Claim form only contains initial, not first name.

Jambo27

Hi there,

Just wondering if anyone has any guidence.

I am helping a friend who has a County Court claim form and she needs to file acknowlegement of service.

The claim form and the parking charge notices have all been addressed to her with just Initial and last name.

She did appeal initially and acknowledged to being the driver, but as the Court Claim Form doesn't have her name on. Is there anything that can be used to request the dismissal of the case, or another tactic? It could be anyone in the house, maybe 2 or 3 people living at that address with the same initial and family name.

Parking Company: Smart Parking Ltd.

Legal rep: DCB Legal

Thorndorise

I think you may have answered your own question, if she appealed and acknowledged she was the driver then I suspect you (they) will have to follow the ongoing process as that person (i.e. the initialled and named driver).

Details are important and there are usually other ways to look at these and challenge them. Sharing the POC (redacted with all personal details) is helpful to the others on here to support you further - of you have the first NtK also please share redacted....where was this also - there may be other mitigating factors.

Gr1pr

The MCOL system allows defendants to correct these details, but if its obvious that the recipient is the target and possibly the keeper and revealed who was driving,  then I would suggest that the recipient defendant continues in the usual manner,  same as all the rest on here 

Ie , it's not a dealbreaker 

Definitely dont lie about it,  don't suggest that it could be somebody else 

Many people get written to with one or more initials and a surname,  such as M T Mouse, or A N Other 

Le_Kirk

Presumably there is a VRM on the claim form so it should be obvious to whom they have addressed/sent the N1SDT.  Doesn't mean the addressee was the driver but will have to defend it.  What is the issue date of the claim form.

Car1980

Since it's only Smart Parking and DCB Legal it'll be discontinued anyway. So no need for any lateral thinking.

Use the template defence and they'll cave-in in a few months.

Jambo27

Le_Kirk said:

Presumably there is a VRM on the claim form so it should be obvious to whom they have addressed/sent the N1SDT.  Doesn't mean the addressee was th driver but will have to defend it.  What is the issue date of the claim form.

Ok the AOS has been filed just now on MCOL, they gave a reference on the paperwork.

The Issue date printed on the form was 17th Oct. Plus there's 5 days so we should just be in time.

Will now spend some time putting together a defense, plus as @Car1980 has said DCBL are known for discontinuing anyway, which I have read a few times in other threads.

Le_Kirk

Jambo27 said:

Le_Kirk said:

Presumably there is a VRM on the claim form so it should be obvious to whom they have addressed/sent the N1SDT.  Doesn't mean the addressee was the driver but will have to defend it.  What is the issue date of the claim form.

Ok the AOS has been filed just now on MCOL, they gave a reference on the paperwork.

The Issue date printed on the form was 17th Oct. Plus there's 5 days so we should just be in time.

With an issue date of 17/10/25 and having completed the AoS in a timely manner your defence deadline date is 4.00 p.m. on 19/11/25

Coupon-mad

"She did appeal initially and acknowledged to being the driver"

What a shame. That ruins the usual defence point used for Smart Parking cases, so the D will have to just do a generic para 3.

Jambo27

Hi everyone.

I am going through the defense posted on the newbies forum.

She has found the original NTK & her appeal + their response.

In the mean time, is there any point in:

* Requesting any of the documents they state in the Paticulars (I know that CPR31.14 does not aplly to small claims). They mention the "Contract" & "PCN".

* Doing a SAR?

Coupon-mad

No.  Just bung in the template defence.