Free Traffic Legal Advice

Many thanks for the prompt response!!!

Do not fill out any of the forms that you received. just follow this advice:

With an issue date of 18th August you have until 4pm on Monday 8th September to submit your defence. If you submit an Acknowledgement of Service (AoS) before then, you would then have until 4pm on Monday 22nd September 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=0


Until 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. For the avoidance of doubt, even if the phrase “Vehicle not permitted & grace period exceeded” were taken to be a minimal compliance with CPR 16.4(1)(a), the PoC remain defective. The Defendant is unable to plead properly to the PoC because:

(a) The claim is put on a contractual footing but no written terms are pleaded or exhibited, contrary to 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 pleaded bases are internally inconsistent (“vehicle not permitted” vs “grace period exceeded”): either parking was prohibited (no contractual offer) or it was permitted subject to terms; it cannot be both.;

(d) No period of parking is pleaded, nor facts explaining how any breach is said to have occurred (a timestamp alone is insufficient);

(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.

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 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.

Hi,

Thanks for the previous reply with instructions on how to proceed.

I have submitted the Acknowledgement of Service, so will submit the defence and respond 1st thing next week.

In the meantime, I received this email from CUP - How should I proceed, if at all? Seems they're responding to the email i sent them 2 or so weeks ago.

Below is the email from CUP:
************************************************************************************************************

Dear XYZ,

We write in response to your correspondence received in our office.
We now respond to the same as follows.
Please see attached requested evidence.
The amount owed is a genuine pre-estimate of the losses incurred in managing the parking location to ensure compliance with the clearly displayed terms and conditions. However, in Parking Eye Ltd v Beavis, it was found, both at County Court and Court of Appeal level, that appealing a Parking Charge on the basis that the amount is not a genuine pre-estimate of loss is, in fact, not a successful legal defence. As payment was not made, either within 14 or 28 days, the creditor was entitled to instruct debt recovery agents / Solicitors to pursue payment and is entitled to recover the costs of doing so. It would have been made clear in the terms and conditions set out in the signs that additional enforcement costs may be incurred in the event of non-payment. The sum added is a contribution to the actual costs incurred by our Client as a result of your non-payment. Our Client’s employees have spent time and material attempting to engage in dispute resolution. This is not our Client’s usual business and the resources could have been better spent in other areas of the business. Had you of paid as per the Contract, there would have been no need for debt resolution so the amount due would not have increased.
In accordance with the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice, where the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) becomes overdue and before Court proceedings have commenced, a reasonable sum may be added for the debt recovery fees. The correct recovery fees have been added and will not be removed. As such, the outstanding balance of £170.00 remains payable to prevent further action. The HMRC ‘VAT Supply and Consideration manual’ (VATSC06140), which was last updated on 02 September 2020, confirmed that parking charge notices falls out of the scope of VAT.
 
In relation to the comments concerning damages, the sum added is a contribution to the actual costs incurred by our Client as a result of your non-payment. Our Client’s employees have spent time and material attempting to recover the debt. This is not our Client’s usual business and the resources could have been better spent in other areas of the business. Had you of paid as per the Contract, there would have been no need for recovery action so the amount due would not have increased.
Payment of £256.40 can be made via bank transfer to our designated client account: -
•   Account Name: DCB Legal Ltd Client Account
•   Sort Code: 20-24-09
•   Account Number: 60964441
You must quote the correct case reference (ABCDEFGHCUP) when making payment. If you do not, we may be unable to correctly allocate the payment. If further action is taken by us as a result of an incorrect reference being quoted, you will be liable for any further fees or costs incurred.
We would ask that you kindly furnish us with your most up to date telephone number and email address, this can be emailed to us at info@dcblegal.co.uk.
Alternatively, you can contact DCB Legal Ltd on 0203 838 7038 to make payment over the telephone or online at https://dcblegal.co.uk/response/pay-online/.

Hi,

Many thanks for the prompt reply.

Apologies for the error in stating the response was from CUP - it wasn't. It was from DCB legal.

I have now sent the complaint email to SRA and added the listed evidences - thank you very much for providing me with a template.

I still have not submitted my defence for the Money claim - i'll submit it this weekend, unfailingly.

Thanks once again for your help, steer and guidance - it's much appreciated.

H,

I received an update from DCB legal LTD, via email on 17/10/2025.

They also attached a copy of Close Unit Protection Services Ltd completed N180 form (Directions quationnaire) - let me know if you require a copy and i can find a way to paste the contents. Having reviewed it, it's just answers to questions re the claims.

"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.
 

Kind Regards,
Litigation Support
DCB Legal Ltd"

Posting the N180 can be helpful, especially including the reverse side with the details of its signatories. https://www.ftla.uk/announcements/posting-images/#new

Hi,

Here is the link to the completed N180 sent by DCB Legal:

















 

WE really do not need to see their DQ. Just file it for reference. Keep checking your MCOL regularly and when it updates with the point that your N180DQ has been send, just follow the advice given in reply #26.