Show Posts - bishbashbosh

QuoteYour acknowledgment of service was received on 04/11/2025 at 08:05:24Case Stay Lifted on 12/12/2025DQ filed by claimant on 12/12/2025That’s it. I assume something would be added when they’re after the filings etc. I also expect to receive documents by mail.I’ll add that the defence is saved and held on the portal.

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: b789 on 02 Dec, 2025 13:31I will bet you £100 that this will NEVER reach a hearing. DCB Legal NEVER go as far as a hearing is the claim is defended. Their MO is to take this as far as allocation to your local county court and then discontinue just before they have to pay the £27 trial fee. They work on the assumption that you are low-hanging fruit on the gullible tree and can be intimidated into paying out of ignorance and fear. If you don't, then they move on to their next victim.I won’t take you up on that bet. This sounds about right from what I can see and have learned along the way. I do very much appreciate all your assistance here and, having not been through this exact scenario before, your confidence is reassuring against the niggles of doubt I sometimes have. Stay the course!

Quote from: DWMB2 on 01 Dec, 2025 22:35Quote from: bishbashbosh on 01 Dec, 2025 22:21One 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 01 Dec, 2025 22:21In 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.

Many thanks. I have not received anything from MCOL or via post just yet. Expect it this week. 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. In other reading I’ve done on the matter, mediation is often described as the eventual endpoint. Is the challenge to have it heard an attempt to put paid to their lack of specific documentation, I.e. to call their bluff? I’m just trying to understand the logic behind this strategy.

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?

Thank you.

Quote from: DWMB2 on 31 Oct, 2025 10:45Guide: Posting ImagesThank you, my searches didn’t turn that up.

Quote from: DWMB2 on 30 Oct, 2025 20:22Please 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.

Sent the email above. Now in receipt of a Claim Form. Planning to acknowledge service etc. via MCOL.

Thanks, will do.

Quote from: b789 on 28 Jul, 2025 18:32Quote from: b789 on 28 Jul, 2025 17:37@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.Understood. I don’t have it. So, shall I respond to their LoC again requesting a copy?

Quote from: b789 on 28 Jul, 2025 17:37@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.

Quote from: b789 on 28 Jul, 2025 17:37@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.Will do, thanks.