Free Traffic Legal Advice

Hi,

I am seeking help regarding an overstayed PCN that occurred in London, Beckton Retail Park on 27/05/2024

It has been a long time since then so I truly don't remember what happened as well as who was the driver of the car at the time.

I have recently on the 08/07/2025 received a Claim form and I have already submitted the AoS today 14/07/2025 according to the guide.

I would appreciate your guidance on how to proceed.

Thank you.


Also I have attached the claim form below.

[ Guests cannot view attachments ]

Prior to the court claim I have received multiple letters from DCB that I have ignored.

When I received a letter of claim from DCB Legal I have sent them an email according to the guide but was quite late as I sent it on the 25th day of the 30 days period they have given me until they claim on me.

I was quite late with my response to the letter of claim but I was very busy and had stuff going on that I have to sort out first. Never received a reply from them either.

Don't worry about the LoC. You now have to deal with the claim itself.

With an issue date of 8th July, you had until 4pm on Monday 28th July to submit your defence. As you have submitted an Acknowledgement of Service (AoS) before then, you now have until 4pm on Monday 11th August to submit your defence.

16.4 only defence:

Here is the defence and link to the draft order that goes with it. You only need to edit your name and the claim number. You sign the defence by typing your full name for the signature and date it. There is nothing to edit in the draft order.

When you're ready you combine both documents as a single PDF attachment and send as an attachment in an email to claimresponses.cnbc@justice.gov.uk and CC in yourself. The claim number must be in the email subject field and in the body of the email just put: "Please find attached the defence and draft order in the matter of Euro Car Parks Ltd v [your full name] Claim no.: [claim number]."

IN THE COUNTY COURT

Claim No: [Claim Number]

BETWEEN:

Euro Car Parks Ltd
Claimant

- and -

[Defendant's Full Name]

Defendant

---

DEFENCE

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 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 CPR PD 16.7.3(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 attaches to this defence a copy of a draft order approved by a district judge at another court. The court struck out the claim of its own initiative after determining that the Particulars of Claim failed to comply with CPR 16.4. The judge noted that the claimant had failed to:

(i) Set out the exact wording of the clause (or clauses) of the terms and conditions relied upon;

(ii) Adequately explain the reasons why the defendant was allegedly in breach of contract;

(iii) Provide separate, detailed Particulars of Claim as permitted under CPR PD 7C.5.2(2).

(iv) The court further observed that, given the modest sum claimed, requiring further case management steps would be disproportionate and contrary to the overriding objective. Accordingly, the judge struck out the claim outright rather than permitting an amendment.

5. 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 for the Claimant’s failure to comply with CPR 16.4.

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:

Draft Order for the defence

Hi, it's been some time since nearly a month and I still haven't received any response from anyone. Is that normal?

I CCed myself and also received the auto response from them.

I tried log in MCOL but can't currently as I had two government gateways IDs on the same email address and can't log in into one of them which I think is the one connected to MCOL.

I will try calling them in the morning to rectify the issue.

All normal, but slightly irregular in that that correspondence is "conducting litigation" by whoever authored it. However it is signed only as DCB Legal. Considering that the PoC in the claim were signed by Sarah Ensall, who does not appear to be authorised to carry out regulated conduct of litigation, you should send the following email to info@dcblegal.co.uk and CC yourself:

Subject: Claim [court ref] – authority to conduct litigation and signing of statements of truth

Dear Sir/Madam,

I note that the claim form/particulars are signed by Sarah Ensall, “Head of Legal”. Please confirm by return:

(1) whether Ms Ensall is an authorised person for the purposes of the Legal Services Act 2007 with rights to conduct litigation (and her SRA/CILEX number and current practising status); or, if not,
(2) the precise exemption relied upon under Sch. 3 LSA 2007 that permits her to sign a statement of truth and otherwise conduct litigation in this matter.

For the avoidance of doubt, correspondence from your “Litigation Support” mailbox is clearly conduct of litigation. If any person conducting this litigation or signing a statement of truth is not authorised (or exempt), please confirm the steps you will take to remedy the irregularity, including re-service of any document that requires a compliant personal signature by an authorised person, and your position on costs arising.

Absent confirmation, I will reserve the right to raise this with the Court and the SRA.

Yours faithfully,

[full name]

Show us any response when you receive it.

Given where the claim sits, your defence has been filed and acknowledged and the case is simply parked at CNBC while the claimant decides whether to proceed. This is a good moment to get the “unauthorised person conducting litigation” issue firmly on the record without spending any money on applications.

First, send one final, short chaser to DCB Legal by forwarding your original email. At the top of the forwarded thread, write something like:

Subject: Claim [court ref] – authority to conduct litigation (final request)

Dear Sir/Madam,

Further to my email dated [date], I note that no reply has been received in over two months. Please treat this as a final request for clarification and confirm, by return, whether Ms Sarah Ensall is an authorised person under the Legal Services Act 2007 with a right to conduct litigation, or, if not, the specific statutory exemption relied upon.

If no response is received within seven days, I will draw the matter to the court’s and the SRA’s attention.

Yours faithfully,

[Name]

That gives them one last clear opportunity to answer and shows you acted reasonably before escalating.

If they still do not respond after a week, you then email the court so the issue is on the file before allocation. Write to CaseProgression.CNBC@justice.gov.uk, quoting the claim number, and explain briefly that the claim form and particulars are signed by “Sarah Ensall, Head of Legal” at DCB Legal.

Re: Claim [court ref]

Dear Sir/Madam,

I draw the court’s attention to a potential irregularity in the conduct of this claim. The claim form and particulars are signed by Sarah Ensall, “Head of Legal”, DCB Legal Ltd. Despite my emails of [dates], DCB Legal has not confirmed whether Ms Ensall is an authorised person with a right to conduct litigation within the meaning of the Legal Services Act 2007, nor identified any statutory exemption relied upon.

I respectfully ask that this correspondence be placed on the court file so the issue may be considered at allocation or any later hearing.

Yours faithfully,

[Name]

Attach your original email and the chaser.

For later in the process, you should prepare a short paragraph to drop into your witness statement or any later document. In substance, it should say:

The Defendant notes that the claim form and particulars were signed by Sarah Ensall, described as Head of Legal at DCB Legal Ltd. The Defendant wrote on [dates] asking DCB Legal to confirm whether Ms Ensall is an authorised person with rights to conduct litigation, or to identify the exemption relied upon under Schedule 3 of the Legal Services Act 2007. No response was received.

In Mazur & Anor v Charles Russell Speechlys LLP [2025] EWHC 2341 (KB), the High Court held that un-authorised employees cannot conduct litigation, including signing statements of truth, even under supervision. The continued silence from DCB Legal leaves genuine doubt as to whether the claim was validly signed or whether an irregularity has occurred.

Separately, you can send a short complaint to the SRA at report@sra.org.uk. In that complaint, you identify DCB Legal and the claim number, explain that the claim and statements of truth have been signed by Ms Ensall as Head of Legal, and that you have repeatedly asked them to confirm whether she and any “Litigation Support” staff are authorised persons under the Legal Services Act 2007 or covered by a specific exemption, but they have ignored you for over two months. You then say you are concerned that DCB Legal may be permitting un-authorised individuals to conduct litigation and sign statements of truth contrary to the Legal Services Act and the SRA Standards, particularly in light of the Mazur decision, and you ask the SRA to investigate. Attach your emails as evidence.

I am the Defendant in claim [number]. DCB Legal Ltd issued the claim and signed statements of truth via Ms Sarah Ensall, “Head of Legal”. I have repeatedly requested confirmation that she (and their “Litigation Support” staff) are authorised persons under the Legal Services Act 2007 or covered by an exemption. After more than two months, there has been no reply.

I am concerned that DCB Legal may be permitting un-authorised individuals to conduct litigation and sign statements of truth, contrary to the ruling in Mazur & Anor v Charles Russell Speechlys LLP [2025] EWHC 2341 (KB) and the SRA Standards. Please investigate.

This way, you create a clear audit trail: you asked a legitimate question, you chased, they stayed silent, you informed the court and regulator. If they later try to rely on their statements of truth or claim to take compliance very seriously, you will have a ready-made narrative that they ignored a straightforward regulatory query from a litigant in person.