-
No - send it to ParkingEye if they're running the case themselves.
-
-
No, clearly not in this case.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.
Should I be sending this to DCB legal if they haven't been appointed? -
-
No, clearly not in this case.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.
Should I be sending this to DCB legal if they haven't been appointed?
thank you, due to my conditions I am told I'm quite "literal thinking" so don't want anyone to think I'm insulting them by asking questions. it's just how my mind works unfortunately
-
-
Thank you for catching that. My bad. The N180 should be emailed to dq.cnbc@justice.gov.uk and to info@parkingeye.co.uk and CC yourself.
-
-
Hi guys
So they have filed a "reply to defence" didn't know they was allowed to do this without permission of the court
Drop box link below
https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/mhj6us9xjfs21vv6140py/P.E-Reply-to-Defence.pdf?rlkey=ah8vsj882xjhxijimj7kkqlhb&st=g41o788x&dl=0
Just a few things
1. i've highlighted on page 22 the area i parked, adn the photos posted before show no signage in that area depsite them stating there is.
2. should i reply to this or not? -
-
Having reviewed this case and considering it is one that only came to us after the defence had been filed, here is my view on the options you have before you right now if you intend challenge the claim:
The Claimant's pleaded cause of action is a breach of contract by either the driver (not identified) or the keeper (not liable under PoFA due to statutory land), for failing to pay a parking charge incurred on private land.
You have two main options now that the weaknesses in the claim are clear.
First, you can apply to the court to have the claim struck out before it goes any further. This is done by filling in form N244 and asking the court to strike out the claim because it has no legal basis. The argument is that the claim relies on keeper liability under the Protection of Freedoms Act, but that Act doesn’t apply here because the land is covered by byelaws. The claim also doesn’t say you were the driver, so there’s no other basis for liability. The court might agree and strike out the claim, which would end the case now. The downside is you’ll need to pay a court fee of £313, and if the court refuses the application, you won’t get that money back. There’s also a small risk you might be ordered to pay a bit of the claimant’s costs for the hearing.
The second option is to do nothing for now, wait for the court to set a hearing date, and defend the claim at the final hearing. You’ll be able to raise all the same points — that PoFA doesn’t apply, that you haven’t been identified as the driver, and that there’s no valid claim. Small claims hearings are informal, and costs are limited, so this route avoids the upfront cost and still gives you a good chance of winning. The downside is you’ll need to prepare a witness statement and attend a hearing, which might take a few months.
In short, one option gives you a shot at ending the case early but costs more and carries a small risk. The other option takes longer but is cheaper and still gives you a strong defence at the hearing. -
-
Having reviewed this case and considering it is one that only came to us after the defence had been filed, here is my view on the options you have before you right now if you intend challenge the claim:
The Claimant's pleaded cause of action is a breach of contract by either the driver (not identified) or the keeper (not liable under PoFA due to statutory land), for failing to pay a parking charge incurred on private land.
You have two main options now that the weaknesses in the claim are clear.
First, you can apply to the court to have the claim struck out before it goes any further. This is done by filling in form N244 and asking the court to strike out the claim because it has no legal basis. The argument is that the claim relies on keeper liability under the Protection of Freedoms Act, but that Act doesn’t apply here because the land is covered by byelaws. The claim also doesn’t say you were the driver, so there’s no other basis for liability. The court might agree and strike out the claim, which would end the case now. The downside is you’ll need to pay a court fee of £313, and if the court refuses the application, you won’t get that money back. There’s also a small risk you might be ordered to pay a bit of the claimant’s costs for the hearing.
The second option is to do nothing for now, wait for the court to set a hearing date, and defend the claim at the final hearing. You’ll be able to raise all the same points — that PoFA doesn’t apply, that you haven’t been identified as the driver, and that there’s no valid claim. Small claims hearings are informal, and costs are limited, so this route avoids the upfront cost and still gives you a good chance of winning. The downside is you’ll need to prepare a witness statement and attend a hearing, which might take a few months.
In short, one option gives you a shot at ending the case early but costs more and carries a small risk. The other option takes longer but is cheaper and still gives you a strong defence at the hearing.
Hi, thank you so much for this
I don't mind waiting so i think option 2 will be the one for me. However i've done a little reading and was wondering if there is maybe a 3rd option
Which is to ask the court to have the claim "stayed" and force the claimant to explain why it took 63 days to file this when it should have been 14 days to send a "reply to defence". According to CPR 15.8 it must be accompinied by an additional DQ
15.8 If a claimant files a reply to the defence—
(a)the claimant must—
(i)file the reply with a directions questionnaire; and
(ii)serve the reply on the other parties at the same time as it is filed; and
(b)the reply should form one document with any defence to counterclaim, with the defence to counterclaim following the reply, unless the dates on which they are due to be filed differ from one another.
Thoughts? -
-
Yes, that is another option. However, do you really want the claim 'stayed'. Requesting a stay of proceedings (instead of immediate strike-out) can serve as a strategic move in certain situations. In your case, it would primarily be used to pause the case and force the Claimant to explain and correct procedural failings — rather than asking the court to dismiss the claim outright.
A strike-out application is cleaner and more final. If the court considers the late Reply to Defence as harmless (which can happen in small claims), a stay might just delay the inevitable. If you don’t make the stay request through a formal N244 application, the court is unlikely to act on it.
Are you eligible for assistance with court fees? If you are, then you should definitely make an N244 application for strike out. You could incorporate all of the arguments into a single N244 application, asking for:• The claim to be struck out under CPR 3.4(2)(a) as disclosing no reasonable grounds (due to PoFA not applying and no driver pleaded), and/or
• The Claimant’s Reply to Defence to be struck out or disregarded due to late filing and failure to comply with CPR 15.8 and PD15 para 6 and/or
• A stay of proceedings pending clarification or permission from the court.
This all has to be done before the claim is allocated to track otherwise it is not likely to be considered within the time constraints of an actual hearing. Once it is allocated, you can please everything in your WS but most judges will not have the time or inclination to do more than skim read it.
This is the reasoning for making the application:
The 14-day expectation for replying to a defence comes from Practice Direction 15, paragraph 6. The requirement to include the Directions Questionnaire is found in CPR 15.8(a). The ability to file further pleadings after a Reply is restricted under CPR 15.9.
So, if ParkingEye waited 63 days to file their Reply to Defence without applying for an extension and without complying with CPR 15.8, they have breached procedural expectations and potentially the rules. -
-
Yes, that is another option. However, do you really want the claim 'stayed'. Requesting a stay of proceedings (instead of immediate strike-out) can serve as a strategic move in certain situations. In your case, it would primarily be used to pause the case and force the Claimant to explain and correct procedural failings — rather than asking the court to dismiss the claim outright.
A strike-out application is cleaner and more final. If the court considers the late Reply to Defence as harmless (which can happen in small claims), a stay might just delay the inevitable. If you don’t make the stay request through a formal N244 application, the court is unlikely to act on it.
Are you eligible for assistance with court fees? If you are, then you should definitely make an N244 application for strike out. You could incorporate all of the arguments into a single N244 application, asking for:• The claim to be struck out under CPR 3.4(2)(a) as disclosing no reasonable grounds (due to PoFA not applying and no driver pleaded), and/or
• The Claimant’s Reply to Defence to be struck out or disregarded due to late filing and failure to comply with CPR 15.8 and PD15 para 6 and/or
• A stay of proceedings pending clarification or permission from the court.
This all has to be done before the claim is allocated to track otherwise it is not likely to be considered within the time constraints of an actual hearing. Once it is allocated, you can please everything in your WS but most judges will not have the time or inclination to do more than skim read it.
This is the reasoning for making the application:
The 14-day expectation for replying to a defence comes from Practice Direction 15, paragraph 6. The requirement to include the Directions Questionnaire is found in CPR 15.8(a). The ability to file further pleadings after a Reply is restricted under CPR 15.9.
So, if ParkingEye waited 63 days to file their Reply to Defence without applying for an extension and without complying with CPR 15.8, they have breached procedural expectations and potentially the rules.
Hi again, thank you so much for your advice, i wish i had come sooner but oh well we are here now,
Gonna go with the trial (my partner earns too much to get discounded fees, Feel i wanna fight this, even if i lose it wont be too bad, just pay within 28 days, Just hoping they discontiue like other cases but i'm probably that 1% you keep mentioning haha
Gonna get ready for my witness statement, but i'm going to point out the procedual defects in their claim in my witness statement (late filling, incorrect infomation provided etc.)The second option is to do nothing for now, wait for the court to set a hearing date, and defend the claim at the final hearing. You’ll be able to raise all the same points — that PoFA doesn’t apply, that you haven’t been identified as the driver, and that there’s no valid claim. Small claims hearings are informal, and costs are limited, so this route avoids the upfront cost and still gives you a good chance of winning. The downside is you’ll need to prepare a witness statement and attend a hearing, which might take a few months.
So with my Witness statement, how exactly do i plead this?
Got my mediation appointment on 21/7/25 for 3 hours. So lets see what happens there i suppose. -
-
Mediation is a waste of time. I tis not part of the judicial process and is without prejudice. The mediator is not legally trained and if they start to offer "advice" on your prospects or anything else, just remind them that the claimant has a copy of your defence and they can refer to that. You offer £0 and it will be over in minutes.
You have ages until a WS would be due. There are examples of other WS on the forum, so have a look at a few of the more recent ones to get a flavour of what heeds to go in and how to format it. A WS is always written in the first person. It is your side of the story.
You really do not want to compose your WS until you've seen the claimants WS. I suggest you get on with your life until the order comes in with the hearing date and other deadlines. -
-
Hi again, after a long wait, they finally sent the court order but i'm confused by it, it says we have to file evidence AFTER the hearin date though, or am i reading it wrong?
order is in Dropbox
https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/mhj6us9xjfs21vv6140py/P.E-Reply-to-Defence.pdf?rlkey=ah8vsj882xjhxijimj7kkqlhb&st=g41o788x&dl=0
-
-
Hi again, after a long wait, they finally sent the court order but i'm confused by it, it says we have to file evidence AFTER the hearin date though, or am i reading it wrong?
Show it to us perhaps? -
-
Hi again, after a long wait, they finally sent the court order but i'm confused by it, it says we have to file evidence AFTER the hearin date though, or am i reading it wrong?
Show it to us perhaps?
I edited the comment, it's in my drop box, sorry again -
-
“This link does not exist”
-
-
“This link does not exist”
https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/f2t0fpma04xp8zuol83fb/Court-Order-10-9-25.docx?rlkey=6oc1b44fl9xtswx7186xudocd&st=gabbmvmz&dl=0
try this one maybe? -