coin stuck in machine. DCBL now CNBC
Post by: Me and my boys on September 30, 2024, 04:12:34 pm
I made it pretty small but it still says, The upload folder is full. Please try a smaller file and/or contact an administrator.
?
Title: Re: ECP Rodnet Street Wigan PCN. Machine was full, coin stuck in machine. DCBL now CNBC
Post by: b789 on September 26, 2024, 02:29:00 pm
Can you please show us a copy of that letter, suitably redacted of your personal details.

I would like to see the wording they've used.
Title: Re: ECP Rodnet Street Wigan PCN. Machine was full, coin stuck in machine. DCBL now CNBC
Post by: Me and my boys on September 26, 2024, 02:25:09 pm
I have today had a letter from HM courts. They acknowledge receipt of the short defence and have served it along with the draft order on the claimant. Who has 28 days to to proceed if they wish. After that period, the claim will be stayed.

Thanks so much for all the help, advice and explanations. I'm not at all tech savvy, lots of this process was very unintuitive to me. But if I can follow these instructions, anyone can!!
Title: Re: ECP Rodnet Street Wigan PCN. Machine was full, coin stuck in machine. DCBL now CNBC
Post by: Me and my boys on September 17, 2024, 02:21:30 pm
Thank you again, will do
Title: Re: ECP Rodnet Street Wigan PCN. Machine was full, coin stuck in machine. DCBL now CNBC
Post by: b789 on September 17, 2024, 01:18:00 pm
My only worry is that whoever advised you, has also asked you to "In the body of the email give the reason(s) why you are disputing all of the claim that has been made against you."

That could amount to a defence, especially as it is going to the email address for defences rather than the email address for AoS.

I would do as advised regarding the N9 and the subject of the email. However, I would put the following in the body of the email:

"Please find attached the corrected N9 Acknowledgement of Service for claim number [claim number] [your full name] v [Euro Car Parks Ltd]. A Defence will be filed separately in due course.

I've been sent the N9B defence and counter claim but I've downloaded and filled the N9

Can I just send that?


Yes, you only need the N9 as you are not counter claiming.

Title: Re: ECP Rodnet Street Wigan PCN. Machine was full, coin stuck in machine. DCBL now CNBC
Post by: Me and my boys on September 17, 2024, 01:09:36 pm
I've been sent the N9B defence and counter claim but I've downloaded and filled the N9

Can I just send that?
Title: Re: ECP Rodnet Street Wigan PCN. Machine was full, coin stuck in machine. DCBL now CNBC
Post by: b789 on September 17, 2024, 01:08:33 pm
Deleted
Title: Re: ECP Rodnet Street Wigan PCN. Machine was full, coin stuck in machine. DCBL now CNBC
Post by: Me and my boys on September 17, 2024, 12:58:52 pm
I got through on the phone, they asked me to send the filled in N9 to ClaimResponses.CNBC@justice.gov.uk

Without your guidance this seems like a mine field that is likely to get me.
This is what the email says

"If you are returning your claim response or any claim response forms by email then you MUST state the phrase ‘CLAIM RESPONSE’, together with your claim number, in the subject line of your email.
Once the form(s) have been completed, they can be submitted to the court via:

Email: ClaimResponses.CNBC@justice.gov.uk

Thank you for calling the Civil Contact team for the Civil National Business Centre,

In the body of the email give the reason(s) why you are disputing all of the claim that has been made against you.

Please also type your name (this is classed as an electronic signature) and date the document at the bottom of the page.
Please note: the attached form(s) contains fillable form fields, and the software to complete the form can be downloaded for free from http://get.adobe.com/uk/reader.
Regards,  Patricia M.
Admin Officer - Civil Contact Team"


Can I instead put Subject: URGENT - Incorrect Acknowledgement of Service - Claim Number [insert claim number]
Am I now here, responding to what is in the Particulars of Claim (PoC)?
Title: Re: ECP Rodnet Street Wigan PCN. Machine was full, coin stuck in machine. DCBL now CNBC
Post by: Me and my boys on September 17, 2024, 11:54:58 am
Thank you, will do now
Title: Re: ECP Rodnet Street Wigan PCN. Machine was full, coin stuck in machine. DCBL now CNBC
Post by: b789 on September 17, 2024, 11:34:28 am
In this situation, where the driver has mistakenly completed the Acknowledgement of Service (AoS) on the MCOL website in their own name instead of the named defendant (the keeper), you need to act immediately. Until the correct AoS is submitted, there’s a strong possibility that the claimant will request a CCJ by default, which you must avoid. Here’s exactly what needs to be done:

1. Call the Civil National Business Centre (CNBC) NOW: You must telephone the Civil National Business Centre (CNBC) on 0300 123 1056 immediately. Wait on the line for as long as necessary to speak to someone, and explain the mistake. Make it clear that the AoS was submitted by the wrong person (the driver) and not the actual defendant (the keeper). Tell them that you are sending the correct AoS N9 form as a PDF file attached to an email. Ask them to confirm whether the email should be sent aos.cnbc@justice.gov.uk or claimprogression.cnbc@justice.gov.uk. It is crucial to get this corrected swiftly, or the claimant may apply for a default judgment.

2. If Calling is Not Possible, Email Instead: If you can’t get through by phone, you must email the court today, before 4 pm. Send the response I’ve outlined above to caseprogression.cnbc@justice.gov.uk AND aos.cnbc@justice.gov.uk and mark it as URGENT in the subject line, including the claim number. For example:

Subject: URGENT - Incorrect Acknowledgement of Service - Claim Number [insert claim number]

Explain in the email that the AoS was completed by the wrong person (you, the driver), and that the actual defendant (the keeper) needs to be properly recognised. Don’t delay, as time is of the essence.

3. Attach a Corrected AoS Form: In the email, attach a corrected and completed PDF copy of the AoS form, in the name of the actual defendant (the keeper). You can download the AoS form from the following link:
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5c45e568ed915d38a0611a61/n9-eng.pdf

Make sure the corrected form is completed properly and that the claim number matches.

4. Clarify the Correct Defendant: Whether on the phone or in your email, make sure to clarify that the keeper is the correct defendant and they wish to defend the claim. The court needs this information in order to process the correction and prevent a default judgment.

Until the correct AoS is submitted, there is a risk of a default CCJ against the keeper. Act immediately to correct the mistake!
Title: Re: ECP Rodnet Street Wigan PCN. Machine was full, coin stuck in machine. DCBL now CNBC
Post by: Me and my boys on September 17, 2024, 11:13:30 am
Oh dear, I have messed this up, I (driver not Reg K) logged in to .gov and put my name as the defendant and signed with my initials. We have the same surname but different initials. :-(
But it still naming the reg keeper as the defendant.
Title: Re: ECP Rodnet Street Wigan PCN. Machine was full, coin stuck in machine. DCBL now CNBC
Post by: DWMB2 on September 16, 2024, 11:48:01 pm
You need to clarify what has happened here before we go any further.
Title: Re: ECP Rodnet Street Wigan PCN. Machine was full, coin stuck in machine. DCBL now CNBC
Post by: Me and my boys on September 16, 2024, 11:39:58 pm
Thanks again for the advice, I don't think I've spoiled it. I, the driver, logged in to .gov.uk with my usual log in and from there to MCOL, acknowledged the form, ticked the box to say the defence will follow. It's been accepted, so hopefully they didn't notice? I'll just respond (by email) from the RK this time.

I love your way of doing this! We ask for all these details, then they will presumably have to fake a PCN that matches the claim form or say, oh we got the PoC wrong. Same with interest and all the other points. Certain should make them squirm!
Just to be absolutely certain, this email just has these two attachments (with details filled in), no other details, no mention of what happened?

I'm just wondering, why does it say, 'the claimant obviously knows if the defendant is the keeper or driver'? I don't think they can know?
Title: Re: ECP Rodnet Street Wigan PCN. Machine was full, coin stuck in machine. DCBL now CNBC
Post by: b789 on September 16, 2024, 05:08:05 pm
The questions I posed to you about the PoC were rhetorical. I wanted you to consider the PoC and understand why they are not adequate to be able to form a proper defence and so are in breach of CPR 16.4 and that is what the short defence is meant to do and the Draft Order is to make the Claimant squirm and try and fully comply with the order, which they are almost certainly unable to do so and so the claim is struck out

Even if it isn't struck out, it will eventually be discontinued, as long as what you tried to do with the AoS hasn't caused some unforeseen buggerance factor.
Title: Re: ECP Rodnet Street Wigan PCN. Machine was full, coin stuck in machine. DCBL now CNBC
Post by: b789 on September 16, 2024, 05:03:35 pm
I'm not the registered keeper, I was the driver. On the court acknowledgment form I said so and gave my name. Does that make any difference from here? Could I put MR... and Mrs... as the defendant?

ONLY the named Defendant can respond to the claim. It matters not one iota if you were the driver. I tis the Keeper who received the claim and only the Keeper can respond. You can do all the work but it MUST be in the name of the Defendant named on the form.

What do you mean "On the court acknowledgment form I said so and gave my name."? What exactly have you tried to do? What wording did you put and what tick boxes dod you select? Did you use the MCOL to do the AoS or did you use the paper form to respond?
Title: Re: ECP Rodnet Street Wigan PCN. Machine was full, coin stuck in machine. DCBL now CNBC
Post by: b789 on September 16, 2024, 04:58:27 pm
My bad. Here is the correct link to the Draft Order:

https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/yjj8nwoc6sknmc9uawecf/short-defence-order-copy-3.pdf?rlkey=y3xyz2s8vumu0k3webocx9sza&st=rln10f9m&dl=0

There is nothing to edit in the Draft Order. It is sent together with the Defence, which is edited for your claim details and signed by the defendant simply by typing their name for the signature and dating it. If you need a Word or Pages (Mac) version just say so and I can let you have one.
Title: Re: ECP Rodnet Street Wigan PCN. Machine was full, coin stuck in machine. DCBL now CNBC
Post by: Me and my boys on September 16, 2024, 03:59:01 pm
Sorry I wasn't clear,

First it says, the claimant claims
1. £170 the total of PCN and damages
2. interest...
3. Costs and court fees

In a box at the end,
The amount claimed  £205.08
Court fee           £35
Leg rep costs       £50
Total amount        £290.08

I think the £205.08 must be interest calculated from the day I parked on the total £170

Title: Re: ECP Rodnet Street Wigan PCN. Machine was full, coin stuck in machine. DCBL now CNBC
Post by: dave-o on September 16, 2024, 03:43:40 pm

Do you think the amount claimed, £205.08 is the £170 plus interest?


It's most likely the (disputed) invoice total plus the county court claim registration, which is £35.

The 8p I don't know.  The cost of the gum they were chewing while they sent off the claim? (joking of course!)
Title: Re: ECP Rodnet Street Wigan PCN. Machine was full, coin stuck in machine. DCBL now CNBC
Post by: Me and my boys on September 16, 2024, 03:35:25 pm
Congratulations dave-o on your victory!! Great news for everyone on here!

Thank you SOOO much for all this info! (I've gone from feeling worried to quite enjoying this.)

b789 this is great stuff! yes indeed the PCN issue date is the date of claimed contravention.
What is the difference between the short defence and the draft order, please? Do I need to email both? They seem identical

I'm not the registered keeper, I was the driver. On the court acknowledgment form I said so and gave my name. Does that make any difference from here? Could I put MR... and Mrs... as the defendant?

No they do not say what the £170 is made up of, just "the total of the PCN and damages"
Interest is very interesting  ;)
Do you think the amount claimed, £205.08 is the £170 plus interest?
If so, it looks like they've charged interest at 8% on that final amount, from the day I parked there. £170 plus 8% for about two and a half years is about £205.08. But they say 'interest... from the date hereof'. shouldn't that mean the date of this letter (form), being 28th Aug 2024? If so, yes they are charging interest on the PCN and damages from the day I parked there.

The exact wording of the contract, on the machine is,
1. enter reg
2. insert coins to the value of tariff required (no change given)
3. press green button
4. display ticket.

I did all that but one coin must have got stuck in the machine, as I told them two and half years ago. So, I fulfilled my part of the contract. In your opinion, am I correct?

Thank you once again
Title: Re: ECP Rodnet Street Wigan PCN. Machine was full, coin stuck in machine. DCBL now CNBC
Post by: b789 on September 16, 2024, 01:59:51 pm
With a claim issue date of 28th August, you had until 4pm today to submit your AoS, which you confirm has been done. Good. You now have until 4pm on Monday 30th September to file your defence. That's two weeks away.

As this is a DCB Legal issued claim, it will be easy to deal with as long as you follow the advice. For future reference, never, ever, ever, ever, ever, communicate with a debt collector such as DCBL (separate from their bulk litigation arm, DCB Legal) or any other DRA. No DRA has the power to do anything and can be safely ignored. They are not a party to any contract that the driver is alleged to have breached.

Here is a short defence you can use together with a draft order that will be emailed as PDF attachments to the CNBC. Do not, under any circumstances use the MCOL defence webform. Do not put so much as a comma in there otherwise that will be the sum total of your defence.

Remember, when defending the claim, you are responding to what is in the Particulars of Claim (PoC). Imagine that the claim form is the very first you have heard about this PCN. Forget all previous communication. How would you respond to what is actually alleged in the woeful inadequate PoC?

Have you checked the date stated in the PoC that the PCN was "issued"? I will bet you that that is not the date the PCN was issued at all. The PCN can only be issued as a Notice to Keeper (NtK) after they have requested and obtained the Keepers details from the DVLA. That cannot happen in under 24 hours and not at weekends or bank holidays. The PCN will have been "issued" at least a coupe of days after the date mentioned in the PoC.

How can you check that the interest claimed is accurate? Do you know from what date the interest started accruing? Is the sum claimed including "damages"? If so, who are the damages calculated? If they are not damages, are they debt recovery costs? Can interest be charged on those costs?

What is the exact wording of the clause (or clauses) of the terms and conditions of the "contract" which the Claimant is relying on?

What is the reason (or reasons) why the Claimant asserts the defendant has breached the "contract"?

Do the PoC 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?

Do you know what portion of the sum claimed is for the parking charge and what portion is for damages?

There is so much wrong with those PoC that it is impossible to properly prepare any defence. So, you use the following short defence and draft order. You only need to edit the defence with the claimants name, your name, the claim number and you can sign it by simply typing your name in the signature part and date it. There is nothing to edit in the draft order.

Short Defence (https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/fp2sghsa8ccinyklzi6i6/Short-defence-copy3.pdf?rlkey=xnery0ls6b2zo12kbjjrmm2lp&st=5qkbqmtc&dl=0)

Draft Order (https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/yjj8nwoc6sknmc9uawecf/short-defence-order-copy-3.pdf?rlkey=y3xyz2s8vumu0k3webocx9sza&st=rln10f9m&dl=0)

They should be emailed as PDF attachments to claimresponses.cnbc@justice.gov.uk and CC in yourself. If an auto response email is not received back from the CNBC within a few minutes, try again and if still no luck, try emailing using a different email agent.
Title: Re: ECP Rodnet Street Wigan PCN. Machine was full, coin stuck in machine. DCBL now CNBC
Post by: Me and my boys on September 16, 2024, 01:52:30 pm
Thanks so much for all this, thanks for removing the link, I didn't think enough. I thought a council car park was not private? Yes please, I'd very much appreciate advice on what to do next
Title: Re: ECP Rodnet Street Wigan PCN. Machine was full, coin stuck in machine. DCBL now CNBC
Post by: DWMB2 on September 16, 2024, 01:43:46 pm
I've removed the link. As b789 says, be careful that you're obscuring personal info that we do not need to see (also bear in mind that your Flickr account contains your full name).
Title: Re: ECP Rodnet Street Wigan PCN. Machine was full, coin stuck in machine. DCBL now CNBC
Post by: b789 on September 16, 2024, 01:40:10 pm
You really must understand that you are in grave danger of having your identity stolen if you continue to post unredacted details on the internet. You have left things like your claim number and MCOL password visible on the claim form and all the other correspondence (which we really do not need to see) has persona data showing.
Title: Re: ECP Rodnet Street Wigan PCN. Machine was full, coin stuck in machine. DCBL now CNBC
Post by: dave-o on September 16, 2024, 12:57:29 pm
For what it's worth, I have recently had a "victory" over DCB Legal. I followed instructions here and DCB backed out (discontinued the claim) shortly after I submitted my final defence.  My understanding is that this is what happens in 99% of cases, or perhaps in all cases.  I am happy to show you my discontinuation notice if it helps put things in context.

My advice, as someone who was in a similar position as you, would be to keep calm, follow the advice of members here, and remember that you are not up against the government or the council. You are up against a bunch of nasty cowboys who operate on the fringes of lawfulness and would rather make easy money from gullible people than do the hard work of fighting a (probably losing ) battle in court.
Title: Re: ECP Rodnet Street Wigan PCN. Machine was full, coin stuck in machine. DCBL now CNBC
Post by: stamfordman on September 16, 2024, 12:50:29 pm
This is a private parking invoice so have asked mod to move to correct section.
Title: ECP Rodnet Street Wigan PCN. Machine was full, coin stuck in machine. DCBL now CNBC
Post by: Me and my boys on September 16, 2024, 12:38:48 pm
On 2nd March 2022, driver (not reg keeper) parked here. Machine was faulty, big queue trying to pay. Most coins were rejected, (many others in queue were paying by cc, getting duplicate payments and wrong carpark option). When our turn, most coins rejected, eventually enough stayed in machine to cover cost, (large sign says, no need to display ticket but machine says, you MUST display ticket) so as being printed, asked son to run to put ticket in car as getting worried about time. On return to carpark, saw men at machine, asked, have you fixed it? Told, not broken was full.
Later got PCN, appealed that we did pay. Reply said you didn't pay enough. I replied to the next two letters, explaining, the instructions say, put enough coins in to cover charge (no change given), I did that. I did not realise that the last coin must have got stuck and not showed on ticket. But the instructions don't mention what to do if machine is faulty. I followed all instructions. The machine has my money, therefore there is no more payment to collect. No reply or reference to my letters. I assumed they had accepted it.
We moved house a few months later. I can't find the PCN or letters but they might be in my attic.
May 2024, over two years later, got a DCBL letter, I replied hurriedly by hand, something like, please refer to my previous letters, machine was faulty, I did pay enough coins into it. There is no missing payment for you to collect, I followed all instruction.
No reply, just auto next letter, then letter of claim. On 28th Aug 2024 CNBC claiming £290.08 with interest accruing daily. I was away, got back just in time to acknowledge online. I have 20 days left to send a defence.
Any advice gratefully received. Especially what to say and what not to say on the defence.
Thank you already to DWMB2 for helping start this .
Should I contact council and ask them if they would cancel this?
Do you think my reason might be enough for a Judge? The signage is clear, the fee is reasonable, why would anyone deliberately hold back a few pence, knowing the cameras are connected to state of the art fining systems. What else should I have done?
Should I fill in the counter claim and claim for my time? Or without proof is there no point? I have a picture of the men emptying the machine.
I have sent a subject access request to DCBL and to Euro Carparks.
Thanks so much for all the help you are giving everyone

photos are here [REMOVED BY MODERATOR]