I appreciate that there is a summary of the operators defence. However, without seeing the actual defence, it is difficult to provide more precise advice.
@Faiza, can you post, suitably redacted of your personal information, the defence as submitted by the defendant? Preferably on Google Drive or even DropBox.
Re-reading the OP, and based on that defence summary, NPCL are relying entirely on procedural deflection and a bare denial.
What this means in practical terms:
1. “Abuse of process”
This is hollow. They're trying to suggest the claim is vexatious or has no valid cause of action. Given how weak the PoC is, this is their best shot. But unless they apply for strike-out under CPR 3.4 and succeed before allocation to track, it’s likely to be left for the judge to decide on the day. Abuse of process is a high bar to achieve and the court usually won’t strike out a small claim unless it’s clearly hopeless or completely incoherent.
2. “Didn’t follow pre-action protocol”
True, but irrelevant to the core issue. The small claims track is meant to be low-cost and low-formality. If a party skips the pre-action protocol, the court might raise it during allocation or costs (even then, small claims costs are limited). It does not make the claim invalid.
3. “Charges were issued correctly”
This is a standard stock line. It tells you nothing and offers no proof. If they say this in their witness statement without exhibiting a valid landowner contract, it weakens their case. The court will expect them to show they had the right to issue PCNs at the site. If they don’t, the judge is likely to find they had no authority and no lawful basis to demand or keep the money.
4. “Asking the court to dismiss”
That’s routine. Every defence ends with a request for dismissal. Unless they’ve made a formal application for strike-out, the claim proceeds to the next stage.
This tells you that NPCL are gambling that the court will throw this out on weak PoC alone. If they don’t apply to strike out before allocation, and if they overreach in their own WS, the judge might still listen to the substance. Your job is to prepare a calm, well-structured witness statement that explains why the money should be returned. Don’t try to introduce new legal claims, just explain the timeline, attach the managing agent’s statement, and rebut any claim of authority they try to rely on.
There is a greater risk that the defendant applies for dismissal or summary judgment before allocation—specifically before the court formally allocates the claim to the small claims track. Here’s why:
Before allocationThe defendant can apply under CPR 3.4(2)(a) to strike out the claim as disclosing no reasonable grounds or being an abuse of process. They can also apply under CPR 24 for summary judgment, arguing that the claim has no real prospect of success and there is no compelling reason for a trial. These are both far more viable before allocation.
At this stage, the claim is not yet protected by the more informal and cost-limited small claims rules. If an application is made now and succeeds, the court can:
• Strike out the claim entirely.
• Possibly award costs against the claimant (application costs plus hearing fee, typically up to a few hundred pounds).
After allocation to small claims trackOnce the case is allocated to the small claims track, the rules change. Summary judgment and strike-out are still technically possible but are rare. Judges take a much more relaxed approach to pleadings on small claims and tend to focus on resolving the dispute at a hearing. Procedural applications are discouraged unless there’s something flagrantly wrong.
That’s why defendants sometimes try to apply early—before allocation—to head off weak claims that would otherwise proceed on a level playing field at a hearing.
So, the biggest risk is now, before allocation. If NPCL are smart, they may apply for strike-out or summary judgment while your PoC is still on shaky ground. If they don’t do it soon, that window closes once the court issues allocation directions and a hearing is listed.
If such an application comes, you’ll need to file a short but firm response explaining:
• The claim relates to payment made under pressure.
• You only discovered after the fact that NPCL lacked authority.
• The defendant has not shown any evidence of authorisation.
• The matter deserves a proper hearing and is not suitable for disposal on papers.
As you have received a copy of the defence from the CNBC, you can complete your N180 DQ (download it, don't use the paper form). Whilst there is no obligation to reply to the defence, a brief covering letter, as follows, is acceptable to send to the court and to CC in the defendant together with your copy of your completed N180DQ:
Claim Number: [insert claim number]
Dear Sir/Madam,
I confirm that I have received your defence. I intend to proceed with the claim.
Please find enclosed a copy of my completed Directions Questionnaire (Form N180).
Yours faithfully,
[Claimant’s full name]
This should be emailed to the CNBC at DQ.cnbc@justice.gov.uk and also to NPCL and you must also CC in yourself. Attach to it a PDF copy of your N180 DQ. It shows the court that you’ve read the defence and are not withdrawing, without inviting unnecessary procedural complexity.
If you are unsure about the N180, follow this advice:
Instructions for Completing the N180 Directions Questionnaire – Claimant (Suing NPCL)
1. Download and complete the form using this official link:
2. Complete the form as follows:
• Name of the Court: Civil National Business Centre
• To be completed by: [Your full name]
• You are the 'Claimant'
• C1 – Do you agree that the small claims track is the appropriate track? Tick 'Yes'
• D1 – Do you agree that this case should be dealt with without a hearing? Tick 'No'
• Reason:
“I wish to question the Defendant about their evidence face-to-face and to expose any omissions or misleading assertions. The Defendant is a commercial parking company that generates template paperwork for a living; deciding the case solely on the papers would place me, a litigant in person and the only direct witness, at an unfair disadvantage. An in-person hearing is required so the court can test the Defendant’s claims and so I can respond fully.”
• D2 – Name of preferred court:
• Reason: “This is the Claimant’s local court.”
• F1 – Number of witnesses: Enter '1'.
• F2 – Experts: Tick 'No'.
• F3 – Hearing dates to avoid: Fill this in if you know of any dates you can’t attend.
• Signature: Just type your full name.
Save and email the form to dq.cnbc@justice.gov.uk and also CC in the defendant or their legal representative, if they're using one, and also CC in yourself.
The email MUST include the claim number in the subject field:
Claim No: [insert claim number] – Claimant’s Directions Questionnaire
