CNBC / National Parking Control / DCB LEGAL

why_overcharged

Slight amendment based on feedback, I've used PCN(s) it's bad grammar, but it's what they used in the POC.

3.    Referring to the POC: paragraph 1 is denied. The Defendant is not indebted to the Claimant. Paragraph 2 is denied. No PCN(s) were "issued on 04/07/2024, 04/07/2024" (the date of the alleged PCN(s)).  Whilst the Defendant is the registered keeper, paragraphs 3 and 4 are denied. The Defendant is registered disabled and unable to drive the vehicle. The “Reason" for "breach of the terms on the signs (the contract)” for each PCN is boilerplate text and unclear to the Defendant. The Defendant is not liable and no evidence has been provided of a breach of prominent terms.  The quantum is hugely exaggerated (no PCN can be £170 on private land) and there were no damages incurred whatsoever. The Claimant is put to strict proof of all of their allegations.

What about proving my friend is disabled, do I need to send evidence of this with the defence of this or not at this step?

Thanks again everyone for your help so far really appreciated. 

Gr1pr

No exhibits are sent with the defence document, evidence comes in several months time at the WS stage 

Maybe a paragraph 3.1 could be added about disability and the Equality Act 2010  ?

Dont forget to add but not the driver to paragraph 2 as well 

why_overcharged

Gr1pr said:

No exhibits are sent with the defence document, evidence comes in several months time at the WS stage 

Maybe a paragraph 3.1 could be added about disability and the Equality Act 2010  ?

Dont forget to add but not the driver to paragraph 2 as well 

Thanks for paragraph 2 I used @shahib_02 defence: Defendant was the registered keeper, but NOT the driver at the time.

I think I'll leave out paragraph 3.1 as want to keep it simple - the POC is wrong I have evidence they don't match the letters they sent. They messed up because they decided to use boilerplate POC rather than what they originally alleged. Should this go to court that's what I will pushing on for it to be it thrown out that their own paperwork doesn't match. 

Any glaring issues with my paragraph 3? All good to send?

why_overcharged

Help! Default Judgement!

So my friend received a default judgement this was the only contact since emailing the defence (and getting the auto response).

This is the is history from the MCOL.

Claim Status

A claim was issued against you on 21/02/2025

Your acknowledgment of service was submitted on 08/03/2025 at 23:09:42

Your acknowledgment of service was received on 10/03/2025 at 01:05:42

A judgment was issued against you on 06/05/2025 at 19:08:32


AOS due: Wednesday 12th March 2025
Defence due: 4pm on Wednesday 26th March 2025


Defence sent: Tuesday 25 Mar, 00:28 to ClaimResponses.CNBC@justice.gov.uk

Auto response received: Tuesday 25 Mar 2025, 00:29:



I was close to the deadlines but made them.

What can I do to help my friend she is in bits about it and I feel responsible.

Do we just follow the advice here?

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6603139/default-judgement-saying-no-response-even-though-we-responded

Complain? As I think I made all the deadlines and done everything right.

ChirpyChicken

If you made the deadlines then complain like mad
Tell her to calm down 

Coupon-mad

Yep. The CCJ will be set aside at no cost as it is CNBC error.

Do NOT let the friend pay.

why_overcharged

Thanks. Reading the other threads I can email Judgments.CNBC@justice.gov.uk with proof of receipt. Looks like it happens quite often.

why_overcharged

This is the email I sent to Judgments.CNBC@justice.gov.uk I'll let you know the outcome.

Dear Sir/Madam,

I write concerning the Default Judgment entered against me on 6 May 2025 in respect of the claim M****** via MCOL (“Claim”). I received notification of this judgment today. Please be advised that this judgment is erroneous and must be set aside without delay under CPR 13.3.

Timely Filing of Acknowledgment of Service and Defence

• Acknowledgment of Service was submitted on 8 March 2025 (received 10 March 2025).

• A full Defence was filed on 25 March 2025 at 00:28 via ClaimResponses.CNBC@justice.gov.uk—well in advance of the 26 March 2025, 4 pm deadline.

I have documented proof that both documents were received by your office before the relevant deadlines (attached). The entry of default judgment despite this compliance is a clear procedural error.

Substantive Grounds for Dispute

1. Medical Incapacity: I am a disabled person, medically incapable of driving at the time of the alleged breach.

2. Incorrect Particulars: The particulars of the claim are factually incorrect, and there has been no proper opportunity for me to name any driver.

Demand for Relief

1. Immediate setting aside of the Default Judgment in accordance with the Civil Procedure Rules.

2. Written confirmation that no enforcement action will proceed while this matter is under review.

3. Escalation of this incident within your management structure and a review of your procedures to prevent similarly unfounded and predatory claims against vulnerable individuals.

If this request is not fully honored within seven days of the date of this email, I will have no alternative but to raise a formal complaint with my Member of Parliament, the Ministry of Justice, and the Civil Justice Council, and to consider any and all other remedies available to me to protect my rights.

I trust you will treat this matter with the seriousness it deserves and look forward to your prompt confirmation.

Yours faithfully,

******

ChirpyChicken

Copy it to the other cnbc email address to

why_overcharged

This one?
ClaimResponses.CNBC@justice.gov.uk