Author Topic: Court Claim - Payment not made in acc to T&C - DCB Legal - 77 Long Street, Middleton, Manchester  (Read 659 times)

0 Members and 526 Guests are viewing this topic.

Hi Everyone ;)

I would love to get some help from you. Some brief of the situation,


Only this week - Monday 23rd of September, I received a letter with the "Claim Form" issued by the Civil National Business Centre, but date of issue is 10th of September. Long time to arrive.

The letter has 6 pages and it's form DCB Legal LTD

Particulars of Claim:
1. The Defendant (D) is indebted to the Claimant (C) for Parking Charges issue to vehicle ******* at Car Park at 77 Long Street Middleton, M24 6UN
2. The PCN(s) were issued on 18/10/2022, 03/06/2023, 23/03/2024
3 The defendant is pursued as the driver of the vehicle for breach of the terms on the signs (the contract). Reason: Payment Not Made In Accordance With Terms Displayed On Signage
4. In the alternative the defendant is pursued as the keeper pursuant to POFA 2012, Schedule 4.
AND THE CLAIMANT CLAIMS
1. £510 being the total of the PCN(s) and damages.
2 Interest at rate of 8%per annum pursuant to s.69 of the County Courts Act 1984 from the hereof at daily rate of £.10 until judgement or sooner payment.
3 Costs and court fees.

Amount claimed - £559.68
Court fee - £70
Legal representative's costs - £70
Total amount - £699.68

I received a Response Pack with Acknowledgment of service, Admission and Defence and Counterclaim

I don't really know what to do with it and how to defend myself.

Vehicle was parked at the mentioned car park and there is a 10 minute time to purchase the parking ticket with two options - £1 for an hour or £10 for 24 hours.

Due to the lack of change coins (only option to pay at the machine) the driver tried to get some change at the cash machine and exchange but not succeeded. On the 3/06/2023 paid for the ticket but past the time of allowed 10 minutes.

On other dates the driver cannot remember if even been at the car park (other drivers had access to the vehicle).

There were some PCN's issued but long time ago but cannot recall getting all of them. 18/10/2022 was letter issued by QDR solicitors, and others from DCBL.

Link to some documents attached. https://1drv.ms/f/s!AoxG7eKJes1Xg-YeLaO376hGj_c9vA

Is there anything that can be done about it?

Thank you

Share on Bluesky Share on Facebook


Quote
Is there anything that can be done about it?

Of course there is and it MUST be responded to. You can ignore all the forms except the N1SDT Claim Form. You will not be using the others.

With an "issue date" of 10th September, you have until Sunday 29th September to submit your Acknowledgement of Service (AoS). Here is a link to a PDF that explains exactly how to do the AoS using the Money Claims On Line (MCOL) service:

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

Once you have submitted your AoS, you will then have until 4pm on Monday 14th October to submit your defence. We will provide the short defence and a Draft Order once you let us know that you have successfully submitted your AoS.

The Particulars of Claim (PoC) in the claim are beyond woefully inadequate and a request to strike out the claim will be made with persuasive case law as they have totally failed to comply with CPR 16.4(1)(a).
Never argue with stupid people. They will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience” - Mark Twain

Hi mate, thank you so much. I've just submitted the AoS.

Here is the suggested defence, almost exactly as another one suggested earlier today for the same claimant. You only need to edit the defendants full name, the claim number and then sign it by typing the defendants name and date it. The draft order does not need editing. For the two transcripts linked to above, include a cover sheet for each one labelled "Exhibit A – Transcript of CEL v Chan 2023" and "Exhibit B -Transcript of CPMS v Akande 2024".

Quote
IN THE COUNTY COURT

Claim No: [Claim Number]

BETWEEN:

[Civil Enforcement Limited]

Claimant

- and -

[Defendant's Full Name]

Defendant



DEFENCE

Preliminary matter

1. The Defendant respectfully submits that the Particulars of Claim (PoC) served by the Claimant are defective and fail to comply with CPR 16.4(1)(a). The Defendant requests that the court consider this matter as a preliminary issue and strike out the claim pursuant to CPR 3.4(2)(a), as the PoC disclose no reasonable grounds for bringing the claim.

2. In particular, the PoC:

(i) Fail to provide a concise statement of the facts upon which the Claimant relies.

(ii) Do not specify the exact contractual terms allegedly breached.

(iii) Lack sufficient detail to enable the Defendant to understand the case and provide a full response.

3. The Defendant relies on two recent persuasive appeal cases:

(i) In CEL v Chan 2023 [E7GM9W44], the court struck out the claim due to inadequate PoC that failed to meet the requirements of CPR 16.4. (See attached Exhibit A)

(ii) Similarly, in CPMS v Akande 2024 [K0DP5J30], the claim was struck out due to vague and insufficient PoC, which did not provide enough information for the Defendant to respond appropriately. (See attached Exhibit B)

4. In light of these deficiencies, the Defendant respectfully submits that the claim should be struck out for failing to meet the necessary legal standards.

5. Alternatively, should the court not agree to strike out the claim, the Defendant requests that the Claimant be ordered to provide amended or further Particulars of Claim that comply with CPR 16.4, as detailed in the attached draft order referred to in paragraph 9.

Defendants Understanding of the Claim

6. The Defendant denies any liability for this claim and puts the Claimant to full proof of any allegation.

7. 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 comply with CPR 16.4.

8. The Defendant is unable to plead properly to the PoC because:

(a) The Particulars of Claim fail to comply with CPR 16.4(1)(a). The Claimant's vague statement: "payment not made in accordance with the terms displayed on the signage" lacks the specific terms allegedly breached. This prevents the Defendant from properly pleading a defence, and the claim should be struck out under CPR 3.4;

(b) The contract referred to is not detailed or attached to the PoC in accordance with CPR PD 16.7.5;

(c) 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;

(d) The PoC do not set out the reason (or reasons) why the claimant asserts the defendant has breached the contract (or contracts);

(e) The PoC do not state with sufficient particularity 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;

(f) The PoC do not state exactly how the claim for statutory interest is calculated;

(g) The PoC do not state what proportion of the claim is the parking charge and what proportion is damages;

(h) The PoC states that the Claimant is suing the defendant as the driver or the keeper. The claimant obviously knows whether the defendant is being sued as the driver or the keeper and should not be permitted to plead alternative causes of action.

9. The Defendant has attached to this defence a copy of an order made at another court which the allocating judge ought to make at this stage so that the Defendant can then know and understand the case which they face and can then respond properly to the claim.

Statement of truth

I believe that the facts stated in this Defence are true. I understand that proceedings for contempt of court may be brought against anyone who makes, or causes to be made, a false statement in a document verified by a statement of truth without an honest belief in its truth.

Signed:

Date:

This is a link to the Draft Order and the two transcripts:

Draft Order for the short defence
CEL v Chan Transcript
CPMS v Akande Transcript

When everything is ready, the 4 documents (defence, Draft Order 2 transcripts) should be attached as PDF files to an email addressed to claimresponses.cnbc@justice.gov.uk. Also CC in yourself.

The subject of the email must contain the claim number and in the body just state that attached are the defence, draft order and 2 transcripts in matter of "Civil Enforcement Ltd v [Defendants name] Claim no.: [Claim number]". When it has been sent, you should receive can auto-response from the CNBC almost instantly. If it hasn't been received after a few minutes, try again. If still no luck, try using a different email agent.
« Last Edit: September 26, 2024, 11:25:03 am by b789 »
Never argue with stupid people. They will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience” - Mark Twain

Thank you so much!

So just for me to fully understand, copy all of it as it is in the MS Word (fill bits needed), add cover sheet Exhibit A etc, save as pdf, and send everything via email? Not through the MCO platform? Thank you
Agree Agree x 1 View List

Hi,

I have received through the post new document:

General Form of Judgment or Order
In the Civil National Business Centre
Claim Number: LOK******
Date: 9 January 2025
Claimant:
Civil Enforcement Limited
Ref: 11******
Defendant:
R***** D************
Before a Court Officer sitting at the Civil National Business Centre, 4th Floor, St Katharine's House, 21-27 St Katharine's Street, Northampton, NN1 2LH.
The Defendant, you have been sent Notice of Proposed Allocation to Track which specified the date by which you were required to return the Directions Questionnaire. You have failed to file the Directions Questionnaire with the CNBC by the date specified in the Notice.
IT IS ORDERED THAT:
The Defendant must file the Directions Questionnaire with the CNBC on or before 7 days from service of this Order with the Civil National Business Centre (CNBC):
- By Post: St Katharine's House, 21-27 St Katharine's Street, Northampton, NN1 2LH
- Via Document Exchange: DX 702885
- By Email: DQ.CNBC@justice.gov.uk
If the Defendant does not comply with this notice, your defence/counterclaim will automatically be struck out without further order of the Court and, subject to the Claimant having complied with this order, the Claimant will be at liberty to enter judgment.
You can download a Directions Questionnaire from www.justice.gov.uk/forms:
- For claims up to £10,000.00: download Form N180
- For claims over £10,000.00: download Form N181
This order has been made without a hearing under the Court’s case management powers contained in the Civil Procedure Rules Part 3.
This notice is served pursuant to paragraph 26.3(7A)(a) & (b) of Part 26 of the Civil Procedure Rules. The parties have the right to apply to have the Order set aside, varied, or stayed.
A party making such an application must file the application with the CNBC (together with any appropriate fee) within 7 days of service of this Order.
Dated: 9 January 2025


Unfortunately I was away and only got back this morning to see this mail.

What can I do now? Thanks

Without delay, you MUST download your own N180DQ, complete it and then submit it as a PDF attachment in an email addressed to both DQ.cnbc@justice.gov.uk and info@dcblegal.co.uk and CC in yourself.

Did you not receive your own N180DQ form by post about a month ago? Hopefully the claimant hasn’t pulled the trigger on a default CCJ.

Just follow,these instructions on filling it out:

Quote
Having received your own N180 (make sure it is not simply a copy of the claimants N180), do not use the paper form. Ignore all the other forms that came with it. you can discard those. Download your own here and fill it in on your computer. You sign it by simply typing your full name in the signature box.

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/673341e779e9143625613543/N180_1124.pdf

Here are the answers to some of the less obvious questions:

• The name of the court is "Civil National Business Centre".

• To be completed by "Your full name" and you are the "Defendant".

• C1: "YES"

• D1: "NO". Reason: "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
.."

• F1: Whichever is your nearest county court. Use this to find it: https://www.find-court-tribunal.service.gov.uk/search-option

• F3: "1".

• Sign the form by simply typing your full name for the signature.

When you have completed the form, attach it to a single email addressed to both dq.cnbc@justice.gov.uk and info@dcblegal.co.uk and CC in yourself. Make sure that the claim number is in the subject field of the email.
Never argue with stupid people. They will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience” - Mark Twain

Thanks, done.

Does it mean that I will have to go physically to court then, with normal case against that parking company? Thanks

No, because DCB Legal will discontinue before court, it’s their modus operandi, read other cases here.
Agree Agree x 1 View List