Free Traffic Legal Advice

- 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:

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.