Author Topic: PCN BaySentry Solutions - No Valid Parking permit - CitiPark Gade Car Park, Watford  (Read 2267 times)

0 Members and 79 Guests are viewing this topic.

No N180 from the court yet but below email received today from DCBLegal (without even a signature from the author!).  They attached a copy of their completed N180 where they have said yes to small claims track, yes to being suitable for determination without a hearing and requested the hearing venue is the claimant's home court.

FWIW I'm happy to settle by paying the original parking amount that was due (~£3).  Is there any downside in contacting them as below, now that they have offered to settle in writing?  I assume if a settlement can't be reached, or your guidance is not to settle due to legal concerns, then I wait for the N180 questionnaire to land?

Quote
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.


It’s normal that parking companies such as BaySentry get £0 from the money people pay to park, in return for which they get to keep every penny they can extract from those who don’t comply with their terms and conditions.

So offering to pay the original fee is of no interest to them.

They just want your credit card details.

Their offer to ‘settle’ is just boilerplate. Ignore it.
« Last Edit: September 02, 2025, 10:06:58 pm by jfollows »

Offer even a penny and you admit liability. If you follow the advice, this will either be struck out or discontinued in due course.

Wait for your own N180.
Never argue with stupid people. They will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience” - Mark Twain

Still waiting for the N180 after a few months.. logged onto Money Claim Online to check status and it showed:

  • Case Stay Lifted on 17/09/2025
  • DQ sent to you on 17/09/2025
  • DQ filed by claimant on 17/09/2025

So the DQ has clearly gotten lost somewhere (I've been keeping eye on junk email folders).  Spoke to MCO support, they emailed me a PDF N180 and advised I email a completed copy to DQ.CNBC@justice.gov.uk and all other parties, in this case I assume DCB Legal's email address on their DQ (info@dcblegal.co.uk)?

Is it possible I've missed a deadline to submit the N180?

The DQ seems pretty straightforward, any particular things to watch out for?  Some specific questions:

  • D1 Suitable for determination without a hearing - assume yes?
  • F1 Hearing venue - ok to put "Defendant's home court"?
  • F2 Expert evidence - assume no?
  • F3 Witnesses - if I would like my partner to support me do I need to put 2 rather than 1?
  • Signature - do I tick "Legal representative" or just "Defendant"  or neither

To @b789 's comment, as per my OP in my earlier correspondence with BaySentry / DCB I offered to pay any difference if they could tell me what that difference was.  Have I inadvertently admitted liability, and will this impact the County Court Case outcome?

If you search the forum for
N180
you will see that it’s probably the most answered question, for example
Quote
Having received your own N180 (make sure it is not simply a copy of the claimants N180) or been notified on MCOL that yours has been sent, do not use the paper form. Ignore all the other forms that came with it. you can discard those. Download your own N180 DQ here and fill it in on your computer. You sign it by simply typing your full name in the signature box.

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/673341e779e9143625613543/N180_1124.pdf

Here are the answers to some of the less obvious questions:

• The name of the court is "Civil National Business Centre".

• To be completed by "Your full name" and you are the "Defendant".

• C1: "YES"

• D1: "NO". Reason: "I wish to question the Claimant about their evidence at a hearing in person and to expose omissions and any misleading or incorrect evidence or assertions.
Given the Claimant is a firm who complete cut & paste parking case paperwork for a living, having this case heard solely on papers would appear to put the Claimant at an unfair advantage, especially as they would no doubt prefer the Defendant not to have the opportunity to expose the issues in the Claimants template submissions or speak as the only true witness to events in question.."

• F1: Whichever is your nearest county court. Use this to find it: https://www.find-court-tribunal.service.gov.uk/search-option

• F3: "1".

• Sign the form by simply typing your full name for the signature.

When you have completed the form, attach it to a single email addressed to both dq.cnbc@justice.gov.uk and info@dcblegal.co.uk and CC in yourself. Make sure that the claim number is in the subject field of the email.
By making it a hearing in person at your local court you almost ensure that DCB Legal will discontinue rather than spending time and money to attend.
« Last Edit: November 10, 2025, 02:43:24 pm by jfollows »

Thanks @jfollows, much appreciated.  DQ has been filed.

(I should have searched the forum first, apologies)

A couple of updates. 

A little while after proactively submitting the DQ a very formal letter arrived, essentially warning that the DQ must be submitted.  I'm putting this down to some lag in the system.  However, MoneyClaimOnline transaction history now shows:

  • DQ sent to you on 17/09/2025
  • DQ filed by claimant on 17/09/2025
  • General sanctions order was made on 18/11/2025
  • You filed a DQ on 22/11/2025

I assume the "General sanctions order" refers to the formal letter received.  Does this entry matter?  Any action required on my part now they've received my DQ?

Since then an email from HM Courts & Tribunals Service has landed - "Your telephone mediation appointment".  It advises a contact number must be provided to scmreferrals@justice.gov.uk and any delegation of authority.

I'm assuming the mediation call is mandatory.  Could someone advise on impact of delegating (does it introduce any material risk?) and a steer on how to drive the mediation call?  Many thanks as always

Yes, the General Sanctions Order is the reminder you received about the N180 DQ. As MCOL now shows your DQ as "filed" that is all you need to do regarding that.

For the mediation call, the only requirement is for you "attend" the call. It is not part of the judicial process and no judge is involved.

This is what I advise you to say when you receive the call from the mediator:

Before I set out my position, please confirm from the claimant’s side:

• the full name of the person attending for them;
• their role/position at their legal representative’s firm; and
• whether they hold written authority to negotiate and settle today.

Please relay that back to me before we continue.

After the mediator calls back...

If identified and authority confirmed:

Thank you. I’m content to proceed on that basis. My settlement offer is £0, or I invite the claimant to discontinue with no order as to costs.

If no/unclear authority:

Please record that the claimant’s attendee has not confirmed settlement authority. My position remains that liability is denied and my offer is £0, subject to prompt approval by an authorised solicitor if they choose to discontinue.

If the mediator probes your defence:

In what capacity are you asking that question? Are you legally trained?  If not, please refrain from offering opinions. I will be reporting any attempt to do so as inappropriate.”

All you need to know is the name and the position of the person acting for the claimant and report that back to us. It will be over within minutes. Complete waste of time otherwise.
Never argue with stupid people. They will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience” - Mark Twain

Thank you @b789, very clear.

Should the mediator say yes to being legally trained, is it best to just repeat my position "liability is denied and my offer is £0"?

Should the the claimant offer to settle for the original actual parking cost (or equivalent figure of insignificance) is there any value / risk entertaining this to guarantee closure?

If the mediator says they are not legally trained, or refuses to say:

Thank you. In that case I’ll simply rely on my filed defence. For settlement purposes my position is that liability is denied and my offer is £0, or the claimant can discontinue with no order as to costs. I don’t wish to go into the legal arguments in detail; that is a matter for the trial judge.

If the mediator says they are legally trained:

Thank you. I appreciate that, but I am not here to debate the legal merits with you. I will explain my case to the judge if it goes to a hearing. For settlement purposes my position is that liability is denied and my offer is £0, or the claimant can discontinue with no order as to costs. I’d be grateful if you could relay that.

If the mediator starts probing the defence or expressing opinions on its strength:

May I ask in what capacity you are raising that – as a neutral mediator or as a legal adviser to one of the parties? I do not expect legal opinions from the mediator. I will rely on my filed defence and I will set out my arguments to the judge. For today, my settlement position is that liability is denied and my offer is £0, or the claimant can discontinue with no order as to costs.

As for your second question about tiny “tariff level”. if the claimant offers to settle for the original parking tariff or some nominal amount, you have a straight choice: principle versus guaranteed closure.

If you want closure and are not absolutely wedded to principle:

"Without any admission of liability, I am prepared to pay £[tariff/nominal amount] in full and final settlement of all claims arising from this PCN and this court claim, on the basis that the claimant discontinues the claim and there is no order as to costs.

If you are driven by principle and are comfortable going as far as a hearing (99.9% for sure will never happen):

My position remains that liability is denied and my offer is £0, or the claimant can discontinue with no order as to costs.”

There is no hidden legal trap in accepting a trivial sum, provided the mediator records that it is without admission of liability, in full and final settlement, with the claim to be discontinued and no order as to costs. But it is entirely legitimate for you to refuse and stand on a £0 offer if that is your preference.

I have already explained that this will never get as far as a hearing and will be either struck out or discontinued if you let it run its course.
Never argue with stupid people. They will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience” - Mark Twain

Thank you @b789, helpful to know the options
Like Like x 1 View List