Sorry, I thought I'd replied to the last post.
Thanks. Figured out how to submit it online. I've now started getting calls from DCB Legal, I get a prerecorded message and hang up.
MCOL claim history now shows that the DQ was sent to me on 7/7/26, which I've received in the post. Twice actually.What do you mean?
The problem is there doesn't appear to be any way to submit it online instead though!?
Search the forum for N180 and you’ll find advice on its completion, such as:
Quote
Having received your own N180 (make sure it is not simply a copy of the claimants N180), do not use the paper form. Ignore all the other forms that came with it. you can discard those. Download your own here and fill it in on your computer. You sign it by simply typing your full name in the signature box.
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/673341e779e9143625613543/N180_1124.pdf
Here are the answers to some of the less obvious questions:
• The name of the court is "Civil National Business Centre".
• To be completed by "Your full name" and you are the "Defendant".
• C1: "YES"
• D1: "NO". Reason: "I wish to question the Claimant about their evidence at a hearing in person and to expose omissions and any misleading or incorrect evidence or assertions.
Given the Claimant is a firm who complete cut & paste parking case paperwork for a living, having this case heard solely on papers would appear to put the Claimant at an unfair advantage, especially as they would no doubt prefer the Defendant not to have the opportunity to expose the issues in the Claimants template submissions or speak as the only true witness to events in question.."
• F1: Whichever is your nearest county court. Use this to find it: https://www.find-court-tribunal.service.gov.uk/search-option
• F3: "1".
• Sign the form by simply typing your full name for the signature.
When you have completed the form, attach it to a single email addressed to both dq.cnbc@justice.gov.uk and info@dcblegal.co.uk and CC in yourself. Make sure that the claim number is in the subject field of the email.
Thanks. Does it matter that the solicitors in this case are DCB Legal though? Not Moorside.
Thanks. Does it matter that the solicitors in this case are DCB Legal though? Not Moorside.No, it’s better, because DCB Legal almost always discontinue in the face of a defended claim before they’re required to pay the court fee.
No.
Just the defence.
Don't overthink this.
That I am the named defendant and I deny any liability in this matter.
That the vehicle driver is not known to the Claimant and there is no legal requirement for me to identify the driver.
That the Claimant has provided no evidence as to who the driver was.
That the Claimant's Notice to Keeper does not comply with Protection of Freedoms Act (2012)(PoFA) and as such liability cannot be transferred myself.
That, in particular, the Claimant's Notice to Keeper does not meet the requirements of PoFA Schedule 4 Paragraph 9(2)(e) - the mandatory wording and two limbed legal choice required by the paragraph is not present on the Claimant's NtK and, as such, total compliance is not achieved.
That this means that there is no legal route to me being liable for the alleged debt.
I'd personally leave that out for the moment.
You will still have the chance to submit a witness statement if the matter progresses.
A defence which is short and to the point makes it clear that you know where you really stand.
This is very unlikely to progress to a hearing.
You are entering a defence purely to avoid a default judgement.
I would start with the non compliant PoFA element since this immediately disqualifies the claim.
Something along the lines of;
That I am the named defendant and I deny any liability in this matter.
That the vehicle driver is not known to the Claimant and there is no legal requirement for me to identify the driver.
That the Claimant has provided no evidence as to who the driver was.
That the Claimant's Notice to Keeper does not comply with Protection of Freedoms Act (2012)(PoFA) and as such liability cannot be transferred myself.
That, in particular, the Claimant's Notice to Keeper does not meet the requirements of PoFA Schedule 4 Paragraph 9(2)(e) - the mandatory wording and two limbed legal choice required by the paragraph is not present on the Claimant's NtK and, as such, total compliance is not achieved.
That this means that there is no legal route to me being liable for the alleged debt.
You’ve still got “bit PoFA compliant”
ECP NtKs fail to comply with paragraph 9(2)(e) full stop - I wouldn't specifically mention 9(2)(e)(i) - just say 9(2)(e).
You have “bit PoFA compliant”, do you mean “not PoFA compliant”?
If you defend, you either need to submit a defence by 18 May, or an Acknowledgement of Service by 18 May and a defence by 1 June.
Know that DCB Legal usually discontinue cases in the face of a defence.
Search the forum for examples.
Who told you you didn’t need to pay? This needs to be part of your defence.
Can you post the original Notice to Keeper also? This can open more avenues to your defence. It’s no longer visible in your other thread.
Please ask moderators to merge the two threads which cover the same incident. I have requested this for you.
You are now invited to:(i) Pay the charge; or
(ii) Provide the drivers name and address for service and pass this notice to them.
I am the keeper of the vehicle and I dispute your 'parking charge'. I deny any liability or contractual agreement and I will be making a complaint about your predatory conduct to your client landowner.
As your Notice to Keeper (NtK) does not fully comply with ALL the requirements of PoFA 2012, you are unable to hold the keeper of the vehicle liable for the charge. Partial or even substantial compliance is not sufficient. There will be no admission as to who was driving and no inference or assumptions can be drawn. ECP has relied on contract law allegations of breach against the driver only.
The registered keeper cannot be presumed or inferred to have been the driver, nor pursued under some twisted interpretation of the law of agency. Your NtK can only hold the driver liable. ECP have no hope at POPLA, so you are urged to save us both a complete waste of time and cancel the PCN.