Got a claim form from CNBC

abuhafs

Hello guys,

Unfortunately I've received a CCJ notice for parking in a new residential area when visiting. Honestly did not see or realise they had parking restrictions in the close. Hadn't received any letters previously either, just a CCJ notice came through few days ago. I'm suspecting they've been posting letters to my old address which I left several years ago!

Anyhow, I've completed the moneyclaim section. I'm assuming i need to prepare a witness statement now, right? Also, any links to similar cases I can use for guidance?

Thanks!

ChirpyChicken

What exactly have you completed......
What defence did you log (if at all)

Gr1pr

You dont have a CCJ or a CCJ Notice,  you have a court claim against you from the CNBC in Northampton using MCOL 

abuhafs

ChirpyChicken said:

What exactly have you completed......
What defence did you log (if at all)

Logged into moneyclaim.gov.uk and completed the sections based on the link below. Nothing else yet
https://www.dropbox.com/s/xvqu3bask5m0zir/money-claim-online-How-to-Acknowledge.pdf?dl=0

abuhafs

Gr1pr said:

You dont have a CCJ or a CCJ Notice,  you have a court claim against you from the CNBC in Northampton using MCOL 

You're right lol. Its a claim form from CNBC Northampton

abuhafs

Attached as requested

Gr1pr

Adapt the defence template in the defence template thread at the top of the forum by coupon mad,  drafting paragraphs 2 & 3  ( your witness statement is not due for several months  !  )

Coupon-mad

And to gain confidence, read any DCB Legal claim threads to see what they put as their para 3. You don't even need to search... threads EXACTLY like yours are next to your thread, everywhere, every day!

KeithP

With a Claim Issue Date of 29th April, and having filed an Acknowledgment of Service('AOS') in a timely manner, you have until 4pm on Monday 2nd June 2025 to file a Defence.

That's over two weeks away. Plenty of time to produce a Defence but please don't leave it to the last minute.

To create a Defence, and then file a Defence by email, look at the second post in the NEWBIES thread.

Don't miss the deadline for filing a Defence.

Do not try and file a Defence via the MoneyClaimOnline website. Once an AOS has been filed, the MCOL website should be treated as 'read only'.

abuhafs

KeithP said:

With a Claim Issue Date of 29th April, and having filed an Acknowledgment of Service('AOS') in a timely manner, you have until 4pm on Monday 2nd June 2025 to file a Defence.

That's over two weeks away. Plenty of time to produce a Defence but please don't leave it to the last minute.

To create a Defence, and then file a Defence by email, look at the second post in the NEWBIES thread.

Don't miss the deadline for filing a Defence.

Do not try and file a Defence via the MoneyClaimOnline website. Once an AOS has been filed, the MCOL website should be treated as 'read only'.

Just to be clear, would i just write in the defence that the sign boards / parking restrictions were not visible enough and i missed the notices? or any other defence?

abuhafs

Here is the defence from the newbies thread template. I've added the para3 from @shahib_02 as recommended for DCB legal in the template. Not added any further wordings from myself. The rest of defence is as per template so havent added the lot here. Please advise, thanks

Particulars of Claim

1. The Defendant (D) is indebted to the Claimant (C) for a Parking Charge(s) (PC) issued to vehicle XXX at xxADDRESS.

2. The date of contravention is 06/11/2024

and the D was issued with PC(s) by the Claimant

3. The Defendant is pursued as the driver of the vehicle for breach of the terms on the signs (the contract). Reason: All Vehicles Must Hold A Valid NPC E Permit Or Clearly Display A Valid Permit In The Windscreen

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 PC(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

IN THE COUNTY COURT

Claim No.:  M0KF…

Between

National Parking Control……..

(Claimant) 

- and -  

Mr………………………..

 (Defendant)

_________________

DEFENCE

 

1.  The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to relief in the sum claimed, or at all.  It is denied that any conduct by the driver was in breach of any term.  Further, it is denied that this Claimant (understood to have a bare licence as agents) has standing to sue or form contracts in their own name. Liability is denied, whether or not the Claimant is claiming 'keeper liability', which is unclear from the boilerplate text in the Particulars of Claim ('the POC').

 

The facts known to the Defendant:

2. The facts in this defence come from the Defendant's own knowledge and honest belief.  Conversely, the Claimant sets out a cut-and-paste incoherent and sparse statement of case. The POC appear to be in breach of CPR 16.4, 16PD3 and 16PD7, and fail to "state all facts necessary for the purpose of formulating a complete cause of action". The Defendant is unable, on the basis of the POC, to understand with certainty what case, allegation(s) and what heads of cost are being pursued, making it difficult to respond. However, the vehicle is recognised and it is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper and driver.

 

3. Referring to the POC: paragraph 1 is denied. The Defendant is not indebted to the Claimant. Paragraph 2 is denied. Whilst the Defendant is the registered keeper, paragraphs 3 and 4 are denied. The Defendant is not liable and has seen no evidence 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.

 

4. The Claimant will concede that no financial loss has arisen and that in order to impose an inflated parking charge, as well as proving a term was breached, there must be:

(i). a strong 'legitimate interest' extending beyond mere compensation for loss, and

(Ii). 'adequate notice' of the 'penalty clause' charge which, in the case of a car park, requires prominent signs and lines.

5. The Defendant denies (i) or (ii) have been met. The charge imposed, in all the circumstances is a penalty, not saved by ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC67 ('the Beavis case'), which is fully distinguished.