Free Traffic Legal Advice

Sorry to bump this if it’s unnecessary, but we haven’t heard anything from the Court by mail or otherwise since acknowledging service and lodging the defence. We did receive subsequent email acknowledgement from DCB Legal that they will be pursuing the claim.

I can’t see anything on the MCOL portal that gives any indication of what to do next, if anything. I want to be sure I’m not missing a step. Can anyone provide a bit of guidance?

Update: coincidentally, I’ve just learned that we received a voicemail from DCB Legal asking to make contact, presumably to try to intimidate and settle.

Quote from: bishbashbosh on December 01, 2025, 10:21:46 pm

One question, is it *likely* that signalling a desire to have the case heard will result in a hearing? Obviously, it’s understood that signalling this opens up the possibility.

It increases the chances of a hearing, which is one of the reasons it increases the chances of them discontinuing.

If you opt for an in-person hearing and they proceed, they'll have to spend the money to send someone to your local county court to argue their case. If you agree for the case to be heard on the papers, this suits the claimant, as their solicitors can simply submit written evidence and have the matter decided by a judge without them having to turn up.

Quote from: bishbashbosh on December 01, 2025, 10:21:46 pm

In other reading I’ve done on the matter, mediation is often described as the eventual endpoint.

Mediation is only the endpoint if both parties agree to a settlement, which, given your position is that you owe nothing, is unlikely.

This makes sense. Thanks.

Thanks again for your previous help. The above was sent and we’ve been awaiting a response. Received the attached email from DCB Legal under the heading “Bulk Litigation” (which is humorous in some way). Form N180 was also attached.

I assume this is part of a last ditch effort to achieve a settlement; having already been paid and instructed by Smart Parking they have every incentive to continue on. They never provided any evidence that they had followed POFA in regard to keeper liability etc. as their claim did not specify their intended course of action. Any advice other than to play out the string?

Please show us the claim form, with personal details, the claim number and MCOL password redacted.

I don’t seem to have permission to upload photos.

Thanks, will do.

@bishbashbosh, please start your won thread if you want advice. You would need to show us the original Notice to Keeper (NtK) you received from (not so) Smart Parking. However, if the LoC is from DCB Legal, you can just use the one you've shown above as they will issue a claim whatever you send them.

Here it is.

In receipt of an LoC from DCB Legal on behalf of Smart Parking after several letters from DCBL were ignored. The alleged transaction took place in 2021 and I cannot recall any  details of the event. No NtK was delivered that I know of, but this may be due to a move of house around the time of the alleged incident and DVLA not being properly updated. Understood that this is not a defence.

Research and advice provided elsewhere indicate that Smart Parking were not in the habit of complying with POFA at that time so a defence based on their inability to establish keeper liability is the best course of action. Responded by email to the LoC using a template found elsewhere, affirming the identity of the keeper and their lack of obligation to name the driver, and referring to VCS v Edward 2023 as the basis for the PoC’s inability to infer liability.

POFA was not specifically mentioned in the reply, and after seeing a response in another thread here which does address Schedule 4 directly, I wish I had said something more direct about it.

In your experience, is there any point doing so at this stage, effectively replying to the LoC twice, or is any response pro forma? I.e. is it best to just wait for them to proceed to claim and use the elements of your template response at a later stage?

Thanks in advance for any advice.