Hi guys, in the email from DCB legal it states that their client may be willing to settle. Do you think it is worth me giving them a call to find out what sort of settlement they are proposing?
No.
You will pay £0 if you stay the course.
Ok, no problem. Thanks for the reply.
Hi, so I have received a pack from the courts now. I’m guessing all I need to to do is send it back stating I wish to defend the case along with my defence?
Is there anything else you suggest I do or is that everything? Thanks.
I’m not sure we can remember where you’re at in the process, it’s probably documented above in some way but if you can post what you’re referring to it might be helpful. Google Drive or similar?
Without this it seems rather one sided.
So basically, I have received a pack from the courts asking if I want to defend the case or admit it. This is where I am in the process.
What is the issue date on the claim form. Better still, why not show it to us and inly redact your personal details, the claim number and the MCOL parroted. We only need to see the N1SDT Claim Form itself and the back of it with the name of the person who signed it. You can discard ALL the other bits of paper that came with it.
Also, I’m not sure what day I received the letter as I have only just got back from holiday today. I’m guessing maybe a few days from the issue date which was the 30th Sep
With an issue date of 30th September you have until 4pm on Monday 20th October to submit your defence. If you submit an Acknowledgement of Service (AoS) before then, you would then have until 4pm on Monday 3rd November to submit your defence.
You only need to submit an AoS if you need extra time to prepare 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=0ntil very recently, we never advised using the MCOL to submit a defence. However, due to recent systemic failures within the CNBC, we feel that it is safer to now submit a short defence using MCOL as it is instantly submitted and entered into the "system". Whilst it will deny the use of some formatting or inclusion of transcripts etc. these can always be included with the Witness Statement (WS) later, if it ever progresses that far.
You will need to copy and paste it into the defence text box on MCOL. It has been checked to make sure that it will fit into the 122 lines limit.
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 PD 16, para 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 materially 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.
5. In comparable cases involving modest sums, judges have found that requiring further case management steps would be disproportionate and contrary to the overriding objective. Accordingly, strike-out was deemed appropriate. 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, 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 PD 7C, para 5.2, but chose not to do so.
AND upon the Court determining, having regard to the overriding objective (CPR 1.1), that it would be disproportionate to direct further pleadings or to allot any further share of the Court’s resources to this claim (for example by ordering further particulars of claim and a further defence, with consequent 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 7 days after service of this order, failing which no such application may be made.
As that claim has been signed by Sarah Ensall, you should send the following email to DCB Legal at info@dcblegal.co.uk and CC yourself:
Subject: Claim [insert court reference] – N1SDT signed by Sarah Ensall: authority to conduct litigation and regulatory notice
Dear Sir/Madam,
I refer to the Claim Form (N1SDT) filed/served in this matter. The document is signed by Sara Ensall, position stated as "Claimants Legal Representative", and purports to be signed on behalf of the Claimant’s solicitor.
Please confirm by return:
1. Ms Ensall's role, and whether she is an authorised person within the meaning of the Legal Services Act 2007 with current rights to conduct litigation (provide SRA or CILEX number and practising status). If not authorised,
2. The precise exemption relied upon under Schedule 3 of the Legal Services Act 2007 that permits this individual personally to conduct litigation and sign this document in these proceedings (if relying on a court order, provide the sealed order; if relying on an enactment, identify it precisely).
For the avoidance of doubt:
• Preparing, signing, filing, or serving an N1SDT is an act of conducting litigation, a reserved legal activity.
• Following Mazur v Charles Russell Speechlys LLP [2025], unqualified employees may assist but cannot themselves conduct litigation unless authorised or exempt.
Action required:
• Confirm the above within 7 days.
• If the document was not signed by an authorised (or exempt) person, re-file and serve a compliant version personally signed by an authorised individual, with their full name clearly stated.
Costs and regulatory notice:
If the document was signed by a person not authorised or exempt, or must be re-filed/served to correct the signatory’s identity/status, I, as a litigant in person, will treat this as unreasonable conduct. In line with Mazur and CPR 27.14(2)(g), I will invite the Court, in its discretion, to order the Claimant to pay the Defendant’s costs caused by your firm’s irregular conduct, and, if appropriate, to consider wasted costs against representatives.
Further, carrying on a reserved legal activity without entitlement is a criminal offence under the Legal Services Act 2007. If any unauthorised conduct of litigation has occurred, I will report the matter to the Solicitors Regulation Authority without further notice and reserve the right to place this correspondence before the Court.
Yours faithfully,
[Full Name]
[Postal Address]
[Email]
I will do everything you have said. I cannot thank you enough for your help. I will let you know if I receive any response from DCB legal after I send the email. Thanks again.
So I have submitted my defence on the MCOL website now. And I have also sent the email to DCB Legal as advised.
I will keep you updated with any responses I receive. Many thanks.
Today I received a phone call from DCB legal. They offered me an out of court settlement of £200. Reduced from £270. I declined, and they said that they will go ahead with court proceedings.
I suggest you block the DCB Legal phone number.
So just an update….I sent off my DQ with dates I can’t do mediation. And I have just had an email with my mediation appointment in between them dates.
This is what the email said…..
You have provided dates to avoid on your Directions Questionnaire which exceed the deadline we have to arrange a mediation appointment. The dates to avoid have been noted but we are unable to hold on to cases for significant periods of time. Your case has therefore been assigned the following appointment.
What is the point of providing dates then?! Such incompetence!
Like x 1
View List