Claim form from ParkingEye from Northampton business county court.

KeithP

Abzg2k19 said:

So my mum has received parking eye DQ,was woundering when the NBBC will send her the DQ or does she need to print and send them herself as it's been a month since since my mum sent her defence 

Thanks

Is your mum no longer following the checklist she was using?

It clearly says in there...

Items 8, 9 and 10 on that list might be worth another read too.

Abzg2k19

My mother has still not recieved the DQs yet, i know that we can print them and send it ourself but think we rather wait for the NBCC to semd them, we have recieved parking eye defence which is quite long so was woundering if i should post it on here as this is not like our previous cases that we had, last time we had DQs sent to NBCC and then we got sent the defence.

Also she has finally been able to log onto mcol and i don't get what the last message means 

A claim was issued against you on 07/05/2024

Your acknowledgment of service was submitted on 17/05/2024 at 11:01:01

Your acknowledgment of service was received on 17/05/2024 at 14:05:17

Your defence was received on 11/06/2024

Case Stay Lifted on 07/08/2024

Gr1pr

Parking Eye wont be issuing a defence, UNLESS the defendant submitted a counter claim. ? I dont see a counter claim, so only your mother has sent a defence, nobody else 

Nobody should be printing the DQ , it is normally downloaded, filled in on a device, which could be a PC or laptop, and e-mailed to the correct email address at the CNBC 

Personally, I would keep checking MCOL for an update to the above, to show that its been posted out, then email the downloaded and completed PDF, but not before its been sent by post 

Lastly, I wouldn't worry about that last sentence, its the N180 posting date you are both waiting for 

LDast

Abzg2k19 said:

My mother has still not recieved the DQs yet, i know that we can print them and send it ourself but think we rather wait for the NBCC to semd them, we have recieved parking eye defence which is quite long so was woundering if i should post it on here as this is not like our previous cases that we had, last time we had DQs sent to NBCC and then we got sent the defence.

Also she has finally been able to log onto mcol and i don't get what the last message means 

Your defence was received on 11/06/2024

Case Stay Lifted on 07/08/2024

The last item means that PE have paid an application to have the case stay lifted. A claim issued through MCOL is automatically stayed if the Claimant does not respond to the defence within 28 days of service.

However, it is an abuse of process for the Claimant to apply for the stay to be lifted without copying in the Defendant, irrespective of whether the application was for it to be with or without a hearing. A copy of the application notice should have been served on the defendant. CPR 23.4(1) and PD 23A apply. Unless the court has specifically ordered that notice is not required, the Claimant is obligated to serve the application on the Defendant. Failure to do so is a procedural error that can have consequences, including potential applications by the Defendant to set aside any resulting order. The only exceptions, such as applications made without notice in emergency situations or where there is a risk of prejudice to the applicant if notice is given, might be allowed to apply without serving the other party. However, lifting a stay is not considered such an application.

This means that they are going to continue with the claim as it will have cost them £119 to apply for the lifting by consent/without a hearing or £303 without consent/with a hearing to apply for the case stay to be lifted.

LDast

First thing is to ring the CNBC and ask for a copy of the application to lift the stay, and the resulting Order which you knew nothing about.

Coupon-mad

LDast said:

First thing is to ring the CNBC and ask for a copy of the application to lift the stay, and the resulting Order which you knew nothing about.

But it might not exist.  I doubt they paid £119. More likely a CNBC error.

Far more likely that the CNBC mislaid or overlooked  ParkingEye's confirmation of proceeding and PE had a moan and the case is now continuing.

Abzg2k19

This is what she has recieved, a reply to my defence its atleast 5 pages double sided long

Abzg2k19

LDast said:

First thing is to ring the CNBC and ask for a copy of the application to lift the stay, and the resulting Order which you knew nothing about.

Okay LDast said:

First thing is to ring the CNBC and ask for a copy of the application to lift the stay, and the resulting Order which you knew nothing about.

Okay she will ring and find out what's going on

LDast

Coupon-mad said:

LDast said:

First thing is to ring the CNBC and ask for a copy of the application to lift the stay, and the resulting Order which you knew nothing about.

But it might not exist.  I doubt they paid £119. More likely a CNBC error.

Far more likely that the CNBC mislaid or overlooked  ParkingEye's confirmation of proceeding and PE had a moan and the case is now continuing.

Maybe. However I was discussing this case with the district judge last night and he was of the opinion, that if PE had confirmed that they were proceeding then they would have also had to confirm that with the defendant. As the defendant has not received any confirmation from PE that they intend to proceed, it is more likely that they did not confirm with the court either.

In which case, whilst they may have had moan to the CNBC, it is more likely that they have abused the process and should have applied for a lifting of the stay either by consent for £119 or without consent for £303 and included the defendant in their application, either way.

Simply putting this down to an internal error that has conveniently been "cleaned" up in-house is not acceptable. The OP should definitely be querying why the stay was lifted without any notification to the defendant, for whatever reason.

Abzg2k19

She did recive the notice to proceed on 12th july 2024 but have not heard anything back from them since, so she received this and the reply to defence with also the letters they sent prior to taking the case to court and pictures of the signage mapping in the private car park which were taken in 2018.