Free Traffic Legal Advice

This is a BW Legal post–Letter of Claim “chaser”. It is not a court claim and creates no new deadlines. It’s designed to intimidate you into paying or starting a repayment plan. Until you receive an official County Court claim form (N1SDT) from the Civil National Business Centre (CNBC), there is nothing to respond to or defend. Do not phone, negotiate, or pay based on this letter.

When they issue the claim (they will), it will be for the £100 + fake £70 + £35 claim fee + £50 fixed legal costs. They may try and add some interest.

All you can do for now, is wait for the N1SDT Claim Form pack to arrive in the post. When it does, You can discard everything except the N1SDT Claim Form which has the Particulars of Claim (PoC) on it. Please show us that form. only redact your personal info, the claim number and the MCOL password. Leave ALL dates visible, especially the issue date of the claim.

We will provide the defence you should use and instruction on how to submit it.

With an issue date of 24th September you have until 4pm on Monday 13th October to submit your defence. If you submit an Acknowledgement of Service (AoS) before then, you would then have until 4pm on Monday 27th October to submit your defence.

Submit an AoS now. Follow the instructions in this linked PDF:

https://www.dropbox.com/s/xvqu3bask5m0zir/money-claim-online-How-to-Acknowledge.pdf?dl=0

DO NOT submit the following defence before 13th October.

Until 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 122 lines limit.

Quote

1. The Defendant denies the claim in its entirety. No liability is admitted and no debt is owed. The Particulars of Claim (PoC) fail to disclose a coherent cause of action.

2. The PoC do not adequately comply with CPR 16.4 and PD 16. They omit the contractual terms relied upon, any pleaded period of parking, the location within the site, the time and duration, the mechanism by which any duration was measured, and any calculation or lawful basis for the total claimed and add-on sums. They also fail to state whether the Claimant sues as against the driver or registered keeper.

3. Pre-Action non-compliance and prejudice. After the Letter of Claim the Defendant requested, as required by the Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims (PAPDC 3.1(a)–(d), 5.1–5.2), the documents and information needed to understand and narrow the issues (landowner authority, contemporaneous signage/terms, evidence of any period of parking, and quantum methodology). The Claimant did not provide what was reasonably requested. It is therefore impossible for the Defendant to plead a fully particularised defence as contemplated by CPR 16.5. That non-compliance should weigh against the Claimant.

4. The claim was issued via MCOL. The Claimant could and should have served separate, detailed Particulars within 14 days (CPR 7.4; PD 7A/7E; PD 7C para 5.2). It chose not to.

5. Strike-out sought (no leave to amend). Having regard to the overriding objective (CPR 1.1) and proportionality for a modest small-claims matter, it would be a waste of limited court resources to direct further pleadings or case management where the Claimant has twice failed—pre-action and on issue—to articulate a viable cause. The Court is invited to strike out the claim under CPR 3.4(2)(a) for disclosing no reasonable grounds and for non-compliance with CPR 16.4.

6. Further and in the alternative on the merits (without waiver of para 5):

(a) No driver is admitted. The Defendant is the registered keeper only; there is no legal presumption that the keeper was the driver.
(b) Keeper liability under PoFA Sch 4 is denied: no NtK compliant with para 9(4)–(6) was served within the statutory period. In any event, PoFA s4(5) caps any keeper liability at the charge stated on a compliant NtK.
(c) Standing is denied: strict proof is required of a contemporaneous landowner contract conferring authority to contract and litigate.
(d) Signage/terms were not prominent or legible; any core term (charge/time limit) was buried in small print and not incorporated. The facts are distinguished from ParkingEye v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67.
(e) The added £70 “debt recovery” is an unrecoverable and abusive add-on amounting to double recovery, contrary to PoFA s4(5) and CPR 27.14; a code of practice cannot create a substantive entitlement.
(f) Any hidden/ambiguous terms are unfair and not binding under the Consumer Rights Act 2015; ambiguity is construed contra proferentem.

7. The claim is denied. The Defendant invites the Court to strike it out pursuant to CPR 3.4(2)(a) and reserves the right to seek costs for unreasonable conduct under CPR 27.14(2)(g).

I repeat... DO NOT submit this defence before 13th October.