Free Traffic Legal Advice

Who are the CNBC please? Just googled them and I'm sure they aren't a news agency.

So, the receipt shows that you paid for two hours of parking, over an hour after arriving. However, your vehicle is shown being on site for over 3 hours. The PCN was issued for "No valid pay & display was purchased".

The vehicle entered the car park at 11:26. The Pay and Display permit was purchased at 12:31, one hour and five minutes after entry and was valid for 2 hours until 14:31. The vehicle was recorded leaving the car park at 14:38, three hours and twelve minutes after entry.

I'm struggling to see how you can defend this. The driver obviously was aware that a Pay & Display permit was a requirement of the terms and conditions of parking. The driver purchased a permit for two hours of parking but remained at the car park for three hours and twelve minutes.

You did not tell us about this discrepancy. Simply claiming that the driver purchased a "ticket" does not explain why they didn't simply purchase extra time, knowing that they had exceeded the purchased time, irrespective of whether the pay & display permit was supposed to be purchased on arrival or could be purchased at any time before exit.

Regarding the PoC of the claim and whether it was addressed correctly, you must contact the Civil National Business Centre (CNBC) where the claim was issued and the default CCJ obtained. Their number is 0300 123 1056 and you will need the claim number for reference, which you can get from the correspondence about the CCJ

No, do not engage with DCB Legal, at least for now.

Without having to trawl back through the thread, are you saying that the driver made two separate pay & display permit purchases? If so, please tell us the times of each purchase and what was the duration of the permit in each case.

If the overall overstay was recorded as under 10 minutes, then that is not an issue.

Regarding the CNBC, you must get the information I have advised.

To confirm. Two tickets in this thread. First purchased after the ANPR entry on the ticket at about11.30. Cost £1.50 for one hour. The second evidenced at 12.31 for two hours.Cost £3.00
I will reach out to CNBC.

As for the other comment about engaging DCBLegal. If you look at the pink form, sometime back I issued them with a SAR request and they basically said "we don't hold any information about you" which given they've written about 20 times is also untrue (hence it is on the form).

That's why I'm hesitant and querying further engagement. They are asking for parking evidence now, when they've ignored it for three years. Are they covering their backside before it gets to court?

Noted. Will be on the phone to them in the morning.Thanks

Spent three hours unanswered to CNBC on Thursday and Friday, butt this arrived in the post on Saturday. Going to court now. Will still chase CNBC because we need to know they followed process.

Please redact your name and claim number including reference numbers as best practice.

OP, IMO at present you are confusing yourself and us by continually harking back to these very historical events.

In short, from your N244 application:
You received a Letter of Claim from DCBL dated who knows when, you haven't said;
You responded by email, what we don't know;
They contacted you again on 19 July 2024 with another extra-procedural demand to pay within 30 days or face court action;
You received notice of a (default) judgment for the claimant dated 23 Sept.


Other will comment but essentially as regards the court process you lengthy account boils down to:

a claim form was sent to you by CNBC - but we don't know when;
you did not respond (acknowledge service) and therefore;
the claimant applied to the court for a default judgment.

With respect, the Particulars of Claim etc. are not immediately germane(but hopefully this issue will have it's day in court), this is purely procedural(but being able to persuade the judge that you have a reasonable chance of defending your case is desirable/essential (I don't know the specifics).

Ok. I've tried to be open with everything. You've actually begun to make me feel worse now. My initial question was pretty simple but you've all dug deep for the background which I've tried to provide.

I've spent three hours on Thursday and Friday without getting a response from CNBC but I'll try again tomorrow. To be explicitly clear I DID NOT RECEIVE A LETTER OF CLAIM.  Had a judgement notice and paid the money and responded because I think I have a valid defence. Now the court have accepted that and said it will be handled by Chelmsford court. Three years of debating this has led to this point. They think they are right, I think they are wrong. It is what it is now. I just wanted advice.

Thanks for the advice given to date. It's not easy.