-
If you're submitting via MCOL make sure it fits.
If it doesn't you can chop the title etc. Before your numbered defence points.
-
Looks good to me.
Remember that you are a Litigant In Person (LIP) so the Court are unlikely to sanction minor formatting errors etc so don't worry about things like that at this stage.
We'll now have to sit and wait.
-
I have put all of your points into a letter format, as below. Do I need the last paragraph in point 11 which refers to stolen vehicles? Do I need to add anything else to make it compliant with court format?
IN THE COUNTY COURT AT KINGSTON-UPON-THAMES
CLAIM NUMBER: XXXX
BETWEEN
MET PARKING SERVICES (Claimant)
and
XXXXX (Defendant)
DEFENCE
1. I am the individual named in this Claim.
2. The Defendant denies liability for the entirety of the sum claimed, and denies that any debt is owed by myself to the Claimant for the reasons stated below.
3. Although the Claimant's revised Particulars of Claim (POC) are more detailed than the previous version, the new POC do not comply with Civil Procedure Rule (CPR) 16.4. The POC remain inaccurate, lack specifics and fail to disclose how they believe the terms and conditions of the alleged contract were breached. The Claimant is required to provide a concise statement of facts relied upon and the Court is invited to strike out the claim for this reason, using its powers pursuant to CPR 3.4.
4. After taking legal guidance, I have been advised that it is not the job of the Defendant to help the Claimant get their Claim in order.
5. I will therefore (in light of my two previous points) be responding only to the Claimant's pleaded claim as set out in their amended POC.
6. The Claimant specifies that they are pursuing me as the Registered Keeper of the vehicle in question.
7. The Claimant is using Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA) in order to establish what is known as 'keeper liability' under PoFA.
8. I believe that PoFA keeper liability is not available to the Claimant in the manner which they are claiming since they are unable to meet the strict criteria under which PoFA would make me the liable party.
9. I believe that the Claimant is attempting to recover a sum far greater than the legislation allows under PoFA.
10. PoFA specifically states that, under 'keeper liability' PoFA Schedule 4 Paragraph 9(2)(f) that, "the creditor will (if all the applicable conditions under this Schedule are met) have the right to recover from the keeper so much of that amount as remains unpaid"
11. The PoFA explanatory notes (contained within the Act) specifies at Note 221;
Paragraph 4 provides that the creditor has a right to recover unpaid parking charges from the keeper of the relevant vehicle if the conditions set out in paragraphs 5, 6, 11 and 12 are satisfied.
The creditor is not obliged to pursue unpaid parking charges through this scheme and may seek to do so through other means but they may not use the scheme provided for here to secure double recovery of unpaid parking charges (paragraph 4(6)), nor will they have the right to pursue the keeper, as opposed to the driver, of the vehicle where they have sufficient details of the driver’s identity.
The right to reclaim unpaid parking charges from the vehicle keeper does not apply in cases where the vehicle has been stolen before it was parked, (paragraphs 4(2) to (3)), or in certain circumstances where the vehicle in question was a hire vehicle (paragraph 4(7)). The creditor may not make a claim against the keeper of a vehicle for more than the amount of the unpaid parking related charges as they stood when the notice to the driver was issued (paragraph 4(5)).
12. Note 221 makes two relevant points, namely; that the registered keeper cannot be pursued when driver details have been provided and that the creditor (Claimant) cannot make a claim against the keeper for more than the amount of the unpaid charges at the time the Notice to Keeper was actually issued.
13. The Claimant therefore appears to be ignoring the requirements of the legislation on which they appear to be reliant since their 'claim' is more than double the amount which the legislation says can be recovered.
14. I believe that I have never contravened any of the terms or conditions at the specified location in the manner which the POC loosely suggests.
15. Liability for the Claim is therefore denied.
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: .......... ...........
(Defendant)
Address for Service of Documents:
-
Thank you for your help, I will submit all those points
-
Defence point 8 does cover this.
But we are trying to avoid a situation where the Claimant realises their mistake and attempts to pursue the OP as the driver.
-
Is there a reason none of these points mention that the defendant was not the registered keeper? This seems like a very salient point, but as far as I can tell, neither the original defence nor this revised one make mention of it.
It isn't the defendant's job to get the Claimant's claim in order, but it is their job to respond to each of the claims made. One of those claims is that the Defendant was the registered keeper.
-
The Krispy Kreme Defence.
This needs to be submitted as close to the deadline as possible.
But make sure that deadline is worked out correctly.
I would submit on the previous day to the deadline.
1. That I am the individual named in this Claim.
2. That liability for the claim is denied and that no debt is owed by myself to the Claimant.
3. That, although the Claimant's revised Particulars of Claim (POC) are more detailed than the previous version, the new POC remain inaccurate, lack specifics and fails to disclose how they believe the terms and conditions of the alleged contract were breached.
4. That, after taking legal guidance, I have been advised that it is not the job of the Defendant to help the Claimant get their Claim in order.
5. I will therefore (in light of my two previous points) be responding only to the Claimant's pleaded claim as set out in their amended POC.
6. That the Claimant specifies that they are pursuing me as the Registered Keeper of the vehicle in question.
7. That the Claimant is using Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA) in order to establish what is known as 'keeper liability' under PoFA.
8. That I believe that PoFA keeper liability is not available to the Claimant in the manner which they are claiming since they are unable to meet the strict criteria under which PoFA would make me the liable party.
9. That I believe that the Claimant is attempting to recover a sum far greater than the legislation allows under PoFA.
10 That PoFA specifically states that, under 'keeper liability' PoFA Schedule 4 Paragraph 9(2)(f) that, "the creditor will (if all the applicable conditions under this Schedule are met) have the right to recover from the keeper so much of that amount as remains unpaid"
11. That the PoFA explanatory notes (contained within the Act) specifies at Note 221;
Paragraph 4 provides that the creditor has a right to recover unpaid parking charges from the keeper of the relevant vehicle if the conditions set out in paragraphs 5, 6, 11 and 12 are satisfied.
The creditor is not obliged to pursue unpaid parking charges through this scheme and may seek to do so through other means but they may not use the scheme provided for here to secure double recovery of unpaid parking charges (paragraph 4(6)), nor will they have the right to pursue the keeper, as opposed to the driver, of the vehicle where they have sufficient details of the driver’s identity.
The right to reclaim unpaid parking charges from the vehicle keeper does not apply in cases where the vehicle has been stolen before it was parked, (paragraphs 4(2) to (3)), or in certain circumstances where the vehicle in question was a hire vehicle (paragraph 4(7)). The creditor may not make a claim against the keeper of a vehicle for more than the amount of the unpaid parking related charges as they stood when the notice to the driver was issued (paragraph 4(5)).
12. That Note 221 makes two relevant points, namely; that the registered keeper cannot be pursued when driver details have been provided and that the creditor (Claimant) cannot make a claim against the keeper for more than the amount of the unpaid charges at the time the NtK was actually issued.
13. That the Claimant therefore appears to be ignoring the requirements of the legislation on which they appear to be reliant since their 'claim' is more than double the amount which the legislation says can be recovered.
14. That I believe that I have never contravened any of the terms or conditions at the specified location in the manner which the POC loosely suggests.
15. That liability for the Claim is therefore denied.
-
Yes - all noted.
But we're using those arguments to draw attention away from the major mistakes in the revised POC.
-
The notice says "Customers Only"
You are a regular customer and therefore appear to satisfy the requirements of the term.
How well that approach goes down may depend on "judge bingo".
Some judges may think a defendant is "taking the p*ss" somewhat by seeking to argue that a reasonable interpretation of the signage is that someone who has previously been (or is a regular) customer is entitled to use their land for free parking even when not actively being a customer at the time (e.g. When the store is closed). Others may go for it.
Another angle here may be that the signage makes no valid contractual offer to non-customers. It prohibits non-customers from parking rather than offering them parking on certain terms in the way it does to customers.
It might be difficult to run both of these arguments in tandem, as one involves making the argument that the driver was a customer despite the store being closed, whilst the other involves arguing the driver was not a customer.
-
yes i have and I knew it was open late but didn't check the actual time that evening. Their argument is that I cannot be a customer when the store was closed.
However, I entered as a customer, was just unable to buy anything
That's good news.
The notice says "Customers Only"
You are a regular customer and therefore appear to satisfy the requirements of the term.
They will argue differently by you are protected by the concept of contra-proferentem - meaning that, as a consumer, you are entitled to interpret the term in a manner which benefits you so long as that interpretation is reasonable based on the wording used.
I asked you if you were a customer of KK and you answered "Yes" - that is a reasonable interpretation.
I have read their more detailed PoC - what a mess they have made.
This just goes to show how useless these legal firms are when they are forced to ski off-piste - meaning, that at soon as they can no longer use their boiler-plate PoC, they simply don't have the required skills or attention span to deal with the claim.
I think we can use this to our advantage but we need to play a tactical game.
They have said that they are pursuing you as keeper - but you aren't the keeper.
We'll need to come up with a defence which doesn't tip them off as to their numerous errors.
Then, at a later stage, we can submit our Witness Statement at the last possible moment (hopefully after we have seen their WS) - in our WS we can then make it clear that you are not the keeper.
Maybe others could comment on this approach?
Does all this make sense?
-
yes i have and I knew it was open late but didn't check the actual time that evening. Their argument is that I cannot be a customer when the store was closed.
However, I entered as a customer, was just unable to buy anything
-
Does this link work?
https://ibb.co/ch0mjgSG
I have until 25th June I think.
Yes, that's fine - it looks pretty compliant.
Can you confirm that you have used this branch of KK Donuts before?
-
I'm sure there's a section in PoFA which sets out 'meanings' under the Act.
There is, paragraph 2.
I think the Claimant means that the word 'keeper', when used in text of the PoFA legislation, means the Registered Keeper of the vehicle in question.
Yep:
“keeper” means the person by whom the vehicle is kept at the time the vehicle was parked, which in the case of a registered vehicle is to be presumed, unless the contrary is proved, to be the registered keeper;
-
Does this link work?
https://ibb.co/ch0mjgSG
I have until 25th June I think.
-
The OP should also examine the wording of the PoFA explanatory notes.
In particular Note 221 which specifies the following;
221.Paragraph 4 provides that the creditor has a right to recover unpaid parking charges from the keeper of the relevant vehicle if the conditions set out in paragraphs 5, 6, 11 and 12 are satisfied.
The creditor is not obliged to pursue unpaid parking charges through this scheme and may seek to do so through other means but they may not use the scheme provided for here to secure double recovery of unpaid parking charges (paragraph 4(6)), nor will they have the right to pursue the keeper, as opposed to the driver, of the vehicle where they have sufficient details of the driver’s identity.
The right to reclaim unpaid parking charges from the vehicle keeper does not apply in cases where the vehicle has been stolen before it was parked, (paragraphs 4(2) to (3)), or in certain circumstances where the vehicle in question was a hire vehicle (paragraph 4(7)). The creditor may not make a claim against the keeper of a vehicle for more than the amount of the unpaid parking related charges as they stood when the notice to the driver was issued (paragraph 4(5)).
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2012/9/notes/division/5/1/3
-
I'm sure there's a section in PoFA which sets out 'meanings' under the Act.
I think the Claimant means that the word 'keeper', when used in text of the PoFA legislation, means the Registered Keeper of the vehicle in question.
-
10. Pursuant to paragraph 4 of POFA, the Claimant has the right to recover the Charge from the 'Keeper'. Paragraph 1 of POFA clarifies that the Registered Keeper is presumed to
be the 'Keeper' unless proven otherwise.
needs to be challenged - what “Paragraph 1 of POFA” and where does it say this?
Is this just a typical untrue statement stated as fact, which is common practice, in the hope that nobody notices it’s complete rubbish? But did they mean to say ‘driver’, which they didn’t? Of course the “registered keeper” can be presumed to be the “keeper”! It’s total rubbish which needs to be pointed out as such.
SCHEDULE 4
Recovery of unpaid parking charges
Introductory
1(1)This Schedule applies where—
(a)the driver of a vehicle is required by virtue of a relevant obligation to pay parking charges in respect of the parking of the vehicle on relevant land; and
(b)those charges have not been paid in full.
(2)It is immaterial for the purposes of this Schedule whether or not the vehicle was permitted to be parked (or to remain parked) on the land.
Right to claim unpaid parking charges from keeper of vehicle
4(1)The creditor has the right to recover any unpaid parking charges from the keeper of the vehicle.
(2)The right under this paragraph applies only if—
(a)the conditions specified in paragraphs 5, 6, 11 and 12 (so far as applicable) are met; and
(b)the vehicle was not a stolen vehicle at the beginning of the period of parking to which the unpaid parking charges relate.
(3)For the purposes of the condition in sub-paragraph (2)(b), the vehicle is to be presumed not to be a stolen vehicle at the material time, unless the contrary is proved.
(4)The right under this paragraph may only be exercised after the end of the period of 28 days beginning with the day on which the notice to keeper is given.
(5)The maximum sum which may be recovered from the keeper by virtue of the right conferred by this paragraph is the amount specified in the notice to keeper under paragraph 8(2)(c) or (d) or, as the case may be, 9(2)(d) (less any payments towards the unpaid parking charges which are received after the time so specified).
(6)Nothing in this paragraph affects any other remedy the creditor may have against the keeper of the vehicle or any other person in respect of any unpaid parking charges (but this is not to be read as permitting double recovery).
(7)The right under this paragraph is subject to paragraph 13 (which provides for the right not to apply in certain circumstances in the case of a hire vehicle).
-
My guess is that the revised defence has to be submitted by 24 June, 28 days after the court order dated 27 May. But that’s only a guess. Per Reply #53 which has some of the necessary details made vague.
-
We'll need to pick through that.
When do you have to submit your defence?
Could you please re-post the original PCN as the old links have expired?
-
Hi. I've now received the revised particulars of claim and copied and pasted it below. It is strange because it doesn't give full details of the signage which said that customers could park there for 90 mins, nor any details of how they believe I contravened the terms and conditions. It also says I am the registered keeper, which is not true. I was just the driver but not the registered keeper, and I did say I was the driver very early on when my spouse (who is the registered keeper) received the penalty notice, and I did appeal but the appeal was ignored. They've also misspelt New Malden (not New Maldon). My defence is that I was a customer and stayed for less than 90 mins so no breach. They will argue that I was not a customer because the store was closed, but how can you know this before you enter the car park? Once you enter as a customer, you have 90 mins to exit, which I did.
AMENDED PARTICULARS OF CLAIM
These Amended Particulars of Claim are filed and served in accordance with the Court Order
of District Judge Jacobs dated 27/05/2026.
Parties
1. The Claimant is a Company that offers private car park management services to private
landowners; primarily to manage the way in which motorists are permitted to park whilst on their private land. At all material times, the Claimant was accredited by the
Accredited Trade Association ("ATA") known as the British Parking Association
("BPA"). The BPA has a Code of Practice ("Code") that its members are expected to
adhere to, or otherwise they face potential sanctions. The Claimant operates in
accordance with the Code.
2. The Defendant is the recipient of a parking charge ("the Charge") issued by the
Claimant.
Background
3. The details of the Charge issued at to the Defendant's vehicle with the registration mark
of xxxx ("the Vehicle") at (768) Krispy Kreme New Maldon, New Maldon,
KT3 4NA ("the Land") are as follows: -
Charge No.
AB30311849
Contravention Date
24/08/2024
Issue Date
28/08/2024
Reason For Issue
Unauthorised Parking
Landowner Authority
4. At the time the Charge was issued, the Claimant was instructed by the owner of the
Land ("Landowner") to manage parking on the Land.
Contract & Breach
5. The Claimant was prominently displaying signs on the Land stipulating the Terms and
Conditions of parking (“Terms”) at the time the Charge was issued. The signs formed
the basis of the Contract with the driver of the Vehicle and contained the following
terms:-
-
"Private Property - No Unauthorised Parking"
"TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF USE APPLY AT ALL TIMES. PLEASE READ THIS SIGN
CARFULLY."
"Motorists visiting this car park are entering into contractual agreement and agree to comply
with the terms and conditions of use and also accept liability to pay the parking charge if they
fail to comply with."
6. The following term made it clear that a £100 parking charge would be payable in those
circumstances: -
"If you breach any of the above terms and conditions of use you will be charged: £100".
7. By parking the Vehicle on the Land in the manner described herein, the driver accepted
the Terms of the Contract by way of conduct, with the 'parking service' being the
consideration ("Contract"). The driver subsequently breached the Terms in failing to purchase a suitable tariff payment for their vehicle registration mark at the material
time.
8. Pursuant to paragraph 2 of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 ("POFA") the "relevant obligation" arose under the terms of a "relevant contract". The
"relevant contract" was between the driver and the Claimant, who was authorised by
the Landowner to enter into a contract with the driver, requiring payment in respect of
the parking of the Vehicle on the Land.
Defendant's Liability
9. In order to issue the Charge, the Claimant applied to the DVLA for the details of the
Registered Keeper of the Vehicle to send notices compliant with Schedule 4 of POFA.
10. Pursuant to paragraph 4 of POFA, the Claimant has the right to recover the Charge from the 'Keeper'. Paragraph 1 of POFA clarifies that the Registered Keeper is presumed to
be the 'Keeper' unless proven otherwise.
11. The Defendant is the Registered Keeper of the Vehicle and is therefore presumed to be
the 'Keeper' for the purposes of POFA.
12. Upon receipt of those details, Notice is sent to the Keeper via the post in accordance
with Section 9 of Schedule 4 of POFA.
13. For the sake of completeness, the Claimant relies on Paragraphs 4, 5, 6 and 9 of POFA.
14. As outlined in paragraph 12 above, the Parking Charge was issued to the Defendant via
post, as permitted within section 9.
15. The Parking Charge to the Registered Keeper was issued within the required 14-day
period under Paragraph 9(5).
16. The Parking Charge included all mandatory information under Paragraph 9(2),
including:-
i. The vehicle registration and relevant incident details (9(2)(a)-(c));
ii. The total amount due (9(2)(d));
iii. A statement that the operator does not know the driver's name and
address and an invitation for the keeper to provide this (9(2)(e)-(f));
iv. A warning that the keeper may be liable if the driver is not named within
28 days (9(2)(f));
v. The date of issue (9(2)(g));
vi. Instructions for payment and contact details (9(2)(h)-(i)).
17. The Parking Charge was served by post and was presumed delivered under POFA
Paragraph 9(6).
18. As the driver was not named within the required time and all other statutory
requirements were satisfied, the Claimant is entitled to pursue the Keeper under
Paragraph 4(6) of POFA.
19. Pursuant to paragraph 4 of POFA, the Claimant has the right to recover the Charge from
the 'Keeper'. Paragraph 1 of POFA clarifies that the Registered Keeper is presumed to
be the 'Keeper' unless proven otherwise.
20. The Defendant is the Registered Keeper of the Vehicle and is therefore presumed to be
the 'Keeper' for the purposes of POFA.
21. A POFA compliant Notice of Keeper was therefore sent to the Defendant at the address
supplied by the DVLA, providing the Defendant the opportunity to pay, appeal or
nominate the driver (if it was not them). None of which were done.
Pre-Action Conduct
22. As a result of non-payment, the Claimant instructed Direct Collections Bailiffs Limited
to send further letters to the Defendant to prompt payment. As the matter could not be
resolved, the Claimant instructed DCB Legal Ltd to send a Letter of Claim to the
Defendant.
23. The Claimant subsequently issued Court proceedings as a last resort to recover the
monies.
Amount Claimed
24. The Claimant seeks the total sum of £270.52, broken down as follows: -
Charge
Contractual Costs
£100.00
£70.00
Interest
£15.52
Court Fee
£35.00
Legal Representative Fixed Costs
£50.00
25. The Contractual Costs are claimed pursuant to the Contract which states: -
"The charge must be paid with 28 days and will be reduced if it is paid within 14 days of issue.
Should it remain unpaid at this point further charges may accrue"
26. Interest is claimed pursuant to section 69 of the County Courts Act 1984 at a standard
rate of 8% per annum above base rate until Judgment or sooner payment, or for such
period as the Court sees fit.
AND THE CLAIMANT CLAIMS: -
i.
Charge - £100.00
ii.
Contractual Costs £70.00
-
iii.
Interest - £15.52
iv.
Court Fee - £35.00
V.
Legal Representative Fixed Costs - £50.00
STATEMENT OF TRUTH
The Claimant believes that the facts stated in these Amended Particulars of Claim are true
and I am duly authorised to sign on the Claimant's behalf. 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
Name: David John Croot
Position: Solicitor
Dated: 05/06/2026
Address for service of documents:
DCB Legal Ltd
Direct House
Greenwood Drive
Manor Park
Runcorn
WA7 1UG
-
Return and post up the revised PoC once the Claimant submits them.
-
I don’t think so, but you’re the one with the letter from the court. You go by what this says.
-
Thank you. Just wondering next steps as my defence was that the claimant had not provided sufficient details of their claim. Assuming they now do so (and I will copy it here), do I get 28 days from the date they file their revised details of claim?
-
Reply #1 said you should read https://www.ftla.uk/private-parking-tickets/read-this-first-private-parking-charges-forum-guide/
The defence you submited per Reply #32 is increasingly struck out as being boilerplate and not specific to the claim, just as the claimant’s Particulars of Claim were struck out. So you need to read the more specific revised Particulars of Claim, to be received within 14 days, and submit a more specific defence than previously submitted in response, within 28 days as you say.
-
Not sure how to attach but the letter says:
It is ordered that:
1. The claimant must by (14 days) file and serve a Fully Particularised Particulars of Claim to include full details of:
a. the terms of the alleged contract which has been breached;
b. how the alleged contract was breached (including date, time and location);
c. A breakdown of the sums claimed.
2. The Defendant must by (28 days) file and serve a Fully Particularised Amended Defence to the Fully Particularised Particulars of Claim.
3. Note: A party affected by this order may apply, not more than 7 days after it is served on the m, to have it set aside, varied or stayed.
Dated 27 May 2026
-
14+5 days from the date on the N1SDT form, unless you file an Acknowledgment of Service by this deadline, in which case you get an additional 14 days to file a defence.
However you haven’t posted anything and this thread says you have already submitted a defence.
-
Hi.
I received this from the county court today. I think I need to put together a defence - is this within 28 days of the claimant filing their Full paticulars of Claim?
-
thank you, now re-submitted, together with the acknowledgement of receipt
-
No, as in Reply #45, if you submitted a defence and it was acknowledged that’s your defence, you need to re-send it and ask them what they’re on about by saying that you didn’t submit one.
-
Sorry, I was getting confused.
I did submit the defence you provided as per #32 and have a copy of it, and also a letter from HM Courts & Tribunals Service which says 'I acknowledge receipt of your defence. A copy is being served on the claimant.' etc etc.
The defence as per #32 was about how the claimant didn't provide enough details etc, do I now have to include reasons why I believe the parking ticket was not valid, i.e. I stayed less than the permitted 90 minutes and was a customer?.
Thanks
-
As per Reply #32 you needed to submit your defence to the court.
You didn’t, so you could have received a default judgement against you, but it looks like you’re being given a second chance. Take it! Waiting a few days is a bad idea. MET can apply for a default judgement against you tomorrow because of your failure to file a defence. Don’t mess about!
It’s your defence and your responsibility. Nothing to do with MET or anyone else.
You said
I submitted the defence as stated in your post of 21st October and have received an acknowledgement from the CNBC.
-
ok will do. The defence was never submitted to the court by me, only to the parking cmpany and then the parking ombudsman (a year and a half ago) so I guess MET parking didn't include it - is it their responsibility to include my defence?
Anyway, will send something in during the week.
-
Re-send the defence you sent last October, plus the acknowledgment of its receipt, and ask them what they’re playing at by saying your defence is missing.
You are not responsible for their ****-up.
-
Good afternoon, so mediation was completed and I have now received an email from the Court which says:
The District Judge requests that the Court writes to you as follows:
“The defence is missing please attach by way of reply”
So, should I put together a defence along the lines of my original defence as stated above when this thread started?
Thanks
-
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.
-
Thanks
N180 DQ now completed and submitted.
I will await the mediation call next
Best wishes
Nicole
-
You will not have to explain anything from now on. Once you have received and then submitted your N180 DQ, you will receive a date for your waste of time mediation call and after that, it will be wait for the discontinuation.
Just keep checking your MCOL history and when it updates to show that your DQ has been sent, just follow this advice:
Having received your own N180 (make sure it is not simply a copy of the claimants N180) or been notified on MCOL that yours has been sent, do not use the paper form. Ignore all the other forms that came with it. you can discard those. Download your own N180 DQ 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 [claimant to their legal representative]and CC in yourself. Make sure that the claim number is in the subject field of the email.
-
My apologies, it was an email addressed to me from DCB legal (not MET parking) with attachments of all correspondence to date.
The claim has not yet been assigned to a county court.
Thank you so much for outlining the process, so it sounds like I now wait for the N180 DQs before I state the reasons why I think the PCN was issued incorrectly. Is that right?
Thank you
-
Has the claim been allocated to your local county court yet? Is what you've received part of a Witness Statement (WS) from MET? I doubt it.
You will have no more direct contact with MET once the claim was issued. You will only be dealing with DCB Legal.
The normal steps in the process are exchange of N180 DQs to the court, a waste of time mediation call, transfer to your local court, directions from the judge with deadlines and eventually, just before their deadline to pay the £27 trial fee, discontinuation.
-
I submitted the defence as stated in your post of 21st October and have received an acknowledgement from the CNBC. I have also received an email from MET parking with all the evidence they have - which is basically the copies of the original PCN and my responses, copy of the POPLA appeal and refusal and photos of the car (but the photos are all dark and just show the registration number - there is no evidence of where the car was parked but the photos are date stamped).
As MET parking has now responded, do I now need to reply to this and submit another defence to the court (i.e. stating my reasons why I believe the PCN was issued incorrectly?
Thanks
-
So you are going through the process and having filed your defence, you are now waiting for a response acknowledgingnreceitp of your defence.
It would be worthwhile you searching through the forum for any of the countless other DCB Legal issued claims to see what happens next and when
-
The claim is in my name as my husband told MET that I was the driver, which is true.
We both know now he shouldn't have done this but we weren't sure what to do at the time and we understood they can still pursue the keeper in the event they weren't told who the driver was
-
Just to try and prevent a huge FUBAR here, in whose name has the claim been filed? We know that the NtK will have been sent to the keeper. The driver, if different from the Keeper, cannot just take over the PCN. If the Keeper wants to throw the driver under the proverbial bus, then all the have to do is give MET the drivers details and that is the end of the matter as far as they are concerned.
We never advise anyone to do that. As the Keeper, with the driver remaining unidentified, there are more protections available.
So, at any point in this process, gas the driver been identified? If not, then everything to now will have been in the Keepers name. It is the Keeper who is defending the claim. If you were the driver and want to take responsibility for this, it is far too late now. Whilst you can do all the work and even sign any documents as your husband (only need to the full name to electronically sign a document) as him. You cannot do ti "on behalf" of him.
As I stated a ling time back, this will never actually reach a hearing as DCB Legal will issue a Notice of Discontinuance (N279) before the trial fee has to be paid.
So, in whose name is the claim?
-
My husband was the registered keeper, he received the letter
-
Although the NTK is no longer visible, I assume it was issued based upon ANPR cameras.
Therefore the NTK was sent to the person whose details were held by DVLA on their register of keepers.
But you now say: I was never the registered keeper
Then how did you receive a Notice to Keeper in your name in the first place?
-
It's not relevant what the status of the vehicle is now. With an issue date of 15th October you have until 4pm on Monday 3rd November to submit your defence. If you submit an Acknowledgement of Service (AoS) before then, you would then have until 4pm on Monday 17th November 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:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/xvqu3bask5m0zir/money-claim-online-How-to-Acknowledge.pdf?dl=0
MCOL CPR16.4 only defence
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.
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.
-
The car is no longer in existence as it was written off shortly after and I was never the registered keeper. Just thought I'd point this out in case it is relevant.
-
I've redacted personal details and uploaded the claim form and PoC in this dropbox link below:
https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/y0x7fz9n8n02lvhf5rpwd/claim-form-201025.pdf?rlkey=p097jznpg8yl116tysgs4ruyl&st=a11z84wi&dl=0
Thanks for all your help
-
Without having seen the PoC but wth an issue date of 15th October you have until 4pm on Monday 3rd November to submit your defence. If you submit an Acknowledgement of Service (AoS) before then, you would then have until 4pm on Monday 17th November 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:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/xvqu3bask5m0zir/money-claim-online-How-to-Acknowledge.pdf?dl=0
I will not give you the defence until I have seen the PoC which determine which defence points to use.
-
Show us the Claim Form with the Particulars of Claim (PoC)! What is the date of issue of the claim? You only need to submit an AoS if you need extra time to submit the defence. Depending on the PoC, I will provide the text and all the instruction you need to submit the defence. Just show us the N1SDT Claim Form so we can establish the claimant, their representative, the PoC and the issue date of the claim!!!!!
-
Do I have any defence that the letter before claim was insufficient, as per the post above?
Does anyone know if I can counter claim for costs?
e.g. time off work to attend the hearing?
Any advice appreciated as I had not expected them to proceed with court claim.
-
Content nit available in your region. It seems that it no longer works in the UK. See the sticky at the top of the pag for who to use instead to post your pictures.
-
Ok, so I have now been sent the particulars of the claim, they are claiming £185.52 + court £35.00 + legal costs £50, total £270.52 so the original claim is has increased from £100 to £185.52.
I will send an acknowledgemenet of service to get an extra 14 days to reply.
Should I dispute the amount claimed in the defence?
-
s
-
Reply #10 above:
When the N1SDT Claim Form arrives from the CNCB, that must be responded to. Show it to us when you receive it, redacting only your personal data, the claim number, your VRM and the MCOL password. Leave everything else visible, especially the Particulars of Claim (PoC) and all dates.
-
ok thanks, I will delete the link but can't see how to?
Any advice re the response?
-
The guidance notes on the second page tell you the deadlines.
It’s perfectly normal.
There are lots of examples of N1SDT forms posted here. We advise obscuring the claim number and password, which you haven’t done.
Issue date 15 October
Service date 20 October
Response date 3 November
You respond with a defence, or an acknowledgement of service, which gives an extra 14 days for sending a defence.
-
I have just googled the Civil National Business Centre and it seems to be a court for disputes between businesses. I am an individual not a business so I'm not sure why they have sent a letter from the CNBS rather than the small claims court. Also, there is no date by which I have to respond?
This all seems a bit odd.
-
Imagur is no longer working so I've uploaded the letter to dropbox. Can you see it?
-
So, I emailed your suggested response on 5th October and received no reply. I have now received a letter from HM Courts & Tribunals service with a claim form attached from the civil national business cenre dated 15th October.
So it's look like they are proceeding with the court claim. I will upload the claim form.
So, I now have to write a defence, correct?
-
Thank you, I'll send the response you suggest. Good point also about the driver being the customer.
-
The argument that the driver needs to be the customer is a bit odd. Supposing a cab driver takes customers in there and doesn't buy anything for himself? Or you drop the mrs in there and don't buy anything?
-
Respond to the LoC by email to info@dcblegal.co.uk and CC yourself:
Subject: Response to you Letter of Claim Ref: [reference number]
Dear Sirs,
Your Letter Before Claim contains insufficient detail of the claim and fails to provide copies of evidence your client places reliance upon and thus is in complete contravention of the Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims.
As a firm of supposed solicitors, one would expect you to be capable of crafting a letter that aligns with paragraphs 3.1(a)–(d), 5.1 and 5.2 of the Protocol, and paragraphs 6(a) and 6(c) of the Practice Direction. These provisions do not exist for decoration—they exist to facilitate informed discussion and proportionate resolution. You might wish to reacquaint yourselves with them.
The Civil Procedure Rules 1998, Pre-Action Conduct and Protocols (Part 3), stipulate that prior to proceedings, parties should have exchanged sufficient information to understand each other’s position. Part 6 helpfully clarifies that this includes disclosure of key documents relevant to the issues in dispute.
Your template letter mentions a “contract”, yet fails to provide one. This would appear to undermine the only foundation upon which your client’s claim allegedly rests. It’s difficult to engage in meaningful pre-litigation dialogue when your side declines to furnish the very document it purports to enforce.
I confirm that, once I am in receipt of a Letter Before Claim that complies with the requirements of para 3.1 (a) of the Pre-Action Protocol, I shall then seek advice and submit a formal response within 30 days, as required by the Protocol. Thus, I require your client to comply with its obligations by sending me the following information/documents:
1. A copy of the original Notice to Keeper (NtK) that confirms any PoFA 2012 liability
2. A copy of the contract (or contracts) you allege exists between your client and the driver, in the form of an actual photograph of the sign you contend was at the location on the material date, not a generic stock image
3. The exact wording of the clause (or clauses) of the terms and conditions of the contract(s) which is (are) relied upon that you allege to have been breached
4. The written agreement between your client and the landowner, establishing authority to enforce
5. A breakdown of the charges claimed, identifying whether the principal sum is claimed as consideration or damages, and whether the £70 “debt recovery” fee includes VAT
I am clearly entitled to this information under paragraphs 6(a) and 6(c) of the Practice Direction. I also need it in order to comply with my own obligations under paragraph 6(b).
If your client does not provide me with this information then I put you on notice that I will be relying on the cases of Webb Resolutions Ltd v Waller Needham & Green [2012] EWHC 3529 (Ch), Daejan Investments Limited v The Park West Club Limited (Part 20) Buxton Associates [2003] EWHC 2872, Charles Church Developments Ltd v Stent Foundations Limited & Peter Dann Limited [2007] EWHC 855 in asking the court to impose sanctions on your client and to order a stay of the proceedings, pursuant to paragraphs 13, 15(b) and (c) and 16 of the Practice Direction, as referred to in paragraph 7.2 of the Protocol.
Until your client has complied with its obligations and provided this information, I am unable to respond properly to the alleged claim and to consider my position in relation to it, and it is entirely premature (and a waste of costs and court time) for your client to issue proceedings. Should your client do so, then I will seek an immediate stay pursuant to paragraph 15(b) of the Practice Direction and an order that this information is provided.
Yours faithfully,
-
https://imgur.com/a/RjwmG7G
Here is the link. Can you see this?
-
Please show it to us
-
Hello, I have now received a letter of claim for this.
Should I reply setting out the basis on which I am disputing the claim?
Any advice?
-
Thank you so much, that is so helpful.
I will let you know when I receive a letter of claim.
-
Much better.
So, the Notice to Keeper (NtK) is PoFA compliant which means that if the driver is not identified, the liability for the charge can transfer to the Keeper. However, that is not an issue here as the argument is going to be over whether a contractual term was breached by the driver.
As the appeals process has been exhausted, you are going to have to wait for MET to issue a claim in the county court. Until then, there is not much you can do. You can safely ignore all debt collection letters. They are powerless to do anything as the debt collectors are not a party to the contract allegedly breached by the driver.
Never, ever, ever communicate with a powerless debt collector. If you receive a Letter of Claim (LoC). then please come back and show us. It is not crucial to respond to an LoC but showtimes it is worthwhile, even if only to make the bar stewards work for it.
When the N1SDT Claim Form arrives from the CNCB, that must be responded to. Show it to us when you receive it, redacting only your personal data, the claim number, your VRM and the MCOL password. Leave everything else visible, especially the Particulars of Claim (PoC) and all dates.
The only other thing to note is that they are most likely to use DCB Legal as their bulk litigator which means that you are unlikely going to be able to use the arguments discussed above as it is 99.9% likely that they will discontinue before it ever gets to a hearing.
-
https://imgur.com/jQxgtGU
My apologies, are these pictures better?
-
https://imgur.com/a/pe6BQ4j
Images may be better now with this link
Nope. You need to take a higher resolution photo of it.
-
https://imgur.com/a/pe6BQ4j
Images may be better now with this link
-
Thank you so much, that is very helpful. I will definitely fight this all the way to court.
-
Here are some observations on the POPLA appeal:
Good Points:
1. Signage Focus: The appeal highlights that the signage does not explicitly state that the car park is limited to times when the store is open. This remains the core strength of the argument since it challenges the enforceability of any implied term not stated clearly on the sign.
2. Time Limit Observance: The driver stayed under 40 minutes, well within the 90-minute maximum. This directly disputes the claim of a contravention.
3. Definition of 'Customer': The driver entered the car park intending to purchase donuts, which reasonably qualifies them as a customer. The signage does not define "customer" or impose conditions based on store operating hours.
4. Terms and Conditions Clarity: The appeal correctly points out that the signage fails to specify restrictions related to time or store operations and does not provide a complete or discernible list of terms.
Irrelevant or Weak Points:
1. Mechanical Problems: While this explains the duration of the stay, it is unnecessary since the driver was within the 90-minute limit. It might be interpreted as an attempt to justify a delay, which is not relevant to the primary arguments.
2. Over-Reliance on Intention: While the intent to make a purchase strengthens the "customer" argument, it could be undermined if MET argues that parking use was invalid when no transaction occurred. Focusing on the signage’s lack of definition for "customer" is a more robust approach.
Additional Observations:
• The phrase "Terms and conditions apply at all times" could potentially imply parking rules remain in effect regardless of store hours. However, this phrase does not explicitly limit use to specific times or activities, leaving room for interpretation.
• If the rest of the sign is not clearly discernible, this could further support the argument that any alleged restrictions were not adequately communicated.
The appeal remains solid overall, with the strongest focus being the signage's lack of specificity and the driver’s compliance with the visible terms. Nothing much you can do now but wait for the decision. If your appeal is not upheld, it is not binding on you and you should fight this all the way to a court claim.
-
Please post a better image of it.
It may be easier to get a better resolution image using a third party site like Imgur - there's a guide to this in the 'Read this First' thread b789 linked to above.
-
It is impossible to read that NtK. Please post a better image of it.
You haven't shown us the operators response/evidence pack but you have shown us your response to it. Where is the operators evidence pack?
-
Attachments added
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
Read this and then show us the Notice to Keeper (NtK) making sure that all dates and times remain visible. Also show us exactly what you put in our appeals.
READ THIS FIRST - Private Parking Charges Forum guide (https://www.ftla.uk/private-parking-tickets/read-this-first-private-parking-charges-forum-guide/)
We do not need to see any useless debt collector letters. You can safely ignore those
-
Driver parked at Krispy Kreme Donuts in New Malden at around 11.55pm. Driver went to go to the store but it was closed. The signage says for customer use only and parking time limited to 90 mins. Driver exited 40 minutes later - problems starting the car. The car is no longer in existence as it had to be scrapped. MET are saying that there was a contravention as the driver was not a 'customer' as the store was closed.
This surely depends on the meaning of the term 'customer' which is not stated on the signage. Driver intended to make a purchase from the store, found it closed, exited the car park 40 mins later after evenutally managing to start the car so was both a 'customer' and within the 90 minute limit.
POPLA appeal was refused.
Debt collector's letter received, but if the debt is disputed how can they pass to a debt collector?
Driver would be happy to fight this in court as this argumeant hinges on the definition of 'customer'. Any advice on how to respond to the debt collector?