Free Traffic Legal Advice

Do you want the good news or the bad news first?

Bad news first then... That defence is weak although not without some merit. It's pity you hadn't come here first before submitting it.

The CPR 31.14 request was a good move. While CPR 31.14 does not specify a strict time limit for compliance, the expectation is that requests should be dealt with promptly and within a reasonable time frame. Failure to comply in a timely manner can lead to court intervention, where the court may impose deadlines and potentially sanction the Claimant for non-compliance. However, that would likely involve a cost to you. As I will point out later, you don't want to incur any costs as they are going to discontinue before it ever gets to a hearing.

In practice, if you find yourself waiting for an unreasonable period, consider first sending a formal reminder, and if necessary, you could follow up with an application to the court to enforce compliance.

Interestingly, the PoC state that the PCN was "issued" on 06/06/2018. The date the PCN is issued is not the date of the alleged breach of contract. The alleged breach of contract must have been at least a day or more prior to the issue of the PCN.

The "issue" date of the PCN must be the date from which to calculate the 28 days after which the alleged debt became due so that the interest calculation can be made. Therefore the claim is invalid as it is for an alleged breach of contract more than 6 years before the date of the claim.

UKPC and their intellectual malnourished, bottom-dwelling solicitors have essentially initiated legal proceedings in violation of the statutory time limit. CPR Part 15 (Defence and Reply) outlines the procedure for filing a defense.

You can apply to the court to strike out the claim on the grounds that it is time-barred. CPR Part 3.4 allows the court to strike out a statement of case if it discloses no reasonable grounds for bringing the claim or if it is an abuse of the court's process.

You should also seek summary judgment on the basis that the claim has no real prospect of success because it is time-barred. CPR Part 24 sets out the rules for applying for summary judgment.

While not part of the CPR, the Limitation Act 1980 is the governing statute that sets out the limitation periods for various types of claims. The relevant section for a breach of contract is Section 5, which states that an action founded on simple contract must be brought within six years from the date on which the cause of action accrued.

Unfortunately for you, your defence should have clearly stated that the claim is statute-barred under the Limitation Act 1980. You should have made an application to the court to strike out the claim under CPR Part 3.4 or seek summary judgment under CPR Part 24 on the grounds that the claim has no real prospect of success due to the expiration of the limitation period.

All is not lost though. You will be able to raise all this in your Witness Statement and at a hearing. The only thing is that this will never get as far as a hearing. They will discontinue before they have to pay the hearing fee.

If you wanted to amend your defence, it would cost you £119 for the privilege. No need though. They will discontinue and even if they didn't, those points could be raised at a hearing and they would receive one of their regular spankings from a judge.


As for the scond claim, I will answer in a separate post. I really, you should have a separate thread for each claim as they are for different reasons.

Do you want the good news or the bad news first?

Bad news first then... That defence is weak although not without some merit. It's pity you hadn't come here first before submitting it.

The CPR 31.14 request was a good move. While CPR 31.14 does not specify a strict time limit for compliance, the expectation is that requests should be dealt with promptly and within a reasonable time frame. Failure to comply in a timely manner can lead to court intervention, where the court may impose deadlines and potentially sanction the Claimant for non-compliance. However, that would likely involve a cost to you. As I will point out later, you don't want to incur any costs as they are going to discontinue before it ever gets to a hearing.

In practice, if you find yourself waiting for an unreasonable period, consider first sending a formal reminder, and if necessary, you could follow up with an application to the court to enforce compliance.

Interestingly, the PoC state that the PCN was "issued" on 06/06/2018. The date the PCN is issued is not the date of the alleged breach of contract. The alleged breach of contract must have been at least a day or more prior to the issue of the PCN.

The "issue" date of the PCN must be the date from which to calculate the 28 days after which the alleged debt became due so that the interest calculation can be made. Therefore the claim is invalid as it is for an alleged breach of contract more than 6 years before the date of the claim.

UKPC and their intellectual malnourished, bottom-dwelling solicitors have essentially initiated legal proceedings in violation of the statutory time limit. CPR Part 15 (Defence and Reply) outlines the procedure for filing a defense.

You can apply to the court to strike out the claim on the grounds that it is time-barred. CPR Part 3.4 allows the court to strike out a statement of case if it discloses no reasonable grounds for bringing the claim or if it is an abuse of the court's process.

You should also seek summary judgment on the basis that the claim has no real prospect of success because it is time-barred. CPR Part 24 sets out the rules for applying for summary judgment.

While not part of the CPR, the Limitation Act 1980 is the governing statute that sets out the limitation periods for various types of claims. The relevant section for a breach of contract is Section 5, which states that an action founded on simple contract must be brought within six years from the date on which the cause of action accrued.

Unfortunately for you, your defence should have clearly stated that the claim is statute-barred under the Limitation Act 1980. You should have made an application to the court to strike out the claim under CPR Part 3.4 or seek summary judgment under CPR Part 24 on the grounds that the claim has no real prospect of success due to the expiration of the limitation period.

All is not lost though. You will be able to raise all this in your Witness Statement and at a hearing. The only thing is that this will never get as far as a hearing. They will discontinue before they have to pay the hearing fee.

If you wanted to amend your defence, it would cost you £119 for the privilege. No need though. They will discontinue and even if they didn't, those points could be raised at a hearing and they would receive one of their regular spankings from a judge.


As for the scond claim, I will answer in a separate post. I really, you should have a separate thread for each claim as they are for different reasons.

Firstly, thank you so much for taking the time to get back to me.

I have now as of this afternoon received some of what I requested in the CPR 31:14 Request.

I appreciate your honesty, after reading and learning more than I originally knew, I wish I cam here fist too. lol

1. I don't believe they are out of the statutory time-barred yet.

2. The alleged breach took place on August 06th 2018.

3. The ticket issue date was August 13th 2018.

4. The Claim form issue date from the court was June 06th 2024 - This is probably where the confusion came from.

I have attached copies of what they sent in the post. They have not attached a breakdown of costs or copies of the actual notice 'contract' they say I breached along with the terms and conditions.

Also in today's post was the N180 Directions Questionnaire from the court. I am not really sure, how to go about completing section D1 if marked no as it asks that you explain why.

uploaded doc of what was sent by DCB Legal - https://imgur.com/a/36Q4wfn

With county court claims on the Small Claims Track, even if the absolute worst happens and you lose, it's not disastrous and you won't find yourself in the hook for any ridiculous legal fees or the like that you see in TV dramas.

(And as b789 rightly points out, it's fairly rare for UKPC to make it to an actual hearing these days)

You need to either clean the lense of whatever you are using to take this photos or else use a higher resolution as they are extremely difficult to read. I'm assuming I misread the date of the old claim as 06/06/2018 rather than 06/08/2018. So, you are correct the claim is not statute barred.

Either way, it will not make any difference to the fact that the claims will be discontinued before any hearing.

The pictures of "the contract" that the driver allegedly agreed to could be from anywhere. They are not proof of the signage in place at the location on the date in question. They could show a picture of a sign that says "if your vehicle is not bright green and it is a Wednesday, the driver is liable for a charge of £1 million". It wouldn't mean anything.

Who responded to your CPR 31.14 request? The Claimant or DCB Legal? A response reminding them that they gave not responded fully to the CPR 31.14 request will be highlighted to the court and appropriate sanctions requested.

Regarding the N180 DQ, are you sure it is not a copy of the Claimants DQ? It is rare these days for an N180 to be sent out so soon. It is common for DCB Legal to send you a copy of their N180 even though it has not been requested yet. Your MCOL history will show if/when a DQ has been sent to you.

If it is the latest version of the N180, mediation is compulsory. It involves a phone call with a court appointed mediator who will try and see if the both sides can reach an agreement to settle. It is a complete waste of time for a PPC debt claim but you are now obliged to go through the motions. You will not interact with the claimant. The mediator will go back and forth between you. I would suggest that you simply tell the mediator that you are not in any position to agree to anything as the claimant has failed to fully disclose all necessary documents and information relating to the claim. Agree that you will only settle for a payment of £25 from the Claimant.

As for question D1, you do NOT want a hearing on the papers. Not that it'll ever get to a hearing but you need tick "NO" and put the following in the text box (a text overlay in Arial or Helvetica 9pt will fit):

I am not content for the case to be heard 'on the papers' because that seems to disproportionately give an advantage to a legally represented party. I feel strongly after all the intimidating demands from this aggressive parking firm and its agents, that I need a voice at an attended hearing. 
I wish to question the Claimant about their evidence at a hearing in person and to expose omissions and any misleading or incorrect evidence or assertions.
Given the Claimant is a firm who complete cut & paste parking case paperwork for a living, having this case heard solely on papers would appear to put the Claimant at an unfair advantage, especially as they would no doubt prefer the Defendant not to have the opportunity to expose the issues in the Claimants template submissions or speak as the only true witness to events in question.

So sorry about the poor quality of the pictures uploaded, too much screen time is causing me to not notice.I will take more care moving forward.

Yes, 100O% agree. The pictures provided does not evidence a thing. In fact, I googled the Car Park and can only see pictures of signage from last August, it was so much writing and so small it was impossible to read, even when zoomed into.

DCB Legal were the ones who responded to the CPR 31:14 request.

I am pretty sure it was the court who sent the Directions Questionnaire as I have already received the Directions Questionnaire from DCB Legal, as I realised it was to the same as the one the court sent to me. I have attached copy via the link.

https://imgur.com/a/vlupZgD

The MCL site appears to be down at the moment but I will double check when they are up.

Thank you for the advise of what to put in D1. I Will be sure to do this, can this be done by email to both parties? Or should this be done by post too?

Thank you once again, I am really appreciative.

With county court claims on the Small Claims Track, even if the absolute worst happens and you lose, it's not disastrous and you won't find yourself in the hook for any ridiculous legal fees or the like that you see in TV dramas.

(And as b789 rightly points out, it's fairly rare for UKPC to make it to an actual hearing these days)

This is reassuring, I have been so stressed and I am glad I have a bit of good news today.

Thank you.

DQ is also emailed as a PDF attachment. However, it needs to be addressed to dq.cnbc@justice.gov.uk and also to DCB Legal. Again, CC in yourself. For both the defence and the DQ, you should receive an auto response from the CNBC confirming receipt of your email.

You can download the latest N180DQ but it will include the mandatory mediation. If the court have sent you a paper one, compare it to the online one. They are still sending out the previous version in some cases which does not have mandatory mediation and has an option to select "NO" to it.

If it is the older one, to save you scanning it in, here's a link to copy of it:

https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/mxlped3zhn21xebp3sr6c/N180_Final_Form.pdf?rlkey=d2l3515wbn9wpuo2idxngr8dj&st=ck05z5nu&dl=0

Don't overthink this. Anyone can drive any car with the owners/keepers permission as long as they have third party liability insurance. No one except the driver knows who was driving and the burden of proof is on the PPC to prove who the driver was. They cannot assume or infer that it was the keeper. The keeper is under no legal obligation to provide the drivers details.

As this is for the defence of the more recent case, has the Claimant provided any evidence to show that the blue badge was not on display? Did you receive a PCN for this charge? Was it a windscreen NtD or a postal NtK?

As the Claimant has not provided any response to your CPR 31.14 request for full disclosure of all evidence and related documents in respect of the claim, you should add the following to your defence as a part of the "Preliminary Matters" sub-heading:

1. The Defendant would like to bring to the Court's attention that the Claimant has failed to comply with the Defendant's request for full disclosure of all evidence and documents pursuant to CPR 31. The request was made on [date of the request] and to date, the Claimant has not provided the required documents.

2. The Defendant submits that this failure to disclose has significantly prejudiced the Defendant's ability to prepare a comprehensive and effective defence to the claim. The Defendant is unable to fully understand the particulars of the claim without access to the relevant evidence and documentation.

3. In light of the Claimant's non-compliance, the Defendant respectfully requests that the Court considers this failure when evaluating the merits of the Claimant's case. The Defendant primarily seeks an order that the claim be struck out due to the Claimant's failure to comply with the disclosure obligations under CPR 31.

4. In the alternative, should the Court decide not to strike out the claim, the Defendant seeks the following relief:

  a. An order compelling the Claimant to provide full disclosure of all evidence and documents related to the claim within a specified period.

  b. An extension of the deadline for the Defendant to file a full and complete defence, commencing from the date of receipt of the disclosed documents.

  c. Any other sanction or relief the Court deems appropriate, including but not limited to, costs associated with any applications made due to the Claimant's non-compliance.

5. The Defendant reserves the right to amend the defence upon receipt of the disclosed documents.