I also put my partners details is the mediation section but will refuse any mediationAlthough pointless in these cases, mediation in now mandatory in small claims. You don't need to settle, but you will need to attend.
I also put my partners details is the mediation section but will refuse any mediationAlthough pointless in these cases, mediation in now mandatory in small claims. You don't need to settle, but you will need to attend.
enquiries@bwlegal.co.uk has worked in the past
BW Legal
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 info@dcblegal.co.uk and CC in yourself. Make sure that the claim number is in the subject field of the email.
Just file and wait for DQ and mediation call order.
The only reason for the delay in submitting the defence is so that the claimant cannot file more detailed PoC within 14 days of service of the claim. There is no advantage to be gained by submitting the defence any later than 13th October.
With an issue date of 24th September you have until 4pm on Monday 13th October to submit your defence. If you submit an Acknowledgement of Service (AoS) before then, you would then have until 4pm on Monday 27th October to submit your defence.
Submit an AoS now. Follow the instructions in this linked PDF:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/xvqu3bask5m0zir/money-claim-online-How-to-Acknowledge.pdf?dl=0
DO NOT submit the following defence before 13th October.
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.Quote1. The Defendant denies the claim in its entirety. No liability is admitted and no debt is owed. The Particulars of Claim (PoC) fail to disclose a coherent cause of action.
2. The PoC do not adequately comply with CPR 16.4 and PD 16. They omit the contractual terms relied upon, any pleaded period of parking, the location within the site, the time and duration, the mechanism by which any duration was measured, and any calculation or lawful basis for the total claimed and add-on sums. They also fail to state whether the Claimant sues as against the driver or registered keeper.
3. Pre-Action non-compliance and prejudice. After the Letter of Claim the Defendant requested, as required by the Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims (PAPDC 3.1(a)–(d), 5.1–5.2), the documents and information needed to understand and narrow the issues (landowner authority, contemporaneous signage/terms, evidence of any period of parking, and quantum methodology). The Claimant did not provide what was reasonably requested. It is therefore impossible for the Defendant to plead a fully particularised defence as contemplated by CPR 16.5. That non-compliance should weigh against the Claimant.
4. The claim was issued via MCOL. The Claimant could and should have served separate, detailed Particulars within 14 days (CPR 7.4; PD 7A/7E; PD 7C para 5.2). It chose not to.
5. Strike-out sought (no leave to amend). Having regard to the overriding objective (CPR 1.1) and proportionality for a modest small-claims matter, it would be a waste of limited court resources to direct further pleadings or case management where the Claimant has twice failed—pre-action and on issue—to articulate a viable cause. The Court is invited to strike out the claim under CPR 3.4(2)(a) for disclosing no reasonable grounds and for non-compliance with CPR 16.4.
6. Further and in the alternative on the merits (without waiver of para 5):
(a) No driver is admitted. The Defendant is the registered keeper only; there is no legal presumption that the keeper was the driver.
(b) Keeper liability under PoFA Sch 4 is denied: no NtK compliant with para 9(4)–(6) was served within the statutory period. In any event, PoFA s4(5) caps any keeper liability at the charge stated on a compliant NtK.
(c) Standing is denied: strict proof is required of a contemporaneous landowner contract conferring authority to contract and litigate.
(d) Signage/terms were not prominent or legible; any core term (charge/time limit) was buried in small print and not incorporated. The facts are distinguished from ParkingEye v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67.
(e) The added £70 “debt recovery” is an unrecoverable and abusive add-on amounting to double recovery, contrary to PoFA s4(5) and CPR 27.14; a code of practice cannot create a substantive entitlement.
(f) Any hidden/ambiguous terms are unfair and not binding under the Consumer Rights Act 2015; ambiguity is construed contra proferentem.
7. The claim is denied. The Defendant invites the Court to strike it out pursuant to CPR 3.4(2)(a) and reserves the right to seek costs for unreasonable conduct under CPR 27.14(2)(g).
I repeat... DO NOT submit this defence before 13th October.
1. The Defendant denies the claim in its entirety. No liability is admitted and no debt is owed. The Particulars of Claim (PoC) fail to disclose a coherent cause of action.
2. The PoC do not adequately comply with CPR 16.4 and PD 16. They omit the contractual terms relied upon, any pleaded period of parking, the location within the site, the time and duration, the mechanism by which any duration was measured, and any calculation or lawful basis for the total claimed and add-on sums. They also fail to state whether the Claimant sues as against the driver or registered keeper.
3. Pre-Action non-compliance and prejudice. After the Letter of Claim the Defendant requested, as required by the Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims (PAPDC 3.1(a)–(d), 5.1–5.2), the documents and information needed to understand and narrow the issues (landowner authority, contemporaneous signage/terms, evidence of any period of parking, and quantum methodology). The Claimant did not provide what was reasonably requested. It is therefore impossible for the Defendant to plead a fully particularised defence as contemplated by CPR 16.5. That non-compliance should weigh against the Claimant.
4. The claim was issued via MCOL. The Claimant could and should have served separate, detailed Particulars within 14 days (CPR 7.4; PD 7A/7E; PD 7C para 5.2). It chose not to.
5. Strike-out sought (no leave to amend). Having regard to the overriding objective (CPR 1.1) and proportionality for a modest small-claims matter, it would be a waste of limited court resources to direct further pleadings or case management where the Claimant has twice failed—pre-action and on issue—to articulate a viable cause. The Court is invited to strike out the claim under CPR 3.4(2)(a) for disclosing no reasonable grounds and for non-compliance with CPR 16.4.
6. Further and in the alternative on the merits (without waiver of para 5):
(a) No driver is admitted. The Defendant is the registered keeper only; there is no legal presumption that the keeper was the driver.
(b) Keeper liability under PoFA Sch 4 is denied: no NtK compliant with para 9(4)–(6) was served within the statutory period. In any event, PoFA s4(5) caps any keeper liability at the charge stated on a compliant NtK.
(c) Standing is denied: strict proof is required of a contemporaneous landowner contract conferring authority to contract and litigate.
(d) Signage/terms were not prominent or legible; any core term (charge/time limit) was buried in small print and not incorporated. The facts are distinguished from ParkingEye v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67.
(e) The added £70 “debt recovery” is an unrecoverable and abusive add-on amounting to double recovery, contrary to PoFA s4(5) and CPR 27.14; a code of practice cannot create a substantive entitlement.
(f) Any hidden/ambiguous terms are unfair and not binding under the Consumer Rights Act 2015; ambiguity is construed contra proferentem.
7. The claim is denied. The Defendant invites the Court to strike it out pursuant to CPR 3.4(2)(a) and reserves the right to seek costs for unreasonable conduct under CPR 27.14(2)(g).
This is a BW Legal post–Letter of Claim “chaser”. It is not a court claim and creates no new deadlines. It’s designed to intimidate you into paying or starting a repayment plan. Until you receive an official County Court claim form (N1SDT) from the Civil National Business Centre (CNBC), there is nothing to respond to or defend. Do not phone, negotiate, or pay based on this letter.
When they issue the claim (they will), it will be for the £100 + fake £70 + £35 claim fee + £50 fixed legal costs. They may try and add some interest.
All you can do for now, is wait for the N1SDT Claim Form pack to arrive in the post. When it does, You can discard everything except the N1SDT Claim Form which has the Particulars of Claim (PoC) on it. Please show us that form. only redact your personal info, the claim number and the MCOL password. Leave ALL dates visible, especially the issue date of the claim.
We will provide the defence you should use and instruction on how to submit it.
What appeal? You're not submitting an appeal, you're responding to a letter of claim.
Where are you trying to submit this correspondence?
Respond to the LoC with the following:QuoteDear 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.
I am the registered keeper of the vehicle. I am not obliged to identify the driver and I decline to do so. As there is no legal presumption that the keeper of a vehicle was its driver on any particular occasion, your client cannot pursue me as driver as per VCS v Edward (2023) [H0KF6C9C] (https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/yvxek3kfwtb3qent3lj6y/VCS-Limited-v-Ian-Mark-Edward-H0KF6C9C.pdf?rlkey=niecohfdtj1n1ysh5prbsp52p&e=1&dl=0).
If your client is seeking to rely on Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA) in order to hold me liable as keeper, they are unable to do so. The initial Notice to Keeper was not received, as I had moved address and the V5C logbook had not yet been updated with the DVLA at the time of the alleged contravention. As such, no PoFA-compliant NtK was served within the timeframes required by paragraph 9(5) of the Act. Even if your client were to issue or re-send a copy now, it would be well outside the statutory period and would not remedy the defect. Your client is therefore unable to rely on PoFA to establish keeper liability.
As your client cannot pursue me as driver or keeper, it would be an abuse of the court’s process for your client to issue a claim against me and I will defend any such claim vigorously and seek costs in relation to your client’s unreasonable and vexatious conduct under Part 27.14(2)(g)
Because your letter lacks specificity and breaches the requirements of the Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims (paragraphs 3.1(a)-(d), 5.1 and 5.2) as well as the Practice Direction - Pre-Action Conduct (paragraphs 6(a) and 6(c)), you must treat this letter as a formal request for all of the documents/information that the protocol now requires your client to provide. Your client must not issue proceedings without complying with that protocol.
As solicitors you must surely be familiar with the requirements of both the Practice Direction and the Pre-Action Protocol for debt claims and your client, as a serial litigator of debt claims, should likewise be aware of them. As you (and your client) must know, the Practice Direction and Protocol bind all potential litigants, whatever the size or type of the claim. Its express purpose is to assist parties in understanding the claim and their respective positions in relation to it, to enable parties to take stock of their positions and to negotiate a settlement, or at least narrow the issues, without incurring the costs of court proceedings or using up valuable court time. It is embarrassing that a firm of Solicitors are sending a consumer a vague and un-evidenced 'Letter of Claim' in complete ignorance of the pre-existing Practice Direction and the Pre-Action Protocol.
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. An explanation of the cause of action
2. whether they are pursuing me as driver or keeper
3. whether they are relying on the provisions of Schedule 4 of POFA 2012
4. what the details of the claim are; for how long it is claimed the vehicle was parked, how the monies being claimed arose and have been calculated
5. Is the claim for a contractual breach? If so, what is the date of the agreement? The names of the parties to it and provide to me a copy of that contract.
6. If the claim is for a contractual breach, photographs showing the vehicle was parked in contravention of said contract.
7. Is the claim for trespass? If so, provide details.
8. Provide me a copy of the contract with the landowner under which they assert authority to bring the claim, as required by the BPA/IPC Private Parking Single Code of Practice (PPSCoP).
9. a plan showing where any signs were displayed
10. Photographs of the signs displayed (size of sign, size of font, height at which displayed) at the time of any alleged contravention.
11. Provide details of the original charge, and detail any interest and administrative or other charges added
12. Am I to understand that the additional £70 represents what is dressed up as a 'Debt Recovery' fee, and if so, is this nett or inclusive of VAT? If the latter, would you kindly explain why I am being asked to pay the operator’s VAT?
13. With regard to the principal alleged PCN sum: Is this damages, or will it be pleaded as consideration for parking?
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.
For the avoidance of doubt, it is entirely irrelevant whether this response is based on a so-called ‘template’ or not. I am a layperson exercising my right to respond fully to a Letter of Claim using all resources available to me. Any attempt by your firm to dismiss this response on the basis that it resembles material found online—or to bully, belittle, or intimidate me for asserting my legal position—will be treated as unprofessional conduct. Should your firm attempt to sidestep its obligations under the Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims by insinuating that this response is unworthy of consideration, I will escalate the matter by lodging a formal complaint with the Solicitors Regulation Authority. You are officers of the court and are expected to act accordingly.
Yours faithfully,
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.
I am the registered keeper of the vehicle. I am not obliged to identify the driver and I decline to do so. As there is no legal presumption that the keeper of a vehicle was its driver on any particular occasion, your client cannot pursue me as driver as per VCS v Edward (2023) [H0KF6C9C] (https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/yvxek3kfwtb3qent3lj6y/VCS-Limited-v-Ian-Mark-Edward-H0KF6C9C.pdf?rlkey=niecohfdtj1n1ysh5prbsp52p&e=1&dl=0).
If your client is seeking to rely on Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA) in order to hold me liable as keeper, they are unable to do so. The initial Notice to Keeper was not received, as I had moved address and the V5C logbook had not yet been updated with the DVLA at the time of the alleged contravention. As such, no PoFA-compliant NtK was served within the timeframes required by paragraph 9(5) of the Act. Even if your client were to issue or re-send a copy now, it would be well outside the statutory period and would not remedy the defect. Your client is therefore unable to rely on PoFA to establish keeper liability.
As your client cannot pursue me as driver or keeper, it would be an abuse of the court’s process for your client to issue a claim against me and I will defend any such claim vigorously and seek costs in relation to your client’s unreasonable and vexatious conduct under Part 27.14(2)(g)
Because your letter lacks specificity and breaches the requirements of the Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims (paragraphs 3.1(a)-(d), 5.1 and 5.2) as well as the Practice Direction - Pre-Action Conduct (paragraphs 6(a) and 6(c)), you must treat this letter as a formal request for all of the documents/information that the protocol now requires your client to provide. Your client must not issue proceedings without complying with that protocol.
As solicitors you must surely be familiar with the requirements of both the Practice Direction and the Pre-Action Protocol for debt claims and your client, as a serial litigator of debt claims, should likewise be aware of them. As you (and your client) must know, the Practice Direction and Protocol bind all potential litigants, whatever the size or type of the claim. Its express purpose is to assist parties in understanding the claim and their respective positions in relation to it, to enable parties to take stock of their positions and to negotiate a settlement, or at least narrow the issues, without incurring the costs of court proceedings or using up valuable court time. It is embarrassing that a firm of Solicitors are sending a consumer a vague and un-evidenced 'Letter of Claim' in complete ignorance of the pre-existing Practice Direction and the Pre-Action Protocol.
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. An explanation of the cause of action
2. whether they are pursuing me as driver or keeper
3. whether they are relying on the provisions of Schedule 4 of POFA 2012
4. what the details of the claim are; for how long it is claimed the vehicle was parked, how the monies being claimed arose and have been calculated
5. Is the claim for a contractual breach? If so, what is the date of the agreement? The names of the parties to it and provide to me a copy of that contract.
6. If the claim is for a contractual breach, photographs showing the vehicle was parked in contravention of said contract.
7. Is the claim for trespass? If so, provide details.
8. Provide me a copy of the contract with the landowner under which they assert authority to bring the claim, as required by the BPA/IPC Private Parking Single Code of Practice (PPSCoP).
9. a plan showing where any signs were displayed
10. Photographs of the signs displayed (size of sign, size of font, height at which displayed) at the time of any alleged contravention.
11. Provide details of the original charge, and detail any interest and administrative or other charges added
12. Am I to understand that the additional £70 represents what is dressed up as a 'Debt Recovery' fee, and if so, is this nett or inclusive of VAT? If the latter, would you kindly explain why I am being asked to pay the operator’s VAT?
13. With regard to the principal alleged PCN sum: Is this damages, or will it be pleaded as consideration for parking?
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.
For the avoidance of doubt, it is entirely irrelevant whether this response is based on a so-called ‘template’ or not. I am a layperson exercising my right to respond fully to a Letter of Claim using all resources available to me. Any attempt by your firm to dismiss this response on the basis that it resembles material found online—or to bully, belittle, or intimidate me for asserting my legal position—will be treated as unprofessional conduct. Should your firm attempt to sidestep its obligations under the Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims by insinuating that this response is unworthy of consideration, I will escalate the matter by lodging a formal complaint with the Solicitors Regulation Authority. You are officers of the court and are expected to act accordingly.
Yours faithfully,
Continue to wait. That letter is a debt demand and can be safely ignored. Come back when you receive a Letter of Claim (LoC)
Yes, also update BW Legal. They’re the ones going to be issuing the claim on behalf of the operator.
That letter is just a debt collection letter. You can safely ignore all debt collection letters as they are powerless to actually do anything. However, if they do issue a Letter of Claim (LoC) then you have to be aware that they are most likely going to issue a court claim after that.
Obviously, at the time of the alleged contravention, you hadn't updated the vehicles V5C document with your current address at the time which is why you never heard anything about this until now. Your first concern should be that the operator holds two possible addresses for you and could simply send the claim to the old address and you would know nothing about it until you suddenly found that you can no liger get credit and that all your insurance goes sky high and you discover that you now have a CCJ on your credit file for the next 6 years.
You must send a Data Rectification Notice (DRN) to the DPO at UKCPM and instruct them to update their records with your current address for service and to erase any previous address they hold for you. The highlighted words are there for a reason and you should use them. You can send a copy of the letter from BW Legal as proof that you are the person concerned.
Apart from that, you should do nothing else until you receive an LoC at which point, come back and we'll advise on the next steps.