For the mediation call, the only requirement is for you "attend" the call. It is not part of the judicial process and no judge is involved.
This is what I advise you to say when you receive the call from the mediator:
“Before I set out my position, please confirm from the claimant’s side:
• the full name of the person attending for them;
• their role/position at their legal representative’s firm; and
• whether they hold written authority to negotiate and settle today.
Please relay that back to me before we continue.”
After the mediator calls back...
If identified and authority confirmed:
“Thank you. I’m content to proceed on that basis. My settlement offer is £0, or I invite the claimant to discontinue with no order as to costs.”
If no/unclear authority:
“Please record that the claimant’s attendee has not confirmed settlement authority. My position remains that liability is denied and my offer is £0, subject to prompt approval by an authorised solicitor if they choose to discontinue.”
If the mediator probes your defence:
”In what capacity are you asking that question? Are you legally trained? If not, please refrain from offering opinions. I will be reporting any attempt to do so as inappropriate.”
All you need to know is the name and the position of the person acting for the claimant and report that back to us. It will be over within minutes. Complete waste of time otherwise.
There is no reason to delay submitting the N180DQ. You do that by email as advised.
Have another read of the instructions for the mediation phone call. I believe it says you can nominate someone to take the call for you. Also, you can put in the N180 that the defendant is not available on any Tuesday or Thursday or whatever.
It's not rocket science. However, for the mediation cal, here is some advice for whoever takes the call:
For the mediation call, the only requirement is for you "attend" the call. It is not part of the judicial process and no judge is involved.
This is what I advise you to say when you receive the call from the mediator:
“Before I set out my position, please confirm from the claimant’s side:
• the full name of the person attending for them;
• their role/position at their legal representative’s firm; and
• whether they hold written authority to negotiate and settle today.
Please relay that back to me before we continue.”
After the mediator calls back...
If identified and authority confirmed:
“Thank you. I’m content to proceed on that basis. My settlement offer is £0, or I invite the claimant to discontinue with no order as to costs.”
If no/unclear authority:
“Please record that the claimant’s attendee has not confirmed settlement authority. My position remains that liability is denied and my offer is £0, subject to prompt approval by an authorised solicitor if they choose to discontinue.”
All you need to know is the name and the position of the person acting for the claimant and report that back to us. It will be over within minutes. Complete waste of time otherwise.
Only you know what is best for you. Once the defence is submitted, the CNBC will send a copy to the claimant. Once the claimant has received the defence, DCB Legal will write to you confirming that their client intends to proceed and they'll include a copy of their N180 DQ form for your records. You will need to download and complete your own N180 DQ and send it to the CNBC and copy in DCB Legal.
This will take a few weeks most likely. Once the DQs are submitted, you will receive a telephone appointment for mediation. this is not part of the judicial process and no judge is involved but you must 'attend' the call. It's a complete waste of time and all you do is offer £0 and it is over in minutes.
You can check your MCOL history for when your own DQ has been sent and simply complete yours online and email it. You can do that from anywhere in the world as long as you have internet access.
When the time comes for completing the DQ, just follow these instructions:
Having received your own N180 (make sure it is not simply a copy of the claimants N180), do not use the paper form. Ignore all the other forms that came with it. you can discard those. Download your own here and fill it in on your computer. You sign it by simply typing your full name in the signature box.
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/673341e779e9143625613543/N180_1124.pdf
Here are the answers to some of the less obvious questions:
• 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".
• Sign the form by simply typing your full name for the signature.
When you have completed the form, attach it to a single email addressed to both dq.cnbc@justice.gov.uk and info@dcblegal.co.uk and CC in yourself. Make sure that the claim number is in the subject field of the email.
With an issue date of 9th July, you have until 4pm on Monday 28th July to submit your defence. If you submit an Acknowledgement of Service (AoS) before then, you would then have until 4pm on Monday 11th August to submit your defence.
If you want to submit an AoS then follow the instructions in this linked PDF:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/xvqu3bask5m0zir/money-claim-online-How-to-Acknowledge.pdf?dl=0
Otherwise, here is the defence and link to the draft order that goes with it. You only need to edit your name and the claim number. You sign the defence by typing your full name for the signature and date it. There is nothing to edit in the draft order.
When you're ready you combine both documents as a single PDF attachment and send as an attachment in an email to claimresponses.cnbc@justice.gov.uk and CC in yourself. The claim number must be in the email subject field and in the body of the email just put: "Please find attached the defence and draft order in the matter of [claimant] v [your full name] Claim no.: [claim number]."
IN THE COUNTY COURT
Claim No: [Claim Number]
BETWEEN:
[Claimant]
Claimant
- and -
[Defendant's Full Name]
Defendant
DEFENCE
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 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 16.7.3(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 attaches to this defence a copy of a draft order approved by a district judge at another court. The court struck out the claim of its own initiative after determining that the Particulars of Claim failed to comply with CPR 16.4. The judge noted that the claimant had failed to:
(i) Set out the exact wording of the clause (or clauses) of the terms and conditions relied upon;
(ii) Adequately explain the reasons why the defendant was allegedly in breach of contract;
(iii) Provide separate, detailed Particulars of Claim as permitted under CPR PD 7C.5.2(2).
(iv) The court further observed that, given the modest sum claimed, requiring further case management steps would be disproportionate and contrary to the overriding objective. Accordingly, the judge struck out the claim outright rather than permitting an amendment.
5. 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 for the Claimant’s failure to comply with CPR 16.4.
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:
Draft Order for the defence (https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/tcewefk7daozuje25chkl/Strikeout-order-v2.pdf?rlkey=wxnymo8mwcma2jj8xihjm7pdx&st=nbtf0cn6&dl=0)
Respond to DCB legal at info@dcblegal.co.uk and CC yourself as follows:
By email to: info@dcblegal.co.uk
[Your Name]
[Your Address]
[Date]
Dear Sirs,
Re: Letter of Claim dated 20th March 2025 | Your Response dated [Insert Date]
I write further to your correspondence in reply to my email dated 31st March 2025.
Regrettably, your response is entirely unsatisfactory and falls materially short of your obligations under the Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims (PAPDC).
Contrary to the requirements of Paragraph 5.1 and Annex 1 of the Protocol, your response to my legitimate and reasonable questions was vague, evasive, and non-specific. I remind you that one of the key aims of the PAPDC is to promote early engagement and exchange of information to avoid unnecessary litigation. Your failure to provide proper clarification frustrates that purpose and may amount to unreasonable conduct.
In particular:
1. Debt Recovery Surcharge:
You have failed to provide a specific contractual or legal basis for the £70 add-on per PCN. Simply stating that “you would have been made aware of this through signage” is both insufficient and misleading. You have also failed to identify whether this is a genuine third-party cost or simply a fictitious uplift to profit from litigation. The claim that this charge "does not include any VAT" fails to address whether it should, and whether it has been accounted for correctly in line with HMRC regulations, particularly if no third party has been paid.
2. Nature of the Principal Sum:
You confirm that the parking charges are pleaded as damages for breach of contract, yet elsewhere in the same letter you assert that a contract was formed by the act of parking, implying a fee for service. This internal inconsistency raises further questions as to the legal basis upon which the claim is brought.
3. Chronology and Status of Notices:
You assert that Notices to Keeper were sent between 2019 and 2020. You also claim the reminders stated that legal action “may be taken.” However, you fail to explain the reason for the substantial delay between those notices and your current Letter of Claim in 2025, which appears designed to aggregate and inflate claims that should have been addressed contemporaneously.
Moreover, you imply that this matter is now urgent, yet your client took no action for over four years. If a claim is issued, I reserve the right to raise arguments of abuse of process and/or cause of action estoppel.
4. Inaccurate and Misleading Statements:
Your letter contains inconsistencies regarding the quantum of the alleged debt. The fact that the three PCNs in question carry different base sums (£70 for one and £100 for two), yet all have a uniform £70 surcharge, further demonstrates the arbitrary nature of the added fees and the lack of transparency in your calculations.
Final Warning
If you are unable or unwilling to provide a full and accurate response to the questions I have raised, in compliance with the PAPDC, I will have no hesitation in bringing this conduct to the attention of the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA). The use of mendacious and boilerplate tactics to pressure payment of questionable debts raises serious concerns under the SRA Principles and Code of Conduct, in particular:
• Principle 1: Upholding the rule of law and the proper administration of justice;
• Principle 2: Acting with integrity; and
• Principle 5: Acting in a way that encourages equality, diversity and inclusion, particularly in matters involving vulnerable parties or long-outstanding claims.
Please treat this letter as a formal notification that your response is non-compliant with the Pre-Action Protocol and that further failures may be referred to the appropriate regulatory authorities. I also reserve the right to present this correspondence to the court, should your client pursue proceedings.
Yours faithfully,
[Your Full Name]
Respond to the LoC as follows to info@dcblegal.co.uk and CC in yourself:
By email to: info@dcblegal.co.uk
[Date]
Dear Sirs,
Re: Letter of Claim dated 20th March 2025
I refer to your Letter of Claim.
I confirm that my address for service at this time is as follows, and I request that any outdated address be erased from your records to ensure compliance with data protection obligations:
[YOUR ADDRESS]
Please note that the alleged debt is disputed, and any court proceedings will be robustly defended.
I note that the sum claimed has been increased by an excessive and unjustifiable amount, which appears contrary to the principles established by the Government, who described such practices as “extorting money from motorists.” Please refrain from sending boilerplate responses or justifications regarding this issue.
Under the Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims, I require specific answers to the following questions:
1. Does the additional £60 per PCN represent what you describe as a “Debt Recovery” fee? If so, is this figure net of or inclusive of VAT? If inclusive, I trust you will explain why I, as the alleged debtor, am being asked to cover your client’s VAT liability.
2. Regarding the principal sum of the alleged Parking Charge Notice (PCN): Is this being claimed as damages for breach of contract, or will it be pleaded as consideration for a purported parking contract?
I would caution you against simply dismissing these questions with vague or boilerplate responses, as I am fully aware of the implications. By claiming that PCNs are exempt from VAT while simultaneously inflating the debt recovery element, your client – with your assistance – appears to be evading VAT obligations due to HMRC. Such mendacious conduct raises serious questions about the legality and ethics of your practices.
I strongly advise your client to cease and desist. Should this matter proceed to court, you can be assured that these issues will be brought to the court’s attention, alongside a robust defence and potentially a counterclaim for unreasonable conduct.
Yours faithfully,
[YOUR NAME]