Received Claim Form from Civil National Business Centre regarding Parking Eye

UncleThomasCobley

CG23 said:

Realised - I didn't explain it well - I didn't reply to their automated email.

I went in my sent folder and clicked reply all - so it just has my original email and then above where I have sent it again to the same address - I've said apologies please find attached in PDF version.

I think that should be ok - shouldn't it?

Yes.              

CG23

My partner has received his acknowledgement from the tribunal courts.

When he sent it he put DCB Legal as the claimant as that what was on the letter he received.

But this acknowledgment back says ParkingEyeLtd v XXXXX

Is this usual?

Or should we be concerned? 

I’ll send a photo of the rest.

CG23

Here it is. The response was faster than we expected. 

KeithP

CG23 said:

My partner has received his acknowledgement from the tribunal courts.

When he sent it he put DCB Legal as the claimant as that what was on the letter he received.

But this acknowledgment back says ParkingEyeLtd v XXXXX

Is this usual?

Or should we be concerned? 

I’ll send a photo of the rest.

If you want people to understand, you are going to have to be a bit clearer.

Tribunal?? A tribunal has not been mentioned in this thread before.

Can you please show us that 'letter he received' that has DCB Legal as the Claimant.

Le_Kirk

Could it be HMCTS - the Courts and Tribunal Service - which in fact would be CNBC/CCBC.

CG23

sorry yes HM Courts & Tribunal Service 

CG23

Hopefully this time it’s got no personal details 

CG23

Will the claimant being parkingeye make a difference to the defence? Or what happens next?

UncleThomasCobley

CG23 said:

Will the claimant being parkingeye make a difference to the defence? Or what happens next?

Not if DBC Legal are handling t for them.

Coupon-mad

CG23 said:

Will the claimant being parkingeye make a difference to the defence? Or what happens next?

The Claimant was always ParkingEye.  You just put it wrongly on the defence.  Did you use the Template Defence?  It does say in the headings:

NAME OF CLAIMANT (NOT the solicitors) 

Just a little error by you.  No worries. The CNBC obviously doesn't mind, and overlooked that.

The Claimant is obviously the parking firm, never the solicitors.

Come back here for advice at WS and evidence stage (not DQ stage, please, which is a simple form already fully explained in the first 12 steps in the Template Defence thread).

See also the section in the NEWBIES thread called 'IMPORTANT: KNOW WHAT HAPPENS WHEN'.