Back in July 2025 a letter was received alleging that a car had been parked 'illegally'. Where the alleged infringement happened was in a car park that was next to another car park. The car alleged was parked in one car park and a correct pay and display ticket purchased (ticket is still available as evidence). The ANPR camera from the car park next door picked up the registration of the alleged car and the owner was subsequently sent a PCN in the post.
This was contested as it would appear it's an obvious error and the situation explained to bank park management via the online challenge form.
This was then refused and following the usual threatening letters from solicitors and bailiffs a county claim form has been received.
The only problem being that the claim form was issued on the 25th March and the owner has only just returned home from holiday to this letter so it doesn't fall within the 14 day period.
What's the best course of action to take now?
Post up the claim form, and if you've still got it PCN / appeal / refusal etc. Also a Street View link to the location.
Unfortunately I'm not home until tomorrow so unable to post pictures of the PCN/ correspondence. Although I did return to the car park and take pictures as evidence which I'll post below.
Any help would be really appreciated as I feel I may have gone past the deadline. Should I still try to file an acknowledgement of service?
Log onto MCOL ASAP and see if you can still put in AOS, you should be just in time. That will buy another 2 weeks to sort out the defence.
Image Screenshot 20260413 215817 Chrome(1) hosted on ImgBB
I've filed it but it says this so not sure whether I've missed the deadline? Is there anything I can do?
Get the defence in pronto before DCBL have time to push the default judgement button! The POC are the usual waffle from DCBL, but in this case you would appear to have a defence along the lines that the vehicle was not parked on the claimant's land so you can work round that. In general where DCBL use this vague POC template, they discontinue before paying the fee as long as some defence is entered - sample defence by b789 below, you will need to adjust to suit your case - for instance you have probably identified the driver?
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.
1. The Defendant denies the claim in its entirety. The Defendant asserts that there is no liability to the Claimant and that no debt is owed. The claim is without merit and does not adequately disclose any comprehensible cause of action.
2. There is a lack of precise detail in the Particulars of Claim (PoC) in respect of the factual and legal allegations made against the Defendant such that the PoC do not adequately comply with CPR 16.4.
3. The Defendant is unable to plead properly to the PoC because:
(a) The contract referred to is not detailed or attached to the PoC in accordance with PD 16, para 7.3(1);
(b) The PoC do not state the exact wording of the clause (or clauses) of the terms and conditions of the contract (or contracts) which is/are relied on;
(c) The PoC do not adequately set out the reason (or reasons) why the claimant asserts the defendant has breached the contract (or contracts);
(d) The PoC do not state with sufficient particularity exactly where the breach occurred, the exact time when the breach occurred and how long it is alleged that the vehicle was parked before the parking charge was allegedly incurred;
(e) The PoC do not state precisely how the sum claimed is calculated, including the basis for any statutory interest, damages, or other charges;
(f) The PoC do not state what proportion of the claim is the parking charge and what proportion is damages;
(g) The PoC do not provide clarity on whether the Defendant is sued as the driver or the keeper of the vehicle, as the claimant cannot plead alternative causes of action without specificity.
4. The Defendant submits that courts have previously struck out materially similar claims of their own initiative for failure to adequately comply with CPR 16.4, particularly where the Particulars of Claim failed to specify the contractual terms relied upon or explain the alleged breach with sufficient clarity.
5. In comparable cases involving modest sums, judges have found that requiring further case management steps would be disproportionate and contrary to the overriding objective. Accordingly, strike-out was deemed appropriate. The Defendant submits that the same reasoning applies in this case and invites the court to adopt a similar approach by striking out the claim due to the Claimant’s failure to adequately comply with CPR 16.4, rather than permitting an amendment. The Defendant proposes that the following Order be made:
Draft Order:
Of the Court's own initiative and upon reading the particulars of claim and the defence.
AND the court being of the view that the particulars of claim do not adequately comply with CPR 16.4(1)(a) because: (a) they do not set out the exact wording of the clause (or clauses) of the terms and conditions of the contract which is (or are) relied on; and (b) they do not adequately set out the reason (or reasons) why the claimant asserts that the defendant was in breach of contract.
AND the claimant could have complied with CPR 16.4(1)(a) had it served separate detailed particulars of claim, as it could have done pursuant to PD 7C, para 5.2, but chose not to do so.
AND upon the Court determining, having regard to the overriding objective (CPR 1.1), that it would be disproportionate to direct further pleadings or to allot any further share of the Court’s resources to this claim (for example by ordering further particulars of claim and a further defence, with consequent case management).
ORDER:
1. The claim is struck out.
2. Permission to either party to apply to set aside, vary or stay this order by application on notice, which must be filed at this Court not more than 7 days after service of this order, failing which no such application may be made.
Thanks for your reply
Which parts would need changing to suit my case?
Which parts would need changing to suit my case?
I think you should read it through thoroughly, try to understand it and see which bits may or may not be applicable to your case, show us what you propose to submit, and ask specific questions for bits you are unsure about. Whatever you submit will be
your defence, so it is important you understand it.
Thanks for that. When I originally emailed bank park management to challenge the claim I never admitted liability. I didn't change the above much as I am struggling to break it down due to the urgency to send it but this is what I have sent:
1. The Defendant denies the claim in its entirety. The Defendant
asserts that there is no liability to the Claimant and that no
debt is owed. The claim is without merit and does not adequately
disclose any comprehensible cause of action.
2. There is a lack of precise detail in the Particulars of Claim
(PoC) in respect of the factual and legal allegations made against
the Defendant such that the PoC do not adequately comply with CPR
16.4.
3. The Defendant is unable to plead properly to the PoC because:
(a) The contract referred to is not detailed or attached to the
PoC in accordance with PD 16, para 7.3(1);
(b) The PoC do not state the exact wording of the clause (or
clauses) of the terms and conditions of the contract (or
contracts) which is/are relied on;
(c) The PoC do not adequately set out the reason (or reasons) why
the claimant asserts the defendant has breached the contract (or
contracts);
(d) The PoC do not state with sufficient particularity exactly
where the breach occurred, the exact time when the breach occurred
and how long it is alleged that the vehicle was parked before the
parking charge was allegedly incurred. Furthermore, PoC fails to
evidence whether the defendant was actually parked on
the claimants car park- which it wasn't;
(e) The PoC do not state precisely how the sum claimed is
calculated, including the basis for any statutory interest,
damages, or other charges;
(f) The PoC do not state what proportion of the claim is the
parking charge and what proportion is damages;
(g) The PoC do not provide clarity on whether the Defendant is
sued as the driver or the keeper of the vehicle, as the claimant
cannot plead alternative causes of action without specificity.
4. The Defendant submits that courts have previously struck out
materially similar claims of their own initiative for failure to
adequately comply with CPR 16.4, particularly where the
Particulars of Claim failed to specify the contractual terms
relied upon or explain the alleged breach with sufficient clarity.
5. In comparable cases involving modest sums, judges have found
that requiring further case management steps would be
disproportionate and contrary to the overriding objective.
Accordingly, strike-out was deemed appropriate. The Defendant
submits that the same reasoning applies in this case and invites
the court to adopt a similar approach by striking out the claim
due to the Claimant’s failure to adequately comply with CPR 16.4,
rather than permitting an amendment. The Defendant proposes that
the following Order be made:
Draft Order:
Of the Court's own initiative and upon reading the particulars of
claim and the defence.
AND the court being of the view that the particulars of claim do
not adequately comply with CPR 16.4(1)(a) because: (a) they do not
set out the exact wording of the clause (or clauses) of the terms
and conditions of the contract which is (or are) relied on; and
(b) they do not adequately set out the reason (or reasons) why the
claimant asserts that the defendant was in breach of contract.
AND the claimant could have complied with CPR 16.4(1)(a) had it
served separate detailed particulars of claim, as it could have
done pursuant to PD 7C, para 5.2, but chose not to do so.
AND upon the Court determining, having regard to the overriding
objective (CPR 1.1), that it would be disproportionate to direct
further pleadings or to allot any further share of the Court’s
resources to this claim (for example by ordering further
particulars of claim and a further defence, with consequent case
management).
ORDER:
1. The claim is struck out.
2. Permission to either party to apply to set aside, vary or stay
this order by application on notice, which must be filed at this
Court not more than 7 days after service of this order, failing
which no such application may be made.
What's my next step? Do I just wait until I hear off the court?
I too find myself here! Not sure how to post as a seperate topic. But looking through the site answers seem to be generic? DCB legal typical particulars of claim.
1. indebted for a parking charge
2. date 01/09/24 yes that's when it happened and been back and forth. (later details)
3. Reason: Insufficient Paid Time
4. £170 being the total of the PC and damages plus interest.
amount claimed 191.88
court fee 35
legal rep costs 50
total £276.88
Just about #4 I think the additional charge could be a couple pounds here or there. How do they justify the damages?
I travel a lot. And was away when the initial ticket arrived. By the time I got home and contacted them. I was told I was too late. Sent in proof. And an appeal. Never got an appeal. Was never offered POPLA. And now too late.
Original ticket was with Smart Parking and the only people I communicated with. My last contact was 3/04/25. In the meantime it was transferred/sent to debt recovery plus. I don't acknowledge having recvd anything from them. And then DCB legal. Again I don't acknowledge them either. I only recvd friday as away again.... Claim form dated 31/03/26. I did reply and plan to fight today. I also wish to counterclaim for damages as this has been very stressful. One minute it's over. And then out of the blue a claim form. I've been on this today over 6 hours!
I took a friend (Ukrainian Refugee) sailing at Liverpool Marina. He insisted on paying for parking (very proud people) although very limited English language and even more limited ability to read English! Apparantley we overstayed by 40 minutes? The Marina offer 4 hours free parking (was unaware). They also offer 10% off your bartab with parking receipt ( I am told?) As a group we spent over £120. First when I got the ticket, couldn't believe it. Then the fighting began. Each time left to believe I had satisfied things. They accepted my flight tickets as proof I was out of the country. I then tried an appeal. Never heard back. Was never offered an alternative appeal process. I went to Liverpool Marina myself around April 2025 and was told they had numerous complaints about Smart Parking and had stopped working with them. So they could do nothing to get it cancelled! The appeal process is a joke and I have asked them how many appeals they get. And how many they cancel? I feel this is relevent.I looked up and POPLA is around 40-50% success rate. I have been denied this as now it is now over 18 months to get where we are today!I see lots of posts and refernce to ccj and a standard defence. Is that what I should do and use? Also what about my counterclaim? I also went to Livepool Marina today. Was shown a large 3 inch binder full of complaints (including mine) from Smart parking. They are now with a different company. Please help..........
ImgBB 
Bad Spelling x 1
View List