-
Hello all,
Just a quick update to paperwork I have receieved today from Civil National Business Centre.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notice of Transfer of Proceedings
PARKINGEYE V
To all parties
This claim has been transferred to the County Court at ........ for allocation. On receipt, the file will be referred to a procedural judge who will allocate the claim to track and give case management directions. Details of the judge's decision will be sent to you in a notice of allocation.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Please can anyone shed any light on this letter? Does it mean that PARKINGEYE have paid the fee and continued with the matter?
Thank you. -
-
No. It just means that the case has been transferred to your local county court. You will next receive a Notice of Allocation with hearing date and other deadlines. Show that when you receive it.
It will also have a deadline by when the claimant must pay the £27 trial fee. It is just before that deadline that DCB Legal will discontinue. -
-
Thank you @b789 for clearing that up for me. Once I reiceve the letters from county court I shall update then. -
-
Good Evening All,
I have an update regarding the complaint to HMCTS stage 2. Here is the outcome from HMCTS to my complaint. See below. @b789
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Complaint Ref:
Case Ref:
Dear
More information about your complaint
Thank you for your email of 19 November 2025 about your complaint. I’m sorry to hear you’re unhappy
with the first response we sent, and I appreciate you raising five specific points. I’ll respond to each in
turn.
1. How the mediator opened the meeting
I’ve listened to the call, and the mediator did open the meeting correctly by explaining what would
happen during the appointment. Mediation sessions always begin with the mediator outlining their role
and what each party can expect. After this, the mediator relayed the details of the claim.
2. Transparency about who attends
I’ve spoken with the mediation team to clarify the process. When a party asks about who will attend and
their identity, the mediator treats this like any other request:
• They put the question to the other party.
• They only share what the other party authorises.
Neither party is required to confirm attendance details to each other—only to the mediator—so the
mediator knows the person speaking has authority to settle on that party’s behalf
3. Confidentiality of mediation
As we previously advised, mediation is confidential and separate from the court hearing. The judge does
not see anything that happens during mediation, which is why details are not recorded.
4. Comment about inconvenience
At the start of the call, you mentioned the appointment was inconvenient, and the mediator said they
would try to keep it short. I’m sorry if this came across in the wrong way. The intention was to be helpful,
not dismissive.
5. Why the call ended
The mediator asked if you disputed the claim, and you confirmed that you did. Under our process, when
a claim is disputed, mediation cannot continue, so the mediator correctly ended the call and didn’t take
anything further across to the other party.
Closing
I’m sorry mediation wasn’t what you expected, and I appreciate how disappointing this must have been.
I hope this explanation helps clarify the mediator’s position and our process. Thank you for sharing your
feedback—it’s important and will help us improve.
If you’re unhappy with my response
HMCTS operates a three stage complaints handling procedure. If you remain dissatisfied with our reply,
you can ask the User Investigations Team to review your complaint at the final stage of the complaints
procedure by emailing userinvestigations@justice.gov.uk or by writing to: HM Courts & Tribunals
Service, User Investigations Team, 6th Floor (6.13), 102 Petty France London, SW1H 9AJ – again, you
must explain simply and clearly what parts of the response you’ve received you do not agree with and
would like reviewed.
Yours Sincerely
Ms A Lee Complaints Manager
National Services Complaints Team
NBC - Tribunals & Contact Centres
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Again, another fob off by HMCTS and under the impression this is going to continue. I am curious to know if anyone else has been through this before and what was the outcome?
Any suggestions of what to do from hereon?
Kind Regards,
c4733
-
-
It will definitely continue, these cases are never settled at mediation.
-
-
What remedy are you seeking?
This has nothing to do with the substantive issue of the validity of your parking charge notice, so what are you pursuing?
And, I'm tempted to ask, why? Surely your primary focus is on defending yourself? -
-
With all due respect, this complaint is about the fact these HMCTS mediators are not legally trained and, in bulk parking cases, they end up speaking to the same “litigation support” staff from the bulk firms day in, day out. That can lead to them becoming a bit too chummy and accepting things (like anonymous representatives) that no court would tolerate, while being dismissive when a litigant in person questions it.
What is being sought here is that this particular mediation wasn’t handled properly, an assurance it will be used for training so others aren’t put in the same position, and a correction of any internal note that might suggest the defendant refused to engage with mediation when in fact they were objecting to the process, not walking away.
We already know that this claim is going to be discontinued just before the £27 trial has to be paid. No one is worried about the claim as it has been defended. DCB Legal have no intention of taking this all the way to a hearing.
So, as we are complaining about the issues with the mediator, I advise the following Stage 3 response, which will let them know that you are not a pushover, it has been noted that some mediators are not doing their job properly and they need to get their house in order:QuoteSubject: Request for Stage 3 Review – Mediation Complaint (Ref: [insert])
Dear User Investigations Team,
I request a Stage 3 review of my complaint concerning the mediation appointment of 27 October 2025. I remain dissatisfied with the Stage 2 response provided by Ms A Lee. I set out below the parts of that response I do not agree with and wish to be reviewed.
1. The mediator’s opening and impartiality were not properly addressed
The Stage 2 response states only that the mediator “relayed the details of the claim” after explaining their role. My complaint was that the mediator delivered a narrative of the claimant’s reasons for pursuing the claim, which went beyond relay and appeared as advocacy. This point was not evaluated; it was simply stated that the mediator followed process. I request review of whether it is appropriate for a mediator to present one party’s motivations in detail before hearing the other party at all.
2. Failure to address the refusal of the claimant’s representative to identify themselves
The Stage 2 response says neither party is required to confirm attendance details to the other. My complaint is not about a requirement but about the mediator accepting a refusal to provide identity when asked. The mediator did not merely “share what was authorised”; they relayed that the representative refused to identify themselves. This has implications for fairness and transparency. This issue was not dealt with and requires review.
3. Confidentiality was applied incorrectly to justify refusing to record procedural matters
The Stage 2 response repeats that mediation is confidential but does not address the specific concern: the mediator refused to record even the procedural fact that the claimant’s representative would not identify themselves. Confidentiality is about the content of negotiations, not about suppressing procedural irregularities. I request a review of whether “confidentiality” was applied correctly in this context.
4. Mischaracterisation of the reason the call ended
The Stage 2 response says mediation “cannot continue” once a defendant disputes the claim. This is factually incorrect. HMCTS mediators deal with many cases where the defendant disputes liability; mediation proceeds unless both parties refuse to make any offer. My position was that I would not negotiate with an unidentified representative. That is materially different from refusing mediation outright. The Stage 2 response incorrectly states the call ended because I disputed the claim. I request review of this mischaracterisation because it affects fairness and accuracy of the mediation record.
5. Stage 2 did not address the mediator’s refusal to relay my stated position
The mediator refused to relay my position (“liability denied; £0 offer; claimant’s representative has not confirmed their identity or authority”). The Stage 2 response does not address this at all. This is a central procedural failure, and I request it be reviewed.
For the above reasons, I ask that my complaint be fully reviewed at Stage 3.
Yours sincerely,
[Name]
[Address / Email] -
-
Once again, thank you for your support in this matter @b789 and drafting something substantial that I can fire back at them with; I hope this will help others too in a similar position. I will report the outcome to Stage 3 complaint once I hear from HMCTS.
-
-
Stage 3 mediation complaint email sent. Will update in due course with the outcome. -
-
Hi all,
Here is an update to my case. I have recieved a "Notice of Allocation to the Small Claims Track (Hearing" letter from my local County Court the other day. The hearing date has been listed for end of January 2026.
WITNESS STATEMENTS must be provided by all parties by 2nd January 2026.
HEARING FEE of £27.00 must be paid by the claimant by 25th Demcember 2025. If the claimant fails to pay the fee or apply for help the claim will be struck out.
MEDIATION DIRECTIONS (This made me chuckle given I have raised a complaint with the help of yourselves.
)
Not suitable for mediation (eg RTA's DVLA cases, Income Tax cases) or already mediated at Salford.
The rest of the information on the letter is nonsense to write about, but I shall upload the letters for all to see obviously redacting any personal information from it.
Of course I am hoping it will be struck out and we won't have to attend the hearing but this is wishful thinking. Any advice to the information above is always welcomed?
What is the best way to upload the information to here and how?
-
-
Try the cunningly hidden https://www.ftla.uk/private-parking-tickets/read-this-first-private-parking-charges-forum-guide/ which refers to https://www.ftla.uk/announcements/posting-images/#new
Expect the case to be discontinued before Christmas, DCB Legal will not pay the £27 fee. As in Reply #16 above. -
-
The one critical deadline you have not told us is the date by which all parties are to submit their documents the they will be relying on, such as Witness Statements etc. It is usually hidden in tiny print and more often than not is 14 days before the hearing date, but could be earlier or later.
However, I am still prepared to bet that they will discontinue just before the trial fee deadline, Xmas day! -
-
Quote
WITNESS STATEMENTS must be provided by all parties by 2nd January 2026.
-
-
Doh! Can't see the wood for the trees! Yup, you will receive a nice little Xmas present in the form of an N279.
-
-
Besides the silly phone calls you receive from DCB Legal, which I quite happily ignore, you also receive begging emails as well. Thought I would share this recent communication I received yesterday from them so others know what to expect.
——————————————————————-
Good afternoon,
We write in relation to the above matter.
WITHOUT PREJUDICE
Our client is prepared to make an offer to potentially conclude this matter. We ask that you call us on 0203 838 7038 to discuss this further.
We look forward to hearing from you.
Kind Regards,
Jemma Slater
Trainee CILEX Paralegal
DCB Legal Ltd
Tel: 0203 838 7038 | DX 23457 RUNCORN
———————————————————————
Of course like every piece of communication I have received from them since the day this all started, I ignored it!
-
Dislike x 1
View List
Like x 1
View List
Like x 1
View List
Like x 1
View List
Like x 1
View List
Wow x 1
View List
Agree x 1
Winner x 1
Love x 1
Funny x 1
View List