Free Traffic Legal Advice

Update as follows,

Call received from mediation service today, UK Parking Control offered to reduce claim by £50, I rejected offer and offered £0 zero as per advice above.

They have rejected that and it's now being passed back to court unless they or myself back down etc.

Email received about 3 hours later from HM & CTS

Thank you for using the Small Claims Mediation Service today.

Although a settlement could not be reached on this occasion the parties are reminded that Court is considered a last resort and in which case both parties are encouraged to continue to communicate where possible in an attempt to resolve the claim, you may find that today's mediation gives you both a base upon which to build on.

If the parties can satisfactorily resolve the matter without the need of the Court, the Claimant should complete a notice of discontinuance using the appropriate form in the link and file it with the appropriate Court; N279 - w3 Notice of discontinuance (6.99) (publishing.service.gov.uk) or update Online Civil Money Claims through your account.

If not already done so. the claim will now be transferred out of our business centre to a court where standard directions will be given and you will be notified in writing of the next stages to follow. It is important that both parties follow these instructions and adhere to the timetable set down by the Court which will include a further court fee and a final hearing for determination of the matter.


Thanks again.

next will be allocation to your local court and further orders.

Ok thanks for reply 

You must contact the CNBC and tell them that they have a muppet in their admin who is constantly sending claims to St Helens instead of the defendants local county court as required under CPR 26.2A(2) and Practice Direction 26 (PD26).

CPR 26.2A(2) provides that, where the claim is a small claim (i.e., allocated to the small claims track) and the defendant is an individual (as opposed to a business or company), the hearing should be transferred to the defendant’s home court once allocation is decided.

Practice Direction 26, paragraph 7.1 elaborates on this, stating:


Thus, for defended small claims involving an individual defendant, the default position is that the hearing should take place at their local court, unless there are exceptional reasons to do otherwise.

You now need to send the following email, marked "!!! URGENT !!!" to dq.cnbc@justice.gov.uk and CC CaseProgression.CNBC@justice.gov.uk, customerservicesnorth@justice.gov.uk and yourself:

The Court Manager
County Court Business Centre (CNBC)
Email: ccbc@justice.gov.uk

Dear Sir or Madam,

I write as the Defendant in Claim Number [insert claim number].

I completed my N180 Directions Questionnaire, clearly stating that my preferred local hearing centre is Kingston-upon-Thames County Court. Despite this, the case has incorrectly been referred to St Helens County Court.

Under CPR 26.2A(2) and Practice Direction 26, paragraph 7.1, a defended claim against an individual must be transferred to the defendant’s local hearing centre. This misallocation represents a breach of the Civil Procedure Rules and should never have occurred, particularly when the correct hearing centre was explicitly stated on the Directions Questionnaire.

This is not an isolated incident. It is part of an emerging pattern where defended claims involving DCB Legal Ltd are improperly allocated to St Helens County Court — a court local to DCB Legal — rather than the defendant’s local hearing centre.

There are only two possible explanations for this serious failure:

• Either CNBC administrative staff are unaware of the basic requirements of CPR 26.2A(2); or
• There is improper bias, favouritism, or even undue influence being exercised by or on behalf of DCB Legal Ltd to achieve allocations favourable to them.

Either scenario is wholly unacceptable and risks undermining public confidence in the fairness and integrity of the court system.

I therefore request the following:

• Immediate correction of this error under CPR 3.3(4) without the need for a formal application or payment of a fee, transferring the case to Kingston-upon-Thames County Court; and
• Written confirmation that this has been done; and
• Confirmation of what steps CNBC is taking to ensure that this systemic failure is identified, investigated, and stopped.

If this matter is not promptly corrected, I reserve the right to escalate this to HMCTS Regional Management, the Civil Justice Council, and my Member of Parliament, including providing details of the pattern of misallocations benefiting a particular bulk litigator.

Yours faithfully,

[Defendant’s Full Name]
[Defendant’s Postal Address]
[Defendant’s Email Address (optional)]

You should also try calling the CNBC and telling them to fix this problem they have created.

Hi b789,

Email has now been sent to all addresses as per your advice, generic Automated responses received.

Your message wasn't delivered to customerservicesnorth@justice.gov.uk because the address couldn't be found or is unable to receive email.

Happy to call CNBC up also, if you think it's advisable etc?


Thanks again 

Just finished call to CNBC after 40 minute wait, they agreed it should not have been allocated to St Helens and they will start the procedure to get case transferred to my local court, case file had not been sent to St Helens yet they said.

email will be dealt with when they get to it etc

Thanks again

That's positive. Did you also get a promise that they'll confirm in writing?

No promises but hopefully, they will when they respond to email once read etc

Why telephone?
Did your N180 DQ specify in-person and why?
And still Saint Helens.

It still looks like a complete ****-up by the courts.

Quote from: jfollows on May 31, 2025, 03:36:46 pm

Why telephone?
Did your N180 DQ specify in-person and why?
And still Saint Helens.

It still looks like a complete ****-up by the courts.

And still St Helens even though local court to myself was requested, looks like they haven't done anything in response to my email or telephone call!

I agree, they appear to have ignored not only your DQ but also your follow-up letters trying to correct things.