County Court Claim Defence

UTV89

Thank you for the speedy response Le_Kirk.

I had read somewhere on the forum about just mentioning being lay rep on the day but just wanted to make sure nothing had to be submitted in advance (or on the N180 form) in order to do this.

Reassuring to hear this is not the case.

NewforestX

Hi. I'm really sorry to jump on your thread, but I had received a ticket through the post from Euro Car Parks for £50 they said I had stayed longer then allowed, I had purchased 2 tickets, but they said I wasnt allowed to.stay.

I now have a letter from DRP saying I owe £145! Are these legal..as I have read they are not? Thanks

KeithP

NewforestX wrote: »

Hi. I'm really sorry to jump on your thread...

Why did you choose this thread to post on?

You really must start your own thread.
Trying to deal with the different issues of more than on e person in one thread can only lead to confusion.

The best advice for you is to read the NEWBIES FAQ sticky thread and if you still have questions then start a new thread.

UTV89

Hi all,

Quick update on the case and query as to what action I should take next.

The last correspondence I received from CCBC was a letter dated 22nd July 2019, acknowledging receipt of my defence. This letter stated “Where he wishes to proceed, the claimant must contact the court within 28 days after receiving a copy of your defence. After that period has elapsed, the claim will be stayed. The only action the claimant can then take will be to apply to a judge for an order lifting the stay.”

Having looked on the MCOL portal it states “DQ filed by claimant on 29/08/2019” i.e. 38 days after the defence was filed.

In the MCOL user guide it also says if the claimant does “not send instructions to the court within 33 days once the defendant has filed a defence” the “claim will be stayed, and you will be required to make an application to a District Judge / court appointed Legal Advisor to lift the stay if you wish to proceed.”

I have not yet received a DQ from CCBC and am not sure if this is normal in terms of timescales?

As such, I wondered whether I should write to them asking if the case has been stayed given that that the claimant missed the 28/33 day response deadline?

Or am I better to just sit tight until I receive a DQ and/or further instructions from the court?

Thanks,
UTV89

KeithP

UTV89 wrote: »

Hi all,

Quick update on the case and query as to what action I should take next.

The last correspondence I received from CCBC was a letter dated 22nd July 2019, acknowledging receipt of my defence. This letter stated “Where he wishes to proceed, the claimant must contact the court within 28 days after receiving a copy of your defence. After that period has elapsed, the claim will be stayed. The only action the claimant can then take will be to apply to a judge for an order lifting the stay.”

Having looked on the MCOL portal it states “DQ filed by claimant on 29/08/2019” i.e. 38 days after the defence was filed.

That's fine. you have no idea when the CCBC actually sent your Defence to the Claimant. It therefore follows that you don't know when they actually needed to respond.

UTV89 wrote: »

I have not yet received a DQ from CCBC and am not sure if this is normal in terms of timescales?

Wait patiently. The wheels of justice grind slowly. The CCBC are often behind with their paperwork. You will get a DQ from them in due course, or you can print your own as described in post #6 above.

Coupon-mad

The PPC has not missed the deadline.

Filing their DQ is not the same thing as this:

Where he wishes to proceed, the claimant must contact the court within 28 days after receiving a copy of your defence.

UTV89

We have still not received a DQ from the CCBC but are sitting tight until this arrives as suggested above.

In the meantime ParkingEye has sent a "Reply to Defence" listing various historic legal cases that they claim disprove the points in our defence and inviting the Defendant to expand on specific points such as how ParkingEye has not complied with the POFA.

They also claim that “the Defendant ignored all our correspondence" which has led them to take legal proceedings and that they have no record of the Defendant’s MP writing to them and invite "the Defendant to provide evidence of this in support of their defence at their earliest convenience".

Even more bizarrely they finish the document by reminding the Defendant if they wish to amend their defence, they should submit an N244 Form, and pay the relevant fee?

Is it normal practice for ParkingEye to send out a reply to defence like this?

As far as I was aware the next stage for the Defendant would be to complete a DQ and then exchange witness statements once a court date is allocated. It would be at this stage that the Defendant submits all their evidence to support their defence rather than giving it to ParkingEye now?

Coupon-mad

Look on MCOL and see if it says DQs have been sent out, as you cannot miss it.

UTV89

Thanks coupon.

There is no mention of a DQ being sent out to the Defendant on MCOL so we will just continue to wait.

The last transaction listed says “DQ filed by Claimant on 29/08/2019” but this is just what I had mentioned previously (in post #35)

In terms of evidence to support the defence, am I correct in thinking the Defendant just submits this with the witness statement rather than having to give it to ParkingEye in advance?

Interestingly there is no mention of the "Reply to Defence" document being submitted on MCOL so I wonder if this is just a final pressure tactic from ParkingEye rather than something it has sent to the court.

Coupon-mad

In terms of evidence to support the defence, am I correct in thinking the Defendant just submits this with the witness statement rather than having to give it to ParkingEye in advance?

Yes.

Interestingly there is no mention of the "Reply to Defence" document being submitted on MCOL so I wonder if this is just a final pressure tactic from ParkingEye rather than something it has sent to the court.

Yes, sounds like it's an unofficial pressure tactic, not hared with the court.