Claim Form £732, DCB LEGAL LTD

Coupon-mad

I think it was removed online this week temporarily, due to it being badly changed:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6529913/new-n180-form-mediation-appears-to-be-mandatory/p1?new=1

urbanwarrior666

So quick update, received general form of judgment order today in post.  


Should I be concerned? 

KeithP

urbanwarrior666 said:

So quick update, received general form of judgment order today in post.  


Should I be concerned? 

Only if the second page lists things that you need to do.

urbanwarrior666

Don't think so ? If they comply I must do witness statement and evidence.

LDast

You should definitely not be concerned. You should be happy that the allocation judge has seen that the claimant has not fully complied with CPR 16.4 and is now putting them on the spot by making them provide specific details if they want to continue with the claim.

If they manage to fully comply and the claim is not struck out, you then have a second opportunity to defend against the claim.

The judges at Manchester are well aware of the failings of these robo-claims and do not put up with the spurious and totally inadequate particulars of claim they submit.

Le_Kirk

Just make sure, if you do receive the updated/new Particulars of Claim that you submit an edited version of your original defence.

LDast

Please show us the updated PoC if they do attempt to comply with the order as there are often failures in their updated PoC that you can use against them to have the claim struck out or dismissed.

urbanwarrior666

Yea will do, hopefully they wont.

thanks all.

urbanwarrior666

today i got updated PoC,

IN THE COUNTY COURT AT MANCHESTER CLAIM NUMBER: xxxxxx
BETWEEN:
PARKINGEYE LTD
CLAIMANT
AND
xxxxxxxxxxxx
DEFENDANT
AMENDED PARTICULARS OF CLAIM
These Amended Particulars of Claim are filed in accordance with the Court Order of District Judge xxxxxxxx dated
19/08/2024.
Parties
1. The Claimant is a Company that offers private car park management services to private landowners;
primarily to manage the way in which motorists are permitted to park whilst on their private land. At all
material times, the Claimant was accredited by the Accredited Trade Association (“ATA”) known as the
British Parking Association (“BPA”). The BPA has a Code of Practice (“Code”) that its members are
expected to adhere to, or otherwise face potential sanctions. The Claimant operates in accordance with the
Code. The Defendant is the recipient of a parking charge notice (“Charge”) issued by the Claimant.
2. At all material times, the Defendant was the Registered Keeper of the Vehicle. The Defendant is the
recipient of a parking charge notice (“Charge”) issued by the Claimant.
Landowner Authority
3. At all material times, the Claimant was contracted by the owner of the Land known as “Royal Bolton
Hospital Staff 1 (Cooper and Ernsting)” to manage parking on the Land and issue Charges to those that fail
to park in accordance with the Terms.
Contract & Breach
4. As part of the Claimant’s authority to manage parking on the Land. And in accordance with their Legal
obligations, the Claimant prominently displayed signs on the Land. Such signs stipulated the Terms and
Conditions of parking on said Land. It is such signs which form the basis of the contract, which the
Defendant accepted by choosing to park on the land. The signage contained the following terms:-
“Staff Permit Holders Only
To apply for a staff permit please contact the iFM Bolton Car Park Management office with your
full correct vehicle registration”
5. A further term is included in the Contract which stipulates:- 1
“Failure to comply with the terms and conditions will result in a Parking Charge of: £70”
6. It is the Claimant’s submission that by choosing to park on the Land in the matter described herein, the
Defendant (Driver) accepted the Contract by way of conduct; the parking space being the consideration in
the formulation of such contract.
7. On each occasion, the Defendant’s Vehicle remained on the Land and the Claimant holds no record of a
staff permit being registered to the Vehicle. It is therefore submitted that the Defendant’s Vehicle remained
on the Land in breach of the Terms and Conditions on the Land and the Charges were issued accordingly.
Defendant’s Liability
8. Following the contravention, in accordance with their capacity of being a member of the BPA, the
Claimant applied to the DVLA for details of the Registered Keeper of the Vehicle in order to issue Charge
Notices. The Defendant’s name and serviceable address were returned to the Claimant and Charge Notices
were issued to the Defendant accordingly.
9. The Charge Notice afforded the Defendant the opportunity to pay, appeal or nominate the driver (if it was
not them). The Defendant failed to engage in any of the aforementioned options.
10. Following receipt of the Notices, the Defendant failed to nominate a Driver. As such, the Defendant is now
pursued on the balance of probabilities that they were the Driver of the Vehicle in that, if they were not,
they would have nominated.
Pre-Action Conduct
11. As a result of non-payment, the Claimant instructed Direct Collections Bailiffs Limited to send further
letters to the Defendant to prompt payment. As the matter could not be resolved, the Claimant instructed
my firm to send a Letter of Claim to the Defendant in accordance with Pre-Action Protocol for Debt
Claims. The Letter of Claim was sent to the Defendant on 17/09/2023 to “xxxxxxxxxxxxxx”
12. The Claimant subsequently issued Court proceedings as a last resort to recover the monies.
Amount Claimed
13. The Claimant seeks the total sum of 732.94, broken down as follows: -
Charges £280.00
Contractual Costs £280.00
Interest £32.94
Court Fee £70.00
Legal Representative Fixed Costs £70.00
14. The Contractual Costs are claimed pursuant to the Contract which states:-
“If the Parking Charge remains unpaid beyond 28 days, recovery charges in respect of further
action may apply”
15. Interest is claimed pursuant to section 69 of the County Courts Act 1984 at a standard rate of 8% per
annum above base rate until Judgment or sooner payment, or for such period as the Court sees fit
2
AND THE CLAIMANT CLAIMS:-
i. Charge - £280.00
ii. Contractual Costs – £280.00
iii. Interest - £32.94
iv. Court Fee - £70.00
v. Legal Representative Fixed Costs - £70.00
3

STATEMENT OF TRUTH
The Claimant believes that the facts stated in these Amended Particulars of Claim are true and I am duly authorised
to sign on the Claimant’s behalf. I understand that proceedings for contempt of court may be brought against
anyone who makes, or causes to be made, a false statement in a document verified by a statement of truth without

an honest belief in its truth.

what now?

thanks all.

Coupon-mad

So now you must amend your defence to cross out the stuff about Chan and poorly pleaded POC, and replace it with responses to the newly argued, clearer allegations.