Free Traffic Legal Advice

Live cases legal advice => Private parking tickets => Topic started by: Unknown_Driver? on July 28, 2025, 10:15:48 am

Title: Re: MCOL received - assistance required
Post by: b789 on December 15, 2025, 10:50:40 am
Yes, a separate thread for each case if it is a different location/firm. However, I can assure you that the outcome is going to be identical... a strike out or discontinuation.
Title: Re: MCOL received - assistance required
Post by: jfollows on December 15, 2025, 10:43:57 am
https://www.ftla.uk/announcements/house-rules/ says
Quote
We operate some "house rules" on the site.

1. We operate a "one case, one thread" rule. This means that you should keep any posts relating to one case (one incident of speeding, one PCN, etc) to a single thread. Do not start multiple topics on the same case.
Title: Re: MCOL received - assistance required
Post by: Unknown_Driver? on December 15, 2025, 10:30:28 am
Merry Christmas from DCB Legal....... ;D

Nope, it`s not a Christmas card I`m referring to...  but another claim form, from Northampton, which arrived today.

DCB Legal have bulk added this new court claim for myself, to Northampton`s already bulging list of court claims.

I shall either, post it in this thread, if that is best, or start a new thread, as this new claim has been initiated by the usual "non-compliance", from a different parking company.

The claim, which this thread was started with, was by "I Park Services Ltd", and this new claim has been initiated by " Euro Car Park Services Ltd".
Title: Re: MCOL received - assistance required
Post by: Unknown_Driver? on December 12, 2025, 05:51:17 pm
**Update**

Mediation Call✔
Title: Re: MCOL received - assistance required
Post by: DWMB2 on October 09, 2025, 02:38:56 pm
My bad, read the dates wrong! As you were  ;D
Title: Re: MCOL received - assistance required
Post by: Unknown_Driver? on October 09, 2025, 01:20:24 pm
Sent today.
Title: Re: MCOL received - assistance required
Post by: b789 on October 07, 2025, 11:56:20 am
You gave them 7 days to comply. Today is only day six. They have until the close of business tomorrow to respond!

If no response by close of business tomorrow, then you can send a follow up:

Quote
Subject: Claim [Claim No] – Day 7: Unauthorised N1SDT signature (Ms Sarah Ensall) and non-compliant DQ (N180)

Dear Sir/Madam,

Primary issue – N1SDT signature (reserved legal activity):
My email of 1 October 2025 asked you to confirm whether Sarah Ensall is an authorised person with a current right to conduct litigation (Legal Services Act 2007). You have not responded.

Preparing and signing the N1SDT (claim form/statement of truth) constitutes conducting litigation, a reserved legal activity. If Ms Ensall is not authorised (or personally exempt under Sch 3 LSA 2007), the signature is invalid and the claim was improperly verified contrary to CPR 22 and PD22. Following Mazur & Anor v Charles Russell Speechlys LLP [2025] EWHC 2341 (KB), unqualified employees may assist, but may not themselves conduct litigation unless authorised or exempt.

Secondary issue – DQ (N180) signature:
Your N180 is signed only “DCB Legal”, with no named individual or capacity, contrary to PD22. Preparing/signing/filing/serving a DQ is also conducting litigation.

Action required within 48 hours:
1. Authority: For Ms Ensall and the DQ signatory, provide full name, role, and regulator (SRA/CILEx number and practising status). If not authorised, identify the precise exemption under Sch 3 LSA 2007 relied upon (or supply any sealed order).
2. Cure the N1SDT defect: File and serve a replacement statement of truth for the claim form/particulars personally signed by an authorised (or exempt) individual, stating their full name and capacity, with written confirmation that it supersedes Ms Ensall’s signature.
3. Cure the DQ defect: Re-file and serve a compliant N180 personally signed by an authorised (or exempt) individual, stating their full name and capacity; also identify the signatory of any covering letter and confirm their authority.
4. Service and filing: I accept service by email. Serve the corrected documents by email to [your email] and file them at court (e.g. CE-File). Confirm (i) the date/time and method of service on me, and (ii) the date/time and method of filing at court (or provide the CE-File receipt).

Should you fail to comply:

Absent satisfactory confirmation and compliant re-verification within 48 hours, I will, without further notice:
• Apply for directions and sanctions, including an unless order that the claim be stayed or struck out if a validly authorised statement of truth for the N1SDT/particulars and a compliant DQ are not filed/served within 7 days of the order (CPR 3.1, 3.4, 22).
• Seek costs for unreasonable conduct under CPR 27.14(2)(g) and/or wasted costs under s.51 Senior Courts Act 1981 / CPR 46.8.
• Place this correspondence before the Court and report the matter to the SRA. Carrying on a reserved legal activity without entitlement is a criminal offence under the LSA 2007 (ss.14–17).p

Please acknowledge safe receipt and confirm the position.

Yours faithfully,

[Your name]
Title: Re: MCOL received - assistance required
Post by: Unknown_Driver? on October 07, 2025, 11:07:57 am
Today, the N180 arrived from CNBC. Deadline date for submission is 21/10/2025.

No reply yet from DCBL, in relation to the email sent on 01/10/2025.
Title: Re: MCOL received - assistance required
Post by: Unknown_Driver? on October 01, 2025, 01:59:43 pm
Sent it👍
Title: Re: MCOL received - assistance required
Post by: b789 on September 30, 2025, 02:41:17 pm
In which case, you should send the following email to info@dcblegal.co.uk and CC yourself:

Quote
Subject: Claim [Claim No] – N1SDT Claim Form Signature and Directions Questionnaire (N180) signed “DCB Legal”: authority to conduct litigation, signature validity, service by email, and regulatory notice

Dear Sir/Madam,

I refer to (i) the N1SDT Claim Form signed by Sarah Ensall and (ii) the Directions Questionnaire (N180) filed/served in this matter. The N180 DQ is signed only “DCB Legal” with no named individual and purports to be signed on behalf of the Claimant’s solicitor.

Please confirm by return:
1. Whether Ms Ensall and The N180 DQ signatory’s full name (forename and surname), their role, and whether they are an authorised person within the meaning of the Legal Services Act 2007 with current rights to conduct litigation (provide SRA or CILEX number and practising status). If not authorised,
2. The precise exemption relied upon under Schedule 3 of the Legal Services Act 2007 that permits this individual personally to conduct litigation and sign these documents in these proceedings (if relying on a court order, provide the sealed order; if relying on an enactment, identify it precisely).

For the avoidance of doubt:
• Preparing, signing, filing, or serving a Directions Questionnaire is an act of conducting litigation, a reserved legal activity.
• Practice Direction 22 requires the signatory’s full name and capacity when signing on behalf of a party; a firm’s name or initials alone are not sufficient for verification of authorisation.
• Following Mazur v Charles Russell Speechlys LLP [2025], unqualified employees may assist but cannot themselves conduct litigation unless authorised or exempt.
Action required:
• Confirm the above within 7 days.
• Re-file and serve a compliant N180 personally signed by an authorised (or exempt) individual, with their full name and capacity clearly stated. Please also identify the individual who signed the accompanying covering letter and confirm their authority.

Costs and regulatory notice:
If any document was signed by a person not authorised or exempt, or must be re-filed/served to correct the signatory’s identity/status, I, as a litigant in person, will treat this as unreasonable conduct. In line with Mazur and CPR 27.14(2)(g), I will invite the Court, in its discretion, to order the Claimant to pay the Defendant’s costs caused by your firm’s irregular conduct and, if appropriate, to consider wasted costs against representatives.

Further, carrying on a reserved legal activity without entitlement is a criminal offence under the Legal Services Act 2007. If any unauthorised conduct of litigation has occurred, I will report the matter to the Solicitors Regulation Authority without further notice and reserve the right to place this correspondence before the Court.

Yours faithfully,

[Full Name]
[Postal Address]
[Email (for correspondence only; not for service)]
Title: Re: MCOL received - assistance required
Post by: jfollows on September 30, 2025, 11:43:54 am
Yes, that link is fine.
Title: Re: MCOL received - assistance required
Post by: Unknown_Driver? on September 30, 2025, 11:42:07 am
In regards to being able to view the copy N180DQ, does this link work?

usp=sharinghttps://drive.google.com/file/d/1ixJq-Go9Kq1QoeCIzEBfwmOmvR4L9hCH/view?usp=sharing (https://drive.google.com/file/d/1ixJq-Go9Kq1QoeCIzEBfwmOmvR4L9hCH/view?usp=sharing)

Title: Re: MCOL received - assistance required
Post by: Unknown_Driver? on September 30, 2025, 11:33:16 am
Apologies.

It was on the reverse.

Sarah Ensall signed the N1SDT.

The copy N180DQ you mentioned also. I shall have to edit certain pieces of info first & post later.
Title: Re: MCOL received - assistance required
Post by: b789 on September 29, 2025, 02:29:23 pm
The N1SDT Claim Form will have been signed by someone as it contains s Statement of Truth (SoT). It used to be just below the box with the sums, however, the newer forms have the signature on the back or a separate page.

Please show it to us. The same for the N180DQ copy they sent you.
Title: Re: MCOL received - assistance required
Post by: Unknown_Driver? on September 29, 2025, 01:06:12 pm
The N1SDT Claim Form, does not contain a signature or a name from DCBL, just an address/telephone no.

And the claimants copy of the N180DQ did have initials (TBC) on the form in reference to who was expected to participate in the mediation. Yet at the bottom of the form, it was signed as "DCB Legal Ltd."
Title: Re: MCOL received - assistance required
Post by: b789 on September 29, 2025, 12:33:29 pm
You can check your MCOL history and it will update to tell you when they have sent yours, at which point no need to wait for it to arrive and you can send it off anyway.

In the meantime (your image of the N1SDT Claim Form has been removed) can you confirm that the claim form was signed by Sarah Ensall, Head of Legal? Also, I'm going to presume that the claimants copy of their N180DQ has been signed by someone from DCB Legal with only an initial and their last name.

If so, you should send the following email to info@dcblegal.co.uk and CC yourself:

Quote
Subject: Claim [claim number] – N1SDT Claim Form PoC signed by Sarah Ensall; N180 DQ signature; authority to conduct litigation, signature validity, and regulatory notice

Dear Sir/Madam,

I refer to the Claim Form (N1SDT) Particulars of Claim (PoC) filed/served in this matter. The document is signed by Sarah Ensall, position stated as Head of Legal, and purports to be signed on behalf of the Claimant’s solicitor.

Please confirm by return:
1. The PoC signatory’s role, and whether they are an authorised person within the meaning of the Legal Services Act 2007 with current rights to conduct litigation (provide SRA or CILEX number and practising status). If not authorised,

2. The precise exemption relied upon under Schedule 3 of the Legal Services Act 2007 that permits this individual personally to conduct litigation and sign this document in these proceedings (if relying on a court order, provide the sealed order; if relying on an enactment, identify it precisely).

N180 Directions Questionnaire (DQ) – signature and authorisation
I also refer to the Claimant’s copy of the N180 DQ, which is signed only with an initial and surname by a DCB Legal employee who is not identified as an authorised person to conduct litigation.

3. Confirm the DQ signatory’s full name (not initials), capacity, and authorisation to conduct litigation within the meaning of the Legal Services Act 2007 (provide SRA or CILEX number and practising status). If not authorised, state the precise exemption relied upon under Schedule 3 that permits that individual personally to sign a statement of truth on the Claimant’s behalf in these proceedings.

4. If the DQ was signed by an unauthorised and non-exempt person, confirm that you will re-file and serve a compliant N180 signed by an authorised (or exempt) individual, giving their full name and capacity.

For the avoidance of doubt:
• Preparing, signing, filing, or serving the PoC and/or the N180 DQ (which contains a statement of truth) are acts of conducting litigation, a reserved legal activity.
• CPR 22 and Practice Direction 22 require that a statement of truth be signed by the party or their legal representative; where signed by a legal representative, the signatory must sign in their own name and state their capacity. Initials only are not sufficient for verification of authorisation.
• Following Mazur v Charles Russell Speechlys LLP [2025], unqualified employees may assist but cannot themselves conduct litigation unless authorised or exempt.

Action required:
• Confirm the above within 7 days.
• If either document (PoC and/or N180) was not signed by an authorised (or exempt) person, re-file and serve compliant versions personally signed by an authorised individual, with their full name and capacity clearly stated.

Costs and regulatory notice:
If any document was signed by a person not authorised or exempt, or must be re-filed/served to correct the signatory’s identity/status, I, as a litigant in person, will treat this as unreasonable conduct. In line with Mazur and CPR 27.14(2)(g), I will invite the Court, in its discretion, to order the Claimant to pay the Defendant’s costs caused by your firm’s irregular conduct and, if appropriate, to consider wasted costs against representatives.

Further, carrying on a reserved legal activity without entitlement is a criminal offence under the Legal Services Act 2007. If any unauthorised conduct of litigation has occurred, I will report the matter to the Solicitors Regulation Authority without further notice and reserve the right to place this correspondence before the Court.

Yours faithfully,

[Full Name]
[Postal Address]
[Email]

If you need to understand more as to why this is a necessary step, you can read about it in this thread:

Why the recent High Court appellate case of Mazur is very relevant to all cases we deal with here (https://www.ftla.uk/private-parking-tickets/why-the-recent-high-court-appellate-case-of-mazur-is-very-relevant-to-all-cases-/)
Title: Re: MCOL received - assistance required
Post by: Unknown_Driver? on September 29, 2025, 11:03:41 am
Yes, I have the N180 form completed, but I'm still waiting for the form to arrive.....


Title: Re: MCOL received - assistance required
Post by: b789 on September 25, 2025, 01:45:23 pm
You can keep checking your MCOL history and it will update when they have sent yours out. No need to wait for it to arrive as you can prepare one now. Just don't send it until you see that yours has been sent or you receive it in the post.

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.
Title: Re: MCOL received - assistance required
Post by: Unknown_Driver? on September 25, 2025, 09:22:04 am
A quick question, bear in mind I received the Claimants N180 on Monday.

When am I likely to receive my N180, from HMCS?

Checked today, and last transaction was "defence received 26/08".
Title: Re: MCOL received - assistance required
Post by: Unknown_Driver? on September 23, 2025, 06:59:31 pm
Thank you :)
Title: Re: MCOL received - assistance required
Post by: b789 on September 23, 2025, 12:35:50 pm
Wait for your own N180 DQ.

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.
Title: Re: MCOL received - assistance required
Post by: Unknown_Driver? on September 22, 2025, 11:00:24 am
**Update**

Today, I received the usual email from DCBL......including their Directions Questionnaire.

It`s like a repeat of my worst TV soap opera.....
Title: Re: MCOL received - assistance required
Post by: Unknown_Driver? on August 23, 2025, 03:19:00 pm
**Update**

Today, my defence has been submitted through MCOL.
Title: Re: MCOL received - assistance required
Post by: b789 on July 28, 2025, 02:45:54 pm
...then "divert" their already made points/arguments.

What do you mean? These unregulated private parking firms issue over 40,000 PCN's a day. It was over 12 million last year. Many hundreds of thousands of county court claims were issued.

Once claim is issued, they cannot change the Particulars of Claim (PoC). In the vast majority of the claims we see, the PoC are deficient and don't comply with CPR 16.4. The majority of claims issued are not responded to or defended resulting in CCJs in default.

The tip of the iceberg we see here, is not indicative of the problem. However, if you really think that these firms employ people to scour forums for specific cases in the hope that something will be revealed that they can then use to somehow divert the course of the claim, you really need to think this through a bit more.

(https://i.imgur.com/0s1wly4.jpeg)
Title: Re: MCOL received - assistance required
Post by: Unknown_Driver? on July 28, 2025, 02:24:08 pm
I see your point regards stating dates, but my point was that they have adequate time after receiving the AOS, to possibly then "divert" their already made points/arguments. I guess 28 days is going to be very adequate for them anyway, whether or not they realise the defence they read on here is for one of their live cases.

I shall use this, thank you.

I had spent many days/weeks studying similar cases and the associated arguments/defences, prior to this Claim Form arriving, so only had a basic idea which was the best direction to go in.

I have had previous use of the Courts in cases involving Consumer Credit Law, but these private parking companies require further regulation moving towards a full Government regulatory law, along with a Statutory Code of Practice. What we currently have, appears not to be fully supportive on the side of the driver.

I shall post again after I have submitted my defence.
Title: Re: MCOL received - assistance required
Post by: b789 on July 28, 2025, 01:28:54 pm
You can take off your tin-foil hat, if you are imagining someone monitoring this in order to somehow trip you up. Even if there was, what on earth do you imagine they could do about it? They are going to receive the defence anyway!

Working on the assumption that it was no earlier than 21st July, then consider the following:

With an issue date of 21st July, you have until 4pm on Monday 11th August to submit your defence. If you submit an Acknowledgement of Service (AoS) before then, you would then have until 4pm on Tuesday 26th August 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

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 65 characters per line and 122 lines limit.

Quote
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 CPR PD 16.7.3(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
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 CPR PD 7C.5.2(2), but chose not to do so.

AND upon the claim being for a very modest sum such that the
court considers it disproportionate and not in accordance with
the overriding objective to allot to this case any further share
of the court's resources by ordering further particulars of
claim and a further defence, each followed by further referrals
to the judge for 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 5 days after service of this order,
failing which no such application may be made.
Title: Re: MCOL received - assistance required
Post by: Unknown_Driver? on July 28, 2025, 01:23:40 pm
I am estimating, based on the Claim Date, the AOS needs to be reached to MCOL by 06/08/2025 & defence 14 days after. I am unsure about current timescales for submitting anything through MCOL. If it is a live system, surely the date you submit, should also be the accepted date of receipt?

My concern regarding stipulating dates of claim on my post, are that the Claimant may well have their spreadsheet (Court Claims) in view, which may tally with dates we state on this forum.

Yes, I am sure they have seen lots of defences published, and then may well alter their own tactics going forward. But if there is an obvious weakness to their legal argument & the date of claim will not affect their tactics, then I can state it.
Title: Re: MCOL received - assistance required
Post by: b789 on July 28, 2025, 01:16:32 pm
What is the issue date of the claim?
Title: Re: MCOL received - assistance required
Post by: Unknown_Driver? on July 28, 2025, 01:13:38 pm
Hi

Here is the POC.

Apologies as my scanner was acting naughty, so my first post did not include it. (Attachment Link)

Also, as per my upload, the POC does not give full explicit details of the location, just a certain type of car park in a Town but without a post-code. Not sure if this gives a defence any added weight?
Title: Re: MCOL received - assistance required
Post by: Unknown_Driver? on July 28, 2025, 12:27:29 pm
Backstory:-

I received this Claim after previous letters from DCBL.

The facts surrounding their claim I am sure will be backed up with as much evidence as they have already collected, including camera footage, their client operating on so called private land etc...so I do not feel any added value trying to go down that road as it may well be wasted.

I am not going to go into any further details about this company, as I am very aware they scrutinise these forums.

I am just planning to produce the most relevant defence, which will hopefully halt this pending legal action.
Title: Re: MCOL received - assistance required
Post by: Unknown_Driver? on July 28, 2025, 12:19:19 pm
Hi

Here is the POC.

Apologies as my scanner was acting naughty, so my first post did not include it.[attach=1]

[attachment deleted by admin]
Title: Re: MCOL received - assistance required
Post by: DWMB2 on July 28, 2025, 10:18:31 am
Once you've uploaded them, and any other relevant documents at backstory as per READ THIS FIRST - Private Parking Charges Forum guide (https://www.ftla.uk/private-parking-tickets/read-this-first-private-parking-charges-forum-guide/) then we will advise.
Title: MCOL received - assistance required
Post by: Unknown_Driver? on July 28, 2025, 10:15:48 am
Hi, I`m a newbie & have read the recommended notes for users new to this forum.

I would appreciate someone who has the legal knowledge to take a peek at my recently arrived POC & to then advise necessary.

I shall definitely be preparing a defence and do require further advice.

Thanks.