So it all came down to actual issue - inadequate signage and I won because there was in fact inadequate signage.When cases get as far as an actual hearing, it often does. In my admittedly anecdotal experience, in the Small Claims Track many judges are most interested on the core issue at hand, and far less on 'technical' arguments. This was the basis of me recommending leading with the signage in the Witness Statement
I was bit surprised he did not consider PoFA violationsFrom your post above and comments like "I said I saw the sign" - it seems that it was clear you were the driver, and as such PoFA became irrelevant.
Rule 27.14(2)(g) states that the court may summarily assess a party’s costs and order them “to be paid by a party who has behaved unreasonably”. This is in many ways the most significant exception to the no costs rule, because it provides for the court to award more in costs than those amounts proscribed elsewhere in the rule.
The CPR contains little guidance for the court to follow in assessing unreasonableness, save for 27.14(3) which states that a party’s rejection of an offer of settlement “will not of itself constitute unreasonable behaviour”; but the court can take it into account when applying the test.
Given that the special costs rules of the small claims track are arguably its raison d’être, Judges can be reluctant to order costs for unreasonable behaviour, especially when a party is unrepresented, but we believe that there are a number of features that when present together might mean that such an order is attainable and we list a few of these below:
A consistent failure to respond to correspondence and/or telephone calls
A failure to properly set out a case in respect of liability and/or quantum pre-litigation
An unwillingness to discuss the case and narrow issues
Dilatory conduct leading to delay
A claim that is unreasonably made and without merit
Exaggeration of a claim and/or dishonesty
A failure to follow the standard Small Claims track directions
Where any of these features are present in a case, then steps should be taken to place the party on notice that an order for unreasonable conduct will be sought in the event that proceedings are issued.
I fed the judgement to ChatGPTPlease don't use ChatGPT for legal advice - I once asked it how many times the lettter 'r' appears in the word 'strawberry' - its response was '2'.However if someone else turns up apart from Elms, i.e. if Elms subcontract it to someone else then it would be applicable, right?I imagine it would depend who that person is. If they have a right of audience before that court on their own account, then no. If they don't, then if you see fit you could try to make the argument, if you feel confident to do so.
I fed the judgement to ChatGPTPlease don't use ChatGPT for legal advice - I once asked it how many times the lettter 'r' appears in the word 'strawberry' - its response was '2'.
However if someone else turns up apart from Elms, i.e. if Elms subcontract it to someone else then it would be applicable, right?I imagine it would depend who that person is. If they have a right of audience before that court on their own account, then no. If they don't, then if you see fit you could try to make the argument, if you feel confident to do so.
@Oldstoat Are we sure that the logic used in that case would apply to this one?
From my (admittedly very brief) reading of the 'Langley' case, part of the issue there was that the judge found Elms had played no part in conducting litigation, and had been merely been subcontracted by DCB Legal (who had handled the case on behalf of VCS) to provide advocacy on the day.
Looking at this thread, it would appear that Elms have been involved on more than a mere advocacy basis - indeed it was a solicitor from Elms who signed the Claim Form issuing proceedings.
This may be of assistance. A recent CC judgement before DJ Pratt. Between VCS and a Mr Langley. ELMS, do not have rights of audience. Found it on BAILLIE. dated 7.1.26. So VCS used a solicitor, who contracted out the attendance at the hearing to ELMS. Case citation is 2026 EWCC 1
Worth showing us a copy just to check there's nothing untoward on there that you might have missed.
All standard stuff. You can bet that DCB Legal will discontinue just before the deadline for them to pay the £27 trial fee. Nothing else for you to do now unless you receive a copy of a Witness Statement (WS) from DCB Legal (unlikely), in which case we would need to see it and would advise on how to produce your own.
AS requested above, please show a copy of the Notice of Allocation with all the order points, just incase there is something out of the ordinary.
Now I am clear - I send the questionnaire to info@elmslegal.co.uk, and not to the DCB legal email. Correct?
Thanks
1) You will receive an order in due course setting out when the hearing will be, and providing dates by which witness statements must be received, and the hearing fee must be paid. When DCB Legal are involved, they usually before this falls due.
2) If you search on here for mediation/telephone mediation you'll find dozens of threads advising on this. The more other threads you're able to read, the better your understanding of the process.
3) No, you don't ignore it. You send it to the other parties (the claimant, Via their legal firm, and the court) as advised, using the email addresses provided.
4) I'm not sure what you mean about your defence being 'checked'. This is a court claim... The only time anyone other than Excel/DCB Legal would look at your defence would be at the hearing, when the judge would do so. This being a claim managed by DCB Legal, it's very unlikely to get that far.
5) When I get round to writing one, yes. In the meantime, other case threads are a good place to start. The Private Parking Forum on the MoneySavingExpert forums has a good guide in their 'Newbies' thread. Some of their advice differs from ours, but the court process is of course the same.
Standard advice here is:QuoteHaving 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.It’s far to soon in the process for anyone to consider your defence.
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.
Following this, the case will be allocated to your local court and the claimant will be given a deadline by which they must pay the court fee. Take serious note of this deadline, because if they don’t pay then the case will be vacated.
You will also have a mandatory mediation session, at which you offer £0 and the session will end. By telephone.
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.It’s far to soon in the process for anyone to consider your defence.
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.
One quick question - I send this defence via email and not submit on the moneyclaim portal?Correct - the MCOL system has a length limit and removes all formatting, so is not ideal for submitting your defence. Submit by email.
With an issue date of 5th June, you have until 4pm on Tuesday 24th June to submit your defence. If you submit an Acknowledgement of Service (AoS) before then, you would then have until 4pm on Tuesday 8th July to submit your defence.
If you want to submit an AoS then follow the instructions in this linked PDF:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/xvqu3bask5m0zir/money-claim-online-How-to-Acknowledge.pdf?dl=0
Otherwise, here is the defence and link to the draft order that goes with it. You only need to edit your name and the claim number. You sign the defence by typing your full name for the signature and date it. There is nothing to edit in the draft order.
When you're ready you combine both documents as a single PDF attachment and send as an attachment in an email to claimresponses.cnbc@justice.gov.uk and CC in yourself. The claim number must be in the email subject field and in the body of the email just put: "Please find attached the defence and draft order in the matter of Excel Parking Services Ltd v [your full name] Claim no.: [claim number]."QuoteIN THE COUNTY COURTClaim No: [Claim Number]BETWEEN:
Excel Parking Services Ltd
Claimant
- and -
[Defendant's Full Name]
Defendant
DEFENCE
1. The Defendant denies the claim in its entirety. The Defendant asserts that there is no liability to the Claimant and that no debt is owed. The claim is without merit and does not adequately disclose any comprehensible cause of action.
2. There is a lack of precise detail in the Particulars of Claim (PoC) in respect of the factual and legal allegations made against the Defendant such that the PoC do not comply with CPR 16.4.
3. The Defendant is unable to plead properly to the PoC because:(a) The contract referred to is not detailed or attached to the PoC in accordance with CPR PD 16(7.5);
(b) The PoC do not state the exact wording of the clause (or clauses) of the terms and conditions of the contract (or contracts) which is/are relied on;
(c) The PoC do not adequately set out the reason (or reasons) why the claimant asserts the defendant has breached the contract (or contracts)
(d) The PoC do not state with sufficient particularity exactly where the breach occurred, the exact time when the breach occurred and how long it is alleged that the vehicle was parked before the parking charge was allegedly incurred;
(e) The PoC do not state precisely how the sum claimed is calculated, including the basis for any statutory interest, damages, or other charges;
(f) The PoC do not state what proportion of the claim is the parking charge and what proportion is damages;
(g) The PoC do not provide clarity on whether the Defendant is sued as the driver or the keeper of the vehicle, as the claimant cannot plead alternative causes of action without specificity.
4. The Defendant attaches to this defence a copy of a draft order approved by a district judge at another court. The court struck out the claim of its own initiative after determining that the Particulars of Claim failed to comply with CPR 16.4. The judge noted that the claimant had failed to:(i) Set out the exact wording of the clause (or clauses) of the terms and conditions relied upon;
(ii) Adequately explain the reasons why the defendant was allegedly in breach of contract;
(iii) Provide separate, detailed Particulars of Claim as permitted under CPR PD 7C.5.2(2).
(iv) The court further observed that, given the modest sum claimed, requiring further case management steps would be disproportionate and contrary to the overriding objective. Accordingly, the judge struck out the claim outright rather than permitting an amendment.
5. The Defendant submits that the same reasoning applies in this case and invites the court to adopt a similar approach by striking out the claim for the Claimant’s failure to comply with CPR 16.4.
Statement of truth
I believe that the facts stated in this Defence are true. I understand that proceedings for contempt of court may be brought against anyone who makes, or causes to be made, a false statement in a document verified by a statement of truth without an honest belief in its truth.
Signed:
Date:
Draft Order for the defence (https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/tcewefk7daozuje25chkl/Strikeout-order-v2.pdf?rlkey=wxnymo8mwcma2jj8xihjm7pdx&st=nbtf0cn6&dl=0)
IN THE COUNTY COURTClaim No: [Claim Number]BETWEEN:
Excel Parking Services Ltd
Claimant
- and -
[Defendant's Full Name]
Defendant
DEFENCE
1. The Defendant denies the claim in its entirety. The Defendant asserts that there is no liability to the Claimant and that no debt is owed. The claim is without merit and does not adequately disclose any comprehensible cause of action.
2. There is a lack of precise detail in the Particulars of Claim (PoC) in respect of the factual and legal allegations made against the Defendant such that the PoC do not comply with CPR 16.4.
3. The Defendant is unable to plead properly to the PoC because:(a) The contract referred to is not detailed or attached to the PoC in accordance with CPR PD 16(7.5);
(b) The PoC do not state the exact wording of the clause (or clauses) of the terms and conditions of the contract (or contracts) which is/are relied on;
(c) The PoC do not adequately set out the reason (or reasons) why the claimant asserts the defendant has breached the contract (or contracts)
(d) The PoC do not state with sufficient particularity exactly where the breach occurred, the exact time when the breach occurred and how long it is alleged that the vehicle was parked before the parking charge was allegedly incurred;
(e) The PoC do not state precisely how the sum claimed is calculated, including the basis for any statutory interest, damages, or other charges;
(f) The PoC do not state what proportion of the claim is the parking charge and what proportion is damages;
(g) The PoC do not provide clarity on whether the Defendant is sued as the driver or the keeper of the vehicle, as the claimant cannot plead alternative causes of action without specificity.
4. The Defendant attaches to this defence a copy of a draft order approved by a district judge at another court. The court struck out the claim of its own initiative after determining that the Particulars of Claim failed to comply with CPR 16.4. The judge noted that the claimant had failed to:(i) Set out the exact wording of the clause (or clauses) of the terms and conditions relied upon;
(ii) Adequately explain the reasons why the defendant was allegedly in breach of contract;
(iii) Provide separate, detailed Particulars of Claim as permitted under CPR PD 7C.5.2(2).
(iv) The court further observed that, given the modest sum claimed, requiring further case management steps would be disproportionate and contrary to the overriding objective. Accordingly, the judge struck out the claim outright rather than permitting an amendment.
5. The Defendant submits that the same reasoning applies in this case and invites the court to adopt a similar approach by striking out the claim for the Claimant’s failure to comply with CPR 16.4.
Statement of truth
I believe that the facts stated in this Defence are true. I understand that proceedings for contempt of court may be brought against anyone who makes, or causes to be made, a false statement in a document verified by a statement of truth without an honest belief in its truth.
Signed:
Date:
Are Excel using external solicitors (if so, who?) or running the claim themselves?
As above - in particular to offer any meaningful advice we'll need to see the claim form as this forms the basis of Excel's claim (redact the claim number and MCOL password). It would also be useful to see exactly what you said in your appeal.
Assuming your car is the Audi, arguing the conditions were not prominently displayed sounds like it might be an uphill battle based on the limited evidence we've seen (photos of the rest of the car park and its signage, including the entrance would help), but there will certainly be other arguments that you can make in your defence.
I suggest you read https://www.ftla.uk/private-parking-tickets/read-this-first-private-parking-charges-forum-guide/ and in particular you might not want to identify the driver in your posts, as you have done, and post copies of paperwork such as the original PCN sent and received.
These companies don’t care about “fairness”, they only care about your credit card number, and often it’s necessary to close them down on technicalities rather than any kind of appeal to their sense of fairness.