Free Traffic Legal Advice

With an issue date of 4th July, you have until 4pm on Wednesday 23rd July to submit your defence. If you submit an Acknowledgement of Service (AoS) before then, you would then have until 4pm on Wednesday 6th August to submit your defence.

If you want to submit an AoS then follow the instructions in this linked PDF:

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

Normally we wouldn't advise using MCOL to submit the defence but due to recent systemic failures at the CNBC, it has been adapted so that it can be copied and pasted into the MCOL webform and should keep most of the formatting. So, go into MCOL and submit the following as your defence. Simply copy and paste as is here:

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 adequately 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 submits that courts have previously struck out
similar claims of their own initiative for failure to adequately
comply with CPR 16.4, particularly where the Particulars of
Claim failed to specify the contractual terms relied upon or
explain the alleged breach with sufficient clarity. In
comparable cases, judges have found that requiring further case
management steps in claims of modest value would be
disproportionate and contrary to the overriding objective.
Accordingly, strike-out was deemed appropriate.

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 due to the Claimant’s failure to
adequately comply with CPR 16.4. In those cases, 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. The Defendant proposes that the following Order be
made:

Draft Order:

Of the Court's own initiative and upon reading the particulars
of claim and the defence.

AND the court being of the view that the particulars of claim
do not adequately comply with CPR 16.4(1)(a) because:
(a) they do not set out the exact wording of the clause
(or clauses) of the terms and conditions of the contract which
is (or are) relied on; and
(b) they do not adequately set out the reason (or reasons) why
the claimant asserts that the defendant was in breach of
contract.

AND the claimant could have complied with CPR 16.4(1)(a) had it
served separate detailed particulars of claim, as it could have
done pursuant to CPR PD 7C.5.2(2), but chose not to do so.

AND upon the claim being for a very modest sum such that the
court considers it disproportionate and not in accordance with
the overriding objective to allot to this case any further share
of the court's resources by ordering further particulars of
claim and a further defence, each followed by further referrals
to the judge for case management.

ORDER:
1. The claim is struck out.
2. Permission to either party to apply to set aside, vary or
stay this order by application on notice, which must be filed at
this Court not more than 5 days after service of this order,
failing which no such application may be made.

Did you submit an AOs? If yes, then you have until 6th August to submit the defence. If you are going to email it to them, then you may as well just send it as we normally suggest to the CNBC at claimresponses.cnbc@justice.gov.uk.

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 Civil Enforcement Ltd v [your full name] Claim no.: [claim number]."

IN THE COUNTY COURT

Claim No: [Claim Number]

BETWEEN:

Civil Enforcement 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

Thanks for your guidance and support, as the MCOL web page still do not recognized my claim number nor password, I sent the email to both addresses.

What is the next step ? I guess just wait for an answer by email or post?

Should I expect DCB Legal to get in contact ?   

Thanks for all the help, indeed I received a letter from HM Courts & Tribunal Services with the "Acknowledge receipt of my defense" and I also received an email on 17/09/25 (that I just found ) from Civil Enforcement with and attachement of the N180 saying this:

Good morning


Having reviewed the content of your defence, we write to inform you that our client intends to proceed with the claim.

In due course, the Court will direct both parties to each file a directions questionnaire. In preparation for that, please find attached a copy of the Claimant's, which we confirm has been filed with the Court.

Without Prejudice to the above, in order to assist the Court in achieving its overriding objective, our client may be prepared to settle this case - in the event you wish to discuss settlement, please call us on 0203 434 0433 within 7 days and make immediate reference to this correspondence.

If you have provided an email address within your Defence, we intend to use it for service of documents (usually in PDF format) hereon in pursuant to PD 6A (4.1)(2)(c). Please advise whether there are any limitations to this (for example, the format in which documents are to be sent and the maximum size of attachments that may be received). Unless you advise otherwise, we will assume not.


What should I do now ? Coudl you please advise how to proceed ?

Thanks,

Good evening,

Thanks for your prompt response,to answer your questions:


1. Has that letter been signed by an individual showing their full name (no initials) and their position within the company? NO
2. Has the copy of their N180 Directions Questionnaire (DQ) been signed by someone with their full name (no initials) and state their capacity? NO

No, as far as I can read, there is no signature nor full name of anyone as responsible for either the letter sent by email or the N180 Form. They only signed the N180 Form as DCB Legal.
The email address came from a diferen email adress, apparently from DCB legal, but it's not the same used on the N180 Form.


I am really sorry but I do not know how to attached copy of both documents here, cant' find the attachement option I am afraid. 

Looking forward to hearing from you,
Thanks again for your help,

Thanks for your help and support, email sent!

Now I got another letter by post dated 30/09/2025 "Notice of Proposal Allocation to the Small Claims Track" in the Civil Naional Business Centre with an Important Notice: "If you do not comply with this otice the court will make such order as appears to be appopriate. This could include striking out the claim or entering judgment.
it has attached the N180 questionanaire just filled with the nae of the court and the claim number filled by hand but nothing else.

and it saying I must complete the Form N180 and file it with the court office by 17 october 2025.

Please let me know how to proceed .

Thanks.

Thanks for your help and guidance, I just sent the email with the N180.
What Happen next ? What Should I do if they call me for a mediation? or If they take me to court?