Template defence to adapt for all parking cases with added 'admin/DRA' costs - edited in 2025

Strebor

Jeez it's all changed since my first (win, well dropped at the last minute by claimant).

Excuse the numpty question, but back then my email submitted defence had pictures attached........was that unnecessary as are they only needed at a later stage; witness statement point?.......I was wondering whether the mcols allowed images to be uploaded?

Pictures are of signs not showing in one direction so half of hospital car park users don't see them.......so rather obvious that they are inadequate and proof ......kind of important in a defence.....I'd rather they gave up sooner and the mediator could see how ridiculous it is !

Plus no signs internally about it. .......  It's only after one has been caught out you'd know.....typical !

Coupon-mad

I was wondering whether the mcols allowed images to be uploaded?

Nope. Evidence comes at WS stage.

Hope you are ready to do the Public Consultation posted about in practically every thread this past month? It's open now.

Strebor

Coupon-mad said:

I was wondering whether the mcols allowed images to be uploaded?

Nope. Evidence comes at WS stage.

Hope you are ready to do the Public Consultation posted about in practically every thread this past month? It's open now.

Yes! I will

AlexDove

Hello, 
I am currently working on drafting my defence for a PCN received from Parkmaven. I was not able to log in to MCOL to file the Acknowledgement of Service so I called the support number offered on gov.uk. The agent advised me to send the AoS via email to aos@cnbc@justice.gov.uk which I did. Two days ago I managed to log in to MCOL and the message there was: "A bar has been put in place on this claim. You cannot respond to the claim at this time" - I understand that is the case when the court put the claim on hold in order to prevent a default judgement until the defence is sent (I might be wrong though)
According to the advice given to me by the gov.uk agent and to the information on their website on could send the defence to claimresponses.cnbc@justice.gov.uk. 
Has anybody sent the defence via this e-mail? and would it be ok to add photo evidence/ print screens of the parking signage and some past e-mail correspondence etc?
Thank you!

Jenni_D

#1 that email address is not a valid format ... did you mean aos . cnbc rather than aos @ cnbc?

#2 It is best to ask questions regarding your own case on your own thread ... this is a general advice thread not a personal help thread.

 

Sisyphean_Task

Coupon-mad said:

I was wondering whether the mcols allowed images to be uploaded?

Nope. Evidence comes at WS stage.

Hope you are ready to do the Public Consultation posted about in practically every thread this past month? It's open now.

The main part of my defence is that the parking sign is misleading - a picture paints a thousand words, I need an image.

The Defence form states for section 3 Defence "If necessary you can continue on a separate piece of paper making sure the claim number is clearly shown". My plan was to type up a defence, print the whole thing on a separate sheet, attach (or maybe embed) some images and post it. If images aren't allowed online would sending them in the post mean my defence form could be rejected? In the notes on the reverse of the Claim form or on the Defence form itself, there is no mention that images aren't allowed. 

Umkomaas

Sisyphean_Task said:

Coupon-mad said:

I was wondering whether the mcols allowed images to be uploaded?

Nope. Evidence comes at WS stage.

Hope you are ready to do the Public Consultation posted about in practically every thread this past month? It's open now.

The main part of my defence is that the parking sign is misleading - a picture paints a thousand words, I need an image.

The Defence form states for section 3 Defence "If necessary you can continue on a separate piece of paper making sure the claim number is clearly shown". My plan was to type up a defence, print the whole thing on a separate sheet, attach (or maybe embed) some images and post it. If images aren't allowed online would sending them in the post mean my defence form could be rejected? In the notes on the reverse of the Claim form or on the Defence form itself, there is no mention that images aren't allowed. 

Images go in the Witness Statement; they don't play a part in the actual Defence submission. You use the MCOL Defence portal, which has sufficient space to paste in the Template Defence. If you're submitting anything larger in size (why?) a pdf attached to an email. 

For such an important document, it's far too risky to send via Royal Mail, especially given the way the CNBC admin has been in quite a mess for some time. You risk a Judgment in Default if the Mail isn't delivered or lost in one of the piles littering the desks, tables or floors  in Northampton!

Coupon-mad

Sisyphean_Task said:

Coupon-mad said:

I was wondering whether the mcols allowed images to be uploaded?

Nope. Evidence comes at WS stage.

Hope you are ready to do the Public Consultation posted about in practically every thread this past month? It's open now.

The main part of my defence is that the parking sign is misleading - a picture paints a thousand words, I need an image.

The Defence form states for section 3 Defence "If necessary you can continue on a separate piece of paper making sure the claim number is clearly shown". My plan was to type up a defence, print the whole thing on a separate sheet, attach (or maybe embed) some images and post it. If images aren't allowed online would sending them in the post mean my defence form could be rejected? In the notes on the reverse of the Claim form or on the Defence form itself, there is no mention that images aren't allowed. 

Absolutely not.

NEVER post something to that black hole of a massive shared office at Northampton!

It will go missing and there is really no reason to try to shoe-horn evidence photos into a defence because that stage comes later on. You get a chance to file & serve evidence.

Le_Kirk

Sisyphean_Task said:

The main part of my defence is that the parking sign is misleading - a picture paints a thousand words, I need an image...............

You really should start a new thread of your own as this is an information only thread.  You will get bespoke advice on your own thread.

Thatladydowntheroad

Car1980 said:

Comments invited although I am now away for a week!

Just three thoughts (shoot me down!) that may or may not be worth incorporating:

• claimant makes claim based on contract law but has never provided it
• "confirmed" better than "admitted"?
• worth mentioning that discontinuance was an intention from day 1 and that is what makes it unreasonable?

E.g.


2.  It is difficult to respond but these facts come from the Defendant's own knowledge and honest belief. To form a contract, there must be a prominent offer, acceptance, and valuable consideration. It is neither admitted nor denied that the driver breached any term. Section 71 of the Consumer Rights Act 2015 (‘the CRA’) creates a statutory duty upon Courts to consider the test of fairness. The CRA introduced new requirements for prominence of terms and 'consumer notices'. Pursuant to s62 and paying regard to examples 6, 10, 14 & 18 of Sch2 and the duties of fair/open dealing and good faith, the Defendant avers that this Claimant generally uses unclear and unfair terms/notices. On the limited information available, this case appears to be no different. The Claimant has never provided the wording of the contract they rely upon in any correspondence and is put to strict proof with contemporaneous photographs. The Defendant reserves the right to amend the defence if details of the contract are provided. However, the court is invited to strike this claim out using its powers pursuant to CPR 3.4.

3. The vehicle is recognised and it is confirmed that the Defendant was the registered keeper.

10. The court’s attention is drawn to the common outcome in bulk parking claims, of an unreasonably late Notice of Discontinuance. Whilst a Claimant is liable for a Defendant's costs after discontinuance (r.38.6(1)) this does not 'normally' apply to the small claims track (r.38.6(3)). However, the White Book states (annotation 38.6.1): "Note that the normal rule as to costs does not apply if a claimant in a case allocated to the small claims track serves a notice of discontinuance although it might be contended that costs should be awarded if a party has behaved unreasonably (r.27.14(2)(dg))." It is submitted that a definition of unreasonableness encompasses an intention to discontinue that has been present since the start, as may be stipulated in any contractual relationship between the parking company and bulk litigator.

Happy to delete this in a couple of weeks so we don't clog up this thread.

@Coupon-mad Couldn't find your response to this. Yah or nay?