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.
Hi
Here is the POC.
Apologies as my scanner was acting naughty, so my first post did not include it. [ Guests cannot view attachments ]
[ Guests cannot view attachments ]
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.
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?
What is the issue date of the claim?
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.
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=0Until 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.
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.
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.
...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.
**Update**
Today, my defence has been submitted through MCOL.
**Update**
Today, I received the usual email from DCBL......including their Directions Questionnaire.
It`s like a repeat of my worst TV soap opera.....
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.pdfHere 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.
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".
Like x 1
View List
Useful x 1
View List