Would you be able to share these plans? I always worry when people mention 'revenge' that they are about to put themselves at a considerable legal risk.
It seems I don't need an N244 as Judge Iyer has proposed it himself?His order states:If the Defendant wishes to amend his Defence, he must make an application by 27 May 2026
This would tend to suggest form N244 would be required. You could always try without such an application (with the potential risk of p*ssing off the judge), or seek to rescue the matter at the Witness Statement stage.QuoteDCB Legal will usually discontinue if you stay the courseIf the matter is heard on the papers, there'd be no real incentive to discontinue. You could push for an in-person hearing but you'd seemingly need to provide a compelling reason to change Iyer's mind.
It seems I don't need an N244 as Judge Iyer has proposed it himself?His order states:
DCB Legal will usually discontinue if you stay the courseIf the matter is heard on the papers, there'd be no real incentive to discontinue. You could push for an in-person hearing but you'd seemingly need to provide a compelling reason to change Iyer's mind.
If you want to pay £0, it’s a bad idea.
DCB Legal will usually discontinue if you stay the course, but it depends on how much cost you want to attribute to your time and effort in doing so.
We give you time and effort for free to help you.
Please show the whole claim form. Only redact the claim number, your personal details and MCOL password. We need to see the name of the claimant and who is acting for them. However, that looks very much like a DCB Legal claim. Also, who has signed the claim (on the back of the form).
As it is likely a DCB Legal issued claim, with an issue date of 23rd October you have until 4pm on Tuesday 11th November to submit your defence. If you submit an Acknowledgement of Service (AoS) before then, you would then have until 4pm on Tuesday 25th 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
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. 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.
This will never reach a hearing if it is a DCB Legal issued claim.
I assume the judge is just going to set a hearing, rather than review the evidence so far?At this stage the judge is likely to just arrange a hearing, yes. When you receive directions, share them with us; there should be two deadlines, one for the claimant to pay the hearing fee, and one for both parties to submit Witness Statements etc.
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.You either wait until you’re sent your own N180 or you check with MCOL on your status and can follow these instructions when MCOL updates to say that it has been sent to you.
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.
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.
If you follow the advice here, you will not be paying a penny to NPC. However, you will not win this with any appeal. It will go all the way to a court claim where we will advise on how to defend it and eventually the claim will either be struck out or discontinued.
Are you prepared to follow the advice and fight or are you low-hanging fruit on the gullible tree who will eventually pay up out of ignorance and fear?
For starters, by appealing and identifying as the driver, you have already blow away the no Keeper liability defence. Thisis because you should only have appealed as the Keeper of the vehicle and referred to the driver in the third person. Until you blabbed that you, the known Keeper, were also the unknown driver, they had no idea who the driver was.
Because their Notice to Keeper (NtK) is not compliant with PoFA paragraph 9(2)(a), they could not hold the known Keeper if the unknown drivers identity was known. That useful defence has now gone.
However... the same reason that they have failed to comply with PoFA 9(2)(a), also means that they have not evidenced that the vehicle was stopped for longer than the minimum consideration period for a contract to have been formed by conduct. The BPA/IPC PPSCoP section 5.1 requires that a minimum 5 minute consideration period is required, in order to allow the driver to seek out and find the signs, read and decide whether to accept the terms and conditions of parking before issuing a PCN.
Also, basic contract law requires a consideration period for a contract by conduct to be formed. Without this evidence, they can't prove that a contract was formed with the driver and any judge worth his salt would throw it out of court.
So, if you want to avoid paying a penny to NPC, are you prepared to follow the advice and fight this? If not, then I won't bother providing further advice unless you confirm that you don't want to waste your hard earned money paying NCP.