Free Traffic Legal Advice
Live cases legal advice => Private parking tickets => Topic started by: 7772pt on August 21, 2025, 06:14:14 pm
-
If the defendant requires a translator, it is up to the court or the mediation service to provide one.
-
Thanks,
And for E1, shall I put my relative or me as his English isn’t great.
If I put myself, do I also need to mention it in E3?
Sorry for the constant questions, just want to make sure I do it right
-
F2 Expert evidence
Are you asking for the court’s permission to use the written
evidence of an expert?
No
Unless you are
-
Quick question guys, section E1 regarding the mediation appointment. Shall I put myself or my relative?
He can speak English but his proficiency isn’t great.
And for F2, do I put yes or no?
-
Well there are some blanks to fill in (unless your name is "Your full name"), but otherwise yes.
-
Great, thank you.
So just to confirm, I will populate the N180 with the exact same answers as in Reply #9? No changes?
-
Reply #9 tells you EXACTLY what to do about your N180 DQ.
This will never get as far as a hearing in court. It will either be struck out or discontinued. You are not likely to be the first.
Even it ever did get as far as a hearing (it won't), if language is an issue, then a translator can be provided or even better, you could attend with your relative and act on their behalf as a Lay Representative.
-
Thanks.
Is this a standard thing for this scenario? Just a bit concerned.
I’ve now received the letter by post of ‘Notice of proposed allocation to the small claims track’ with the N180 Form. What do I do now?
Also, I would rather this not to go to court/trial as my relative doesn’t speak very good English.
-
They don't send you theirs and you don't send them yours!!! Both parties are required to send their DQ to the CNBC and both parties are obliged to send a copy to the other party. Hence, when you email your DQ, you CC the claimant (or their solicitor they're using one).
-
Directions Questionnaire
N180 form
They send you theirs, you send them yours
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.
-
Hi All,
Thanks for the help
Just received an update on MCOL on this, it says that they have filed a DQ? I’m not too sure what this is and I’m a bit concerned.
Although I haven’t received a letter from them yet.
-
Assuming the 4th PCN is also non-compliant with PoFA, as were all (not so) Smart Parking NtKs, back in the day, then this will get thrown out if it ever reaches a hearing, even if it is for 4 PCNs.
As it is the Keeper who is named on the claim (your relative) it all has to be done in their name. You can do all the legwork is you like but it must all be signed in their name (by typing their name for the signature, no actual ink signature is needed).
As the Keeper was not the driver and they are under no legal obligation to name the driver to an unregulated private parking firm, the burden of proof is on the claimant to show that the person being sued (the Keeper) was the driver. How do you imagine they can do that if the Keeper declines to give them the drivers details? They can't!
So, you have until 4pm on Monday 8th September to submit your defence. If you submit an Acknowledgement of Service (AoS) before then, you would then have until 4pm on Monday 22nd September to submit your defence.
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.
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.
-
Yes the court letter is also addressed to my relative
Important to note is that your relative has to defend this. (They are being sued, not anyone else)
Smart did not bother with PoFA compliance for many years - as above, the keeper cannot be held responsible unless the parking operator complied (they didn't) - or show the keeper was driving (this would seem to rather difficult for them).
As the keeper was not driving they have a strong defence but don't expect them to throw the towel in early.
-
Hi,
Thank you for your detailed messages.
As for your question in point 2 - you are correct, the keeper wasn’t the driver on any of the occasions.
I have only found 3/4 NtKs, please see below links:
(https://i.imgur.com/nn1eHHs.jpeg)
(https://i.imgur.com/GGQ8t08.jpeg)
(https://i.imgur.com/nQkWP0z.jpeg)
Let me know if anything else is needed.
-
As far as deadlines are concerned, with an issue date of 19th August you have until 4pm on Monday 8th September to submit your defence. If you submit an Acknowledgement of Service (AoS) before then, you would then have until 4pm on Monday 22nd September 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
Advice on the actual defence to submit can be given once you have show us the Notices to Keeper (NtK) that were issued by (not so) Smart Parking.
Please also clarify whether any representation was made to the operator or any of their useless debt collectors and if so, has the driver been identified at any stage? It ids possible the driver is identified simply because the Keeper (the defendant in this case) failed to refer to the driver in the third person at any point.
-
A couple of further preliminary things before I move on to the substance:
- So that we have them for the record, it would be useful to see all of the original PCNs - Please do not upload these directly here, but use a third party site like Imgur (there's a guide on how to do this in the following thread: READ THIS FIRST - Private Parking Charges Forum guide (https://www.ftla.uk/private-parking-tickets/read-this-first-private-parking-charges-forum-guide/))
- From my reading of your posts so far, I have assumed that your relative, who is the one being sued, was not the driver on any of these occasions. Is this correct? We don't need to know who was driving.
Onto the main points...
You will no doubt have seen from reading other cases on this forum when researching yours, that in many cases involving DCB Legal, they discontinue proceedings before it goes to a hearing, presumably as they consider it not worth their while paying for a legal rep to attend court. However, most of these cases involve a single PCN, and therefore usually less than £200 is at stake. With a claim for over £1,000, the chances of them actually turning up to court are increased, as there is much more to gain.
You may also have seen that for most cases where DCB Legal are acting for the claimant, there is a good template defence written by b789 that makes the point about poor particulars of claim, and asks for a strike out on this basis. Whilst this is a valid angle for this case, given the points above about the increased likelihood of an actual hearing, I personally think a more bespoke approach may be wise, that gets the following key defence points on the table (subject to the answer to point #2 above):
- "The Defendant is pursued as the driver": The defendant was not the driver, so this can be denied in the defence. As the defendant was not the driver, the court should consider his liability only in his capacity as the registered keeper of the vehicle
- "In the alternative the Defendant is pursued as the keeper pursuant to POFA 2012, Schedule 4": Although we haven't yet seen the PCNs, Smart Parking PCNs from 2020/2021 were never compliant with Schedule 4 of PoFA. Therefore they are unable to rely on the provisions of PoFA to recover the charges from the defendant in his capacity as the keeper
The defendant was not the driver, so cannot be liable as the driver, and Smart did not comply with the requirements of PoFA, so he cannot be liable as the keeper, either. He therefore has no liability for the charges, and no money is owed.
-
Thank you.
Yes the court letter is also addressed to my relative
Please find attached as requested
-
Please reupload the claim form with only the name, address, claim #, MCOL password and vehicle reg redacted. We need to see all the other details, including dates and times, as well as a breakdown of the sum being claimed.
You say that you received the claim form, but later state that the original parking charges were issued to a relative. Is the claim form also issued to your relative? If so, it is your relative who will need to respond to the claim, not you.
(You might want to share some choice words with your colleague who advised your relative to ignore the charges, they could have been dealt with by a very simple appeal at the time, alas...)
-
Hi all,
I just received a court letter of claim from DCBL on behalf of Smart parking from 4 parking tickets I received in 2020/2021.
The parking was in my office building whereby my car was registered for some time then was taken off by my boss but I wasn’t informed. We were paying monthly for a 3 parking spaces here.
The letters up until this I foolishly ignored (was told to by a colleague) and 5 years later I get a court letter.
I’ve got a picture of some of the tickets which show my car clearly with the entry and exit time with the date (attached)
I’m not really sure what to do as the claim is for over £1000 (with charges) and not something easily payable. I feel this kind of amount they will pursue now.
Also, the fine is on a relatives name as the car was registered under him.