Received Claim Form from Civil National Business Centre regarding Parking Eye

CG23

Coupon-mad said:

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'.

Thanks I originally thought it was ParkingEye and then someone on here asked if it was DCB Legal and I stupidly didn’t look at the two boxes just seen DCB Legal and thought yeah. My fault.

In your opinion is it more difficult to win because it is ParkingEye. Or just the same? 

1505grandad

"In your opinion is it more difficult to win because it is ParkingEye. Or just the same?"

Some inspiration:-

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6377263/dcb-legal-record-of-private-parking-court-claim-discontinuations#latest

"@hyperlime's case must have been one of DCB Legal's first ParkingEye jobs taken on, originally reported here back in February this year. Despite there being 4 PCNs in play, with ~£800 being claimed, true to form, DCB Legal discontinue against a robust defendant. Further, seems to prove that PE were offloading 'hopeless' cases to DCBL where they had little appetite/likely chance success in pursuing themselves."

CG23

1505grandad said:

"In your opinion is it more difficult to win because it is ParkingEye. Or just the same?"

Some inspiration:-

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6377263/dcb-legal-record-of-private-parking-court-claim-discontinuations#latest

"@hyperlime's case must have been one of DCB Legal's first ParkingEye jobs taken on, originally reported here back in February this year. Despite there being 4 PCNs in play, with ~£800 being claimed, true to form, DCB Legal discontinue against a robust defendant. Further, seems to prove that PE were offloading 'hopeless' cases to DCBL where they had little appetite/likely chance success in pursuing themselves."

Thank you 

Coupon-mad

It will be discontinued, as DCB Legal ones ALWAYS are when well defended.

CG23

My partner sent off his DQ earlier today. He used my email and phone number as I’m easier to contact.

DCB legal have now called me and asked to speak to him. They couldn’t speak to me as they said they didn’t have authorisation.

I said I will get him to email and get authorisation.


Is it normal for them to call? 

Coupon-mad

Yes but he doesn't respond or talk to them!

CG23

Ok - he didn’t send email authorisation anyway. They’re quick to respond aren’t they.

CG23

Received a notice of transfer of proceedings today.

No date set yet. 

Was hoping it wouldn’t get this far. 

Coupon-mad

But it always does.

CG23

Not relating to this issue but something positive….

I had received a demand for parking in a hotel car park.

Company was called Smart Parking.

I tried calling the hotel and the person who answered said sorry have to contact Smart direct - which I knew would get me nowhere.

So I emailed the hotel and the manager was very helpful and has said he will get the demand cancelled.

Wish we had acted sooner with the one with Parking Eye.