Free Traffic Legal Advice

enquiries@bwlegal.co.uk has worked in the past

Having received your own N180 (make sure it is not simply a copy of the claimants N180) or been notified on MCOL that yours has been sent, do not use the paper form. Ignore all the other forms that came with it. you can discard those. Download your own N180 DQ 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.

With an issue date of 24th September you have until 4pm on Monday 13th October to submit your defence. If you submit an Acknowledgement of Service (AoS) before then, you would then have until 4pm on Monday 27th October to submit your defence.

Submit an AoS now. Follow the instructions in this linked PDF:

https://www.dropbox.com/s/xvqu3bask5m0zir/money-claim-online-How-to-Acknowledge.pdf?dl=0

DO NOT submit the following defence before 13th October.

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.

Quote

1. The Defendant denies the claim in its entirety. No liability is admitted and no debt is owed. The Particulars of Claim (PoC) fail to disclose a coherent cause of action.

2. The PoC do not adequately comply with CPR 16.4 and PD 16. They omit the contractual terms relied upon, any pleaded period of parking, the location within the site, the time and duration, the mechanism by which any duration was measured, and any calculation or lawful basis for the total claimed and add-on sums. They also fail to state whether the Claimant sues as against the driver or registered keeper.

3. Pre-Action non-compliance and prejudice. After the Letter of Claim the Defendant requested, as required by the Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims (PAPDC 3.1(a)–(d), 5.1–5.2), the documents and information needed to understand and narrow the issues (landowner authority, contemporaneous signage/terms, evidence of any period of parking, and quantum methodology). The Claimant did not provide what was reasonably requested. It is therefore impossible for the Defendant to plead a fully particularised defence as contemplated by CPR 16.5. That non-compliance should weigh against the Claimant.

4. The claim was issued via MCOL. The Claimant could and should have served separate, detailed Particulars within 14 days (CPR 7.4; PD 7A/7E; PD 7C para 5.2). It chose not to.

5. Strike-out sought (no leave to amend). Having regard to the overriding objective (CPR 1.1) and proportionality for a modest small-claims matter, it would be a waste of limited court resources to direct further pleadings or case management where the Claimant has twice failed—pre-action and on issue—to articulate a viable cause. The Court is invited to strike out the claim under CPR 3.4(2)(a) for disclosing no reasonable grounds and for non-compliance with CPR 16.4.

6. Further and in the alternative on the merits (without waiver of para 5):

(a) No driver is admitted. The Defendant is the registered keeper only; there is no legal presumption that the keeper was the driver.
(b) Keeper liability under PoFA Sch 4 is denied: no NtK compliant with para 9(4)–(6) was served within the statutory period. In any event, PoFA s4(5) caps any keeper liability at the charge stated on a compliant NtK.
(c) Standing is denied: strict proof is required of a contemporaneous landowner contract conferring authority to contract and litigate.
(d) Signage/terms were not prominent or legible; any core term (charge/time limit) was buried in small print and not incorporated. The facts are distinguished from ParkingEye v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67.
(e) The added £70 “debt recovery” is an unrecoverable and abusive add-on amounting to double recovery, contrary to PoFA s4(5) and CPR 27.14; a code of practice cannot create a substantive entitlement.
(f) Any hidden/ambiguous terms are unfair and not binding under the Consumer Rights Act 2015; ambiguity is construed contra proferentem.

7. The claim is denied. The Defendant invites the Court to strike it out pursuant to CPR 3.4(2)(a) and reserves the right to seek costs for unreasonable conduct under CPR 27.14(2)(g).

I repeat... DO NOT submit this defence before 13th October.