Help with Parkingeye / DCB Legal Judgement for Claim with zero particulars x 3

sigsoldboy

Hoping somebody can take a mo to share advice, I've read the forums so apologies if this is posted somewhere but couldn't find a similar example. 

I am unaware of a PCN or similar charge being received either on my car or through the post. I've received no letters or information in respect to the claim. 

Earlier in the week I received 3 x Judgment for Claimant (in default) letters (3 separate letters) from Civil National Business Centre. All claimant's are Parkingeye and payment to DCB legal. 

In the letter is states "The claim is attached to this letter"

No claim was attached in each of the 3 letters, I have not received any additional letters in the post.

As per the attached image all I have is 'You have not replied to the claim form' 'It is therefore ordered that you must pay the claimant £x for the debt and £x for costs. 

It also states we need to respond to the claim before the response date on the enclosed forms. As no forms have been enclosed, I'm also unaware of what the time frames are. 

Each one is £309.24, £314.48 and £307.64, so around £930 of fines that I have no idea what they are for or where they are from.

I can't use the MCOL as I've received no pack, its all via post and I have no password to access the pack when I hit that point. 

My assumption is I need to do a Defence / Counter Claim form N9B. 

Unsure of what to add to the Counter Claim other than I've not been provide with particulars of the claim. Not sure what else to say.

Not sure why I should pay for £930 of fine with no evidence, proof etc. 
Really appreciate any signposting from the forum to help.

sigsoldboy

Sorry quick update as I'm learning, it looks like a CCJ has been added against me for this. I'm so upset.

Car1980

Is the address on your car's V5 log book correct?
No correspondence usually means it's still an old address.

sigsoldboy

Only recently as of Mid-Nov 24 took a personal ownership vehicle so V5 is correct. Since 2018 I've had a Lease / Company Car, which is my gut instinct. DVLA address is accurate for many years. Lived at the same address since 2017.

ChirpyChicken

No it won't be that if the judgment in default went to the correct address.

sigsoldboy

Wonder why then I've received nothing from them and nothing in the Judgment letters? I saw on another thread to call the CNBC so will call them tomorrow and ask for copies of the original claim form, date, how they were sent and how judgment was entered into. I think I'd also like to challenge the fact I've got three separate cases to contend. 

I think I'll have to then file an N244 Form to set this aside? If the CNBC can't provide anything I believe it's under CPR 13.2 as the claim was not properly served? How can I prepare a reasonable defence without knowing what the actual claim against me is?

Coupon-mad

sigsoldboy said:

Wonder why then I've received nothing from them and nothing in the Judgment letters? I saw on another thread to call the CNBC so will call them tomorrow and ask for copies of the original claim form, date, how they were sent and how judgment was entered into. I think I'd also like to challenge the fact I've got three separate cases to contend. 

I think I'll have to then file an N244 Form to set this aside? If the CNBC can't provide anything I believe it's under CPR 13.2 as the claim was not properly served? How can I prepare a reasonable defence without knowing what the actual claim against me is?

Ring the CNBC at 8.30am tomorrow (otherwise you'll wait hours!).

Complain (and escalate it to the manager) and ask them why a letter intended to attach a claim form is in the same envelope as a letter saying you've already got a CCJ.

And this mess-up has happened x 3 ... so are the CNBC really expecting you to believe that 3 SEPARATE claim forms were sent in January and that ALL THREE mysteriously never arrived?

Once yes. Three times: impossible.

Stay on the phone and insist they clearly CANNOT have sent the supposed 3 claim forms.

I suspect they'll make you do 3 applications at £303 each.

ASK THEM TO EMAIL YOU THE THREE POC AND THE SUPPOSED DATES OF CLAIMS AND THE 3 CLAIM NUMBERS.

I think Contestor Legal would be best placed to do these for you and get all three claims struck out AND ASK FOR ALL YOUR COSTS to be paid by the Claimant, due to the 'wholly unreasonable conduct' of:

1.  Filing three separate claims instead of one consolidated claim, tripling the set aside fees;

2.  Filing three claims with no pleaded reason / breach (assuming these are all DCB Legal claims that went missing). Contestor Legal are experts at arguing that point and getting all costs back. It will cost you CL's fees x 3 but they'll do it for you and arguing for costs isn't easy.

It is to them.

sigsoldboy

Thanks for the advice. I'm going to petition for the claims to be consolidated.

I received the particulars from the CNBC this morning.

One is for a Car Registration I don't recognised, I've done a Reg Check with DVLA and it's not listed.

The other two Parking Charges are for Subscription Cars that I had from Onto. Both fines are for parking in the local Service Station, which I assume will be because I charged my car at the local service station and I was probably waiting for a charging spot. I don't have the Parking Charge Letter to show any details so have to assume at the moment. Should I make a request from Parking Eye to send to me the Charge Letters? 

I think I'm going to submit a N244 form and request that the judgement be set aside as it was not properly served.   

I was wondering if anyone on here can provide any advice on the the success of arguing that we may have been able to defend the case given one registration is not recognised, and that is appears to be a charge for being in a car park over the 2hrs, which was likely due to queuing for the electrical car charger. Are there any threads about that? 

I'm also assuming it's to late to set aside the CCJ on the basis that could have paid the charge had it been served correctly? I actually made a payment to ParkingEye (Have a receipt prove) 5 months before these Parking Charges, as that was against pervious car and I was served correctly, and paid. I am assuming that the Parking Charge was sent to the Subscription Company who never sent those details to me. (They went bust)   

Coupon-mad

 Should I make a request from Parking Eye to send to me the Charge Letters?

No.

Show us the 3 POC you got emailed.

I think I'm going to submit a N244 form and request that the judgement be set aside as it was not properly served.

No. You need better arguments and you'll have to do three N244s, as I said. You sound like you need Contestor Legal because you will want these costs ordered against the Claimant.

YOU WON'T GET YOUR COSTS if you go it alone because the CNBC will say the three claims WERE sent. There'd be no reason for a Judge to order the C to pay your costs unless you argue properly based on the CPRs and Part 16.

What happened with the CNBC complaint? 

sigsoldboy

Thanks Coupon-mad. POC below, all three the same just with different details. I've been on the forum all day, got blotches in my eyes. I was about to put my house on the market to downsize, really can't do with a CCJ, but don't know if I can afford external support. I can barely afford this. I've spent the day doing my N244 I would be so so appreciative of review and feedback,  

CNBCnoreply <CNBCnoreply@justice.gov.uk>	9:38 AM (10 hours ago)
to me

1. THE DEFENDANT (D) IS INDEBTED TO THE      CLAIMANT (C) FOR A PARKING CHARGE(S) ISSUED  TO VEHICLE  XXXXXX AT WELCOME BREAK         BIRCHANGER GREEN BISHOPS STORTFORD.          2. THE PCN(S) WERE ISSUED ON  05/11/2022     3. THE DEFENDANT IS PURSUED AS THE DRIVER OF THE VEHICLE FOR BREACH OF THE TERMS ON THE   SIGNS (THE CONTRACT). REASON:VEHICLE REMAINEDON PRIVATE PROPERTY IN BREACH OF THE         PROMINENTLY DISPLAYED TERMS AND CONDITIONS.  4. IN THE ALTERNATIVE THE DEFENDANT IS       PURSUED AS THE KEEPER PURSUANT TO POFA 2012, SCHEDULE 4.                                  AND THE CLAIMANT CLAIMS                      1. £170 BEING THE TOTAL OF THE PCN(S) AND    DAMAGES.                                     2. INTEREST AT A RATE OF 8% PER ANNUM        PURSUANT TO S.69 OF THE COUNTY COURTS ACT    1984 FROM THE DATE HEREOF AT A DAILY RATE OF £.03 UNTIL JUDGMENT OR SOONER PAYMENT.       3. COSTS AND COURT FEES     

sigsoldboy

I, XXXXXX, am the Defendant in this matter. The facts stated in this witness statement are true to the best of my knowledge and belief, and my account is based on my personal knowledge and understanding of the case.

1. I note that three separate claims have been filed against me by the same Claimant, despite them appearing to relate to the same or substantially similar matters.
   

2. This appears to be a misuse of court resources and contrary to the principles set out in Practice Direction 7A and CPR 1.1, leading to:

1. Unnecessary duplication of proceedings,

2. Increased costs for all parties, and

3. An additional burden on the court system, which is neither just nor proportionate
   

3. The claims relate to three separate vehicles, each of which had a different legal and practical status in relation to me:

1. Vehicle 1 - [Registration Number]: This vehicle was on a subscription service from Onto, where I was the permitted user but not the registered keeper.

2. Vehicle 2 - [Registration Number]:  This vehicle was on a subscription service from Onto, where I was the permitted user but not the registered keeper.

3. Vehicle 3 - [Registration Number]: I had no direct association with this vehicle and was unable to trace it through the DVLA website.
   

4. This witness statement supports my application dated [XX/XX/2025], in which I request the Court to:

1. Consolidate claims M9KF3941, M9KF4030, and M9KF6550 into a single proceeding, as permitted under CPR 3.1(2)(g), to ensure efficiency and avoid unnecessary costs.

2. Set aside the default judgment(s) dated 18th February 2025, as they were not properly served in accordance with the Civil Procedure Rules.

3. Order the Claimant to reimburse the Defendant £275 for the set-aside application fee.

4. Dismiss the original claim due to procedural deficiencies and lack of compliance with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (POFA).
   

5. In respect to each alleged Parking Charge I did not receive any pre-claim correspondence or a Notice to Hirer that was fully compliant with Schedule 4 of POFA 2012.
   

6. The Claim Forms, which should have contained the Particulars of Claim, were never delivered to me by the Civil National Business Centre (CNBC).
   

7. On 26th February 2025, I first became aware of a default judgment when I received a Judgment for Claimant (In Default) letter. However:

1. The letter did not include the claim numbers or response deadlines, leaving me uncertain about the nature of the claims.

2. Unaware of options and actions due to a lack of information.
   

1. On the 3rd March 2025 I contacted the CNBC and learned that the alleged claim(s) are in respect to unpaid Parking Charge from the 27/06/2022, 05/11/2022, and the 15/12/2022. CNBC sent the particulars of the claim via email at 9:30am.
   

2. The particulars state ‘THE DEFENDANT IS PURSUED AS THE DRIVER OF THE VEHICLE’ or ‘PURSUED AS THE KEEPER PURSUANT TO POFA 2012, SCHEDULE 4.’
   

3. Since I was not the registered keeper of any of these vehicles, the Claimant cannot presume automatic keeper liability under POFA 2012 unless:

1. A Notice to Hirer was issued within 21 days of receiving keeper details from the subscription provider AND

2. It contained all required documentation (e.g., a copy of the hire/subscription agreement).
   

4. I have not received any such notice, and as a result, the Claimant has failed to establish keeper liability under POFA 2012.
   

5. Further, for Vehicle 3, I have no knowledge of the claim and deny any involvement in the alleged parking contravention.
   

6. Under Schedule 4 of POFA 2012, the Claimant can only transfer liability to a hirer if they strictly comply with the required legal process. This includes:

1. Issuing a Notice to Keeper (NTK) to the registered keeper (Onto) within 14 days of the alleged contravention.

2. Onto responding and providing my details as the hirer.

3. The Claimant issued a Notice to Hirer (NTH) within 21 days of receiving my details from Onto.

4. The NTH includes a copy of the hire/subscription agreement.
   

7. The Claimant has failed to provide any evidence that they complied with these steps.
   

8. Since keeper liability does not apply, I am not obligated to identify the driver, nor am I personally liable for the charge.
   

9. The parking charges relate to alleged contraventions on 27th June 2022, 5th November 2022, and 15th December 2022—over two years ago.
   

10. I did not receive any communication from the Claimant at the time, nor was I given a fair opportunity to recall or respond to the allegations.
    

11. Given the significant passage of time, there is no certainty as to who was driving the vehicle(s) on those specific dates.
    

12. It is unreasonable and unfair to expect me to retain precise details of usage from years ago without evidence from the Claimant.
    

13. Without clear evidence identifying the driver, the Claimant cannot assume that I was driving at the time of the alleged breach.
    

14. Under UK civil law, the burden of proof lies with the Claimant, not the Defendant.
    

15. The Claimant has provided no evidence that I was the driver at the time.
    

16. POFA 2012 only allows liability to be transferred to a hirer if all legal requirements are met—which they were not.
    

17. I decline to identify the driver, and the Claimant’s lack of adherence to legal procedure means I have no legal obligation to do so.
    

18. In addition, the Claimant has failed to:

1. Provide sufficient details of the alleged breach or specify the exact terms and conditions that were purportedly contravened.

2. Demonstrate how a valid contract was formed between the Claimant and the Defendant, including evidence of offer, acceptance, consideration, and mutual agreement.

3. Particularise the exact terms of the contract that they allege I have breached.

4. Explain how the alleged breach occurred in relation to the stated terms and conditions, and provide evidence that those terms were properly communicated to the driver at the time.

5. Demonstrate any actual financial loss or damage suffered as a direct result of the alleged breach of contract.
   

19. Under CPR 16.4, the Claimant has failed to properly particularise the claim, as they have not provided:

1. The contractual terms allegedly breached.

2. How the contract was formed.

3. Evidence of actual loss or damage suffered.

4. Under CPR 27.14(2)(g), I seek a costs order against the Claimant on the grounds that their unreasonable conduct has required me to apply for a set-aside.

5. I request that the Court orders the Claimant to reimburse me for the £275 set-aside application fee and any further costs incurred due to their procedural failings.
   

20. In light of the above, I respectfully request that the Court:

1. Sets aside the default judgment under CPR 13.2 or 13.3,

2. Consolidates the three claims into a single case,

3. Orders the Claimant to reimburse the £275 set-aside fee, and

4. Dismisses the claim in its entirety, given the procedural defects and POFA non-compliance.