-
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?