Author Topic: Actual Court Papers Received  (Read 2769 times)

0 Members and 0 Guests are viewing this topic.

dave-o

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 37
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: Actual Court Papers Received
« Reply #45 on: November 20, 2023, 09:38:17 am »
Morning, FTLAers

So the defence was submitted based on:
- The driver having permission from the landowner to park in the position
- No contract extension being evidenced
- The legality of action being brought in the name of the PPC (as per HCA)
- Other relevant points from the MSE thread

I then received these communications form DCBLegal (the debt collector, not the PPC)

- An email offering for me to pay £210.  I replied saying we may consider £40, as this was the original cost of the ticket that we were denied the option of ever paying
- An email offering for me to pay £100. This was not replied to before the following was received
- An email including an N180 directions questionnaire.  This is included below:









This also includes an offer to call them and arrange a settlement.

I would appreciate any comments but particularly thoughts regarding these:

1) Legitimacy of the document.  The debt collectors seem like complete cowboys, making random offers with no link to a lawful sum.  The fact that the N180 mail included an offer to arrange payment makes me wonder if they are up to their usual tricks of threats and misrepresentations.  Do we believe the above is a genuinely submitted document, or just intending to scare?

2) In the E1 section of the do, they attempt to have the hearing at their local court.  My understanding was that it is usually the defendant's right to choose the venue.  Is this just more bluster, choosing to make their claim from their Runcorn office despite having offices closer to me?

3) Given the question of who is actually able to bring a claim against me (ref HCA's point that the contract does not apparently allow First Parking to bring the claim), how would a third party (i.e. DCB Legal) bring a claim?  This in particular makes me wonder if the whole thing is a sample document intending to make someone crumble rather than an actual submission to court, although they do say "please find attached a copy of the Claimant's, which we confirm has been filed with the Court"

In case it's useful to know, the MCOL timeline of transactions makes no mention of this form.  The most recent transaction is my defence submission. 

Thanks for your advice.
« Last Edit: November 20, 2023, 10:35:26 am by dave-o »

DWMB2

  • Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 854
  • Karma: +24/-0
    • View Profile
Re: Actual Court Papers Received
« Reply #46 on: November 20, 2023, 10:46:00 am »
- An email offering for me to pay £210.  I replied saying we may consider £40, as this was the original cost of the ticket that we were denied the option of ever paying
I hope you marked this email as 'Without Prejudice Save as to Costs', so they can't try and spin this offer against you in court?

The various offers you refer to seems like fairly standard negotiation - they want you to pay as much as they can get out of you, you want to pay nothing. You've moved from £0 to £40, they've moved back down to the original charge amount of £100.

1) Legitimacy of the document.
Looks like a relatively standard N180.

2) In the E1 section of the do, they attempt to have the hearing at their local court.  My understanding was that it is usually the defendant's right to choose the venue.  Is this just more bluster, choosing to make their claim from their Runcorn office despite having offices closer to me?
Again, standard. The form asks which court they'd like the matter heard at - they're not going to say they want it at your home court. But look at the 'Notes' to the right of that box, it refers to the CPR that govern these claims - Part 26 is relevant here:

26.3.—(1) This rule applies where the claim is for an amount of money in the County Court, specified or unspecified.
(3) Subject to paragraphs (5) and (6), if the defendant is an individual and the claim is for a specified sum of money, at the relevant time the claim must be sent to the defendant’s home court

3) Given the question of who is actually able to bring a claim against me (ref HCA's point that the contract does not apparently allow First Parking to bring the claim), how would a third party (i.e. DCB Legal) bring a claim?
First Parking are bringing the claim - DCB Legal are their legal representatives, as they don't have their own in-house legal team. Note the first box at the very top says "To be completed by, or on behalf of, First Parking Llp".

Keep an eye out for it turning up on MCOL but at face value there doesn't seem much untoward with the document. Make sure you complete your own in line with the indicated timescales.

dave-o

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 37
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: Actual Court Papers Received
« Reply #47 on: November 20, 2023, 10:52:20 am »
Thank you, when you say "make sure you complete your own in line with the indicated timescales", perhaps there is a resource i am missing, but where are timescales indicated?  Not on MCOL as far as I can see.

Thanks
« Last Edit: November 20, 2023, 12:32:30 pm by dave-o »

The Rookie

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 184
  • Karma: +3/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • Location: Warwickshire
    • View Profile
Re: Actual Court Papers Received
« Reply #48 on: November 21, 2023, 10:36:42 am »
especially with the procedural improprieties.
This isn't a legislated process, there is no such concept in private parking (and I can't see you've actually alleged any either), the matter will revolve around whether something was owed after the period of parking or not, what comes later is largely irrelevant unless it relates to keeper liability which won't really help in your case.
There are motorists who have been scammed and those who are yet to be scammed!

dave-o

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 37
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: Actual Court Papers Received
« Reply #49 on: November 22, 2023, 11:34:21 am »
I would appreciate help with timescales and actions, as unless I am missing it, it's really not clear what needs to be done when.  There is no record on MCOL of anything being submitted since my defence on 10/11.  I guess i need to wait until the N180 appears here, after which I can submit my own, which will include a DCP 26.3 request to change to a local court?

Thanks

DWMB2

  • Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 854
  • Karma: +24/-0
    • View Profile
Re: Actual Court Papers Received
« Reply #50 on: November 24, 2023, 10:54:09 am »
They should send you the directions questionnaire. I'm not sure that there's a standard timescale for when they'll do this - I believe it can take a couple of months. Worth keeping your eye on MCOL.

dave-o

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 37
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: Actual Court Papers Received
« Reply #51 on: December 04, 2023, 09:42:35 am »
Hi, just to check in again.

I have been watching MCOL and nothing has been added since my defence.  My hunch is the debt collector was misrepresenting by saying they were going to submit the N180, it was designed to make me crumble.

Just to check there is nothing I need to do at this point?  I can't submit my own N180 until I get the directions questionnaire?

Thanks

H C Andersen

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 715
  • Karma: +18/-0
    • View Profile
Re: Actual Court Papers Received
« Reply #52 on: December 04, 2023, 11:29:42 am »

As I understand it, a N180 would be issued by the court, it's a process document which is part and parcel of the claims procedure.
Agree Agree x 1 View List

dave-o

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 37
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: Actual Court Papers Received
« Reply #53 on: December 06, 2023, 09:08:00 am »
So there is nothing I need to do until I either receive a letter form the court or an update on MCOL?

Thanks

dave-o

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 37
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: Actual Court Papers Received
« Reply #54 on: January 29, 2024, 10:01:44 am »
Morning, good folks of FTLA.

I received this over the weekend. I would appreciate advice on what response to make, specifically in making sure it is set to a local court.  I am challenging the whole amount, but not making a counter-claim.









I believe I just need to fill in pages 4 and 7, but I don't see anything about changing the venue.

Thank you

b789

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 496
  • Karma: +11/-0
    • View Profile
Re: Actual Court Papers Received
« Reply #55 on: January 29, 2024, 06:53:01 pm »
With an "issue date" of 10th October 2023, you are way past any response to this. You would have had 19 days from the "issue date" to acknowledge service (AoS) of the claim and then until 4pm on Monday 13th of November 2023 to have submitted your defence.

You say you have only just received the claim form. Have you any idea why you have only just received it now? Have you checked your credit record to see if a default CCJ was filed against you any time after 29th October 2023?

b789

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 496
  • Karma: +11/-0
    • View Profile
Re: Actual Court Papers Received
« Reply #56 on: January 29, 2024, 07:35:31 pm »
OK, I have now gone back through this thread and can see that what should be a fairly easy and smooth process has been excruciatingly protracted.

The OP appears to be slightly overconfident with it. This is a claim from First Parking submitted by DCB Legal on their behalf. The OP should understand that 99.99% of claims submitted by DCB Legal will be discontinued before a hearing if the defence is robust.

If the template defence from the MSE forum was used, correctly and in full, this will end in a discontinuance. I'm prepared to put money on it. The modus operandi of DCB Legal is to hope that the defendant is low hanging fruit on the gullible tree and is likely to capitulate once a court hearing is looming.

There are a couple of things to note however. The Claimant is relying on PoFA para 8 which is for a NtD PCN. They failed to evidence a NtD, at least in their photos. Was a copy of a NtD provided in the SAR? Irrespective of the POPLA assessor, without evidencing an NtD, they cannot rely on PoFA to hold the keeper liable.

However, having looked back, I believe that the OP dobbed themselves in it in the initial appeal by admitting being the driver. Also, I have not seen exactly what the OP put n their defence. I don't see any mention of keeper liability.

The PoC failed to comply with Civil Procedure Rule 16.4(1)(e) and Practice Direction Part 16.7.5. In which case, had the OP used the CEL v Chan appeal transcript, this claim could have been thrown out at allocation stage.

With regards to the "contract", as already stated, what has been revealed is not the full document. It was hopefully asked for in the defence. Any reactions in the claimants bundle will get short thrift if they redact anything if reference to Hancock v Promontoria is used.

With a bit of luck, the fact that the OP offered to pay something towards the PCN was made with a Without Prejudice header. If not, they have given DCB Legal a juicy morsel to try and use if they were to actually progress to a hearing.

So... why has the OP posted a copy of the very old claim form? Perhaps they meant to post an image of the Allocation to the Small Claims Track (Hearing) letter? If so, it probably means that the OP didn't use the preliminary matter of the CEL v Chan argument in their defence.

Even so, if most of the MSE template defence was used, it is still likely that they will discontinue. The usual process is for DCB Legal to try and get in touch with the defendant by any means including letter, phone and email. They will on the one hand say that they intend to proceed with the claim and then offer a Without Prejudice offer to settle.

What the OP must not do is engage with DCB Legal. Ignore all offers to settle. This the usual prelude to them discontinuing.
« Last Edit: January 29, 2024, 08:29:26 pm by b789 »

dave-o

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 37
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: Actual Court Papers Received
« Reply #57 on: January 30, 2024, 11:45:10 am »
To respond to a couple of your points:
- I did the acknowledgement of service on 16/10
- Submitted defence on 10/11
- The document above arrived last week

So i have not missed anything, as you can see from the MCOL timescales stated:

Case Stay Lifted on 24/01/2024

DQ sent to you on 24/01/2024

DQ filed by claimant on 24/01/2024

I have followed all the advice on this website, namely responding to everything in time, keeping an eye on MCOL and waiting for anything to come through the post.  In terms of timings, I am not sure what you are saying I have done wrong?

*EDIT* i have just had a thought that maybe the above was not sent by the court at all, but by the scammers, in the hope of scaring me?  I will check the envelope.

Oh also, I have refused to speak to them when they have phoned, and have refused all their offers to "settle".  Not sure why it seems otherwise to you.
« Last Edit: January 30, 2024, 11:49:17 am by dave-o »

DWMB2

  • Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 854
  • Karma: +24/-0
    • View Profile
Re: Actual Court Papers Received
« Reply #58 on: January 30, 2024, 12:42:58 pm »
Oh also, I have refused to speak to them when they have phoned, and have refused all their offers to "settle".  Not sure why it seems otherwise to you.
I don't think anyone is under the impression you have entertained any offers to settle. Whilst I can't speak on b789's behalf, my reading of his wording around this was simply to remind you that you need not settle, and that offering to do so is part of DCB's standard procedure.

b789

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 496
  • Karma: +11/-0
    • View Profile
Re: Actual Court Papers Received
« Reply #59 on: January 30, 2024, 01:05:28 pm »
Thank you, so how should I proceed from here?
From the thread so far, I assume you've acknowledged the claim on MCOL as discussed? If so, your next step if you're still contesting the claim is to draft up your defence.
It has been acknowledged on MCOL.

In terms of the draft, are you happy/willing to help with this?  If you think there's no point then I will fold and save everyone the trouble...

*EDIT*  Also just to say if this would be a better strategy, I am happy to contest it in part.  As the original PCN was never received and no reasonable period was offered to pay the original amount after appeal refusal (they gave 1 day), I could offer to pay the £40, thereby seeming somewhat reasonable while not paying them any of the scum debt collector charges.  It would seem entirely reasonable to me that someone who's trying to do an honest day's work at their employer, has been given permission to park somewhere, surprise ticketed and never given an option to pay less than £70, should not be penalised to the whole tune.  But of course I am biased.

The only reason I raised the issue of not discussing an offer from DCB Legal was because of the post above where it was mentioned about “offering” to pay £40. I appreciate that the OP is now better informed about how to handle DCB Legal.