CCP Court Letter

t_rage

Hi all,

I have had a letter come through demanding money through a CCJ from a parking event in 2021. Even though I parked paid for it and appealed it at the time. The specific car park within the hospital works on validation service for private hospital customers and is free. So not in same "plan" as the rest of the car parks literally situated next to each other at the time I hadn't realised. The initial appeal was rejected I had read and seemed like on this matter it would be worth wating to see the how far it would progress I had DCB Legal letters which had gone away in the last couple of year then had a letter before action recently and now the CCJ letter from the court.

Any advice on how to respond in this specific case? I have read that technicalities aren't good enough to appeal on having paid fora ticket for the wrong car park? Many thanks.

Le_Kirk

Is it a judgment letter you have received or is it a N1SDT claim form?

t_rage

It is a N1SDT claim form. Sorry I'm new to this so unsure of the difference and which is more severe.

Gr1pr

A CCJ would be the more severe, so you have a Money Claim N1SDT pack from the CNBC in Northampton using MCOL arrive in the post ( not a CCJ. )

Post a redacted picture of the claim form below after hiding the following items

The claim reference number top right

Your name and address on the left

The VRM details in the POC on the lower left

The password on the lower right

Double check the 4 items above cannot be seen, take a picture and attach it to your post below, with a brief message

t_rage

Thank you, please see if the below if acceptable. As mentioned the Bmi is/was the private hospital that required validation if you are a specific patient there rather than a the normal hospital where I thought I was parking and paid for a ticket. I believe the signage was not adequate to differentiate this.

Gr1pr

Study the 2nd post in the newbies sticky thread in announcements near the top of the forum, then study the 8 steps in the defence template thread in announcements too

Over the weekend, login to MCOL via your government gateway account and complete the AOS online stage first, to get that step out of the way in a couple of days time

You will then use the Chan and Akande defence template as your defence, due to the actual breach not pleaded in the POC on the lower left of the claim form ( read point 3. )

There is no rush, so get up to speed over the next few days

Coupon-mad

"I thought I was parking and paid for a ticket. I believe the signage was not adequate to differentiate this."

Yes we saw that on another thread you posted on. Misleading signs saying 'pay here' and two undelineated car parks next to each other is a perfect storm for patients who clearly want to comply and get to their appointments.

You'll never have to pay a penny because the DCB Legal / ParkingEye combo are seeking out default (undefended case) CCJs and the inflated money in these claims.

Some 90% of cases go to a default CCJ according to MoJ court stats given to the MHCLG back in 2021/22. Then DCB Group pile on the pressure and people are effectively 'credit-clamped' into paying unlawfully inflated sums.

Over a hundred and twenty thousand claims p.a. are filed by DCB Legal for parking firms, so the maths tells you that inflating claims and often using old addresses to cause CCJ harm, pays.

The law firm splits the false added £70 'damages' (LOL!) with the parking firm client which, in itself, offends against public policy on real fees. These added £70 per PCN sums aren't real fees or damages, it's sharing unlawful spoils which add up to an enormous sum 'extorted from motorists' (so said Neil O'Brien MP, the former UK Minister for Levelling Up).

However, when people like you defend, ALL cases with these two protagonists are discontinued before they have to pay the hearing fee. It is a no-brainer to use our easy defence template.

You'll pay nothing and they'll throw in the towel by the New Year.

The whole arrabgement with ParkingEye, Smart Oarking, UKOC, Euro Car Patks, iPark Setvices, Observices, MET Parking and others signed up for the same business arrangement is a questionable MO by DCB Legal.

It verges on - possibly crosses the line - to an abuse of the court process and 'champerty and maintenance' IMHO, and I think the CMA should investigate this model next.

t_rage

Great, I will do as advised and look at the response and share the draft.

Thanks again both, I been helped over the years by the forum for unfair charges and always received fast responses and ultimately successful help from everyone on here!

Le_Kirk

With an issue date of 17/08/26 and providing you complete(d) the AoS before or on 05/09/26 your defence deadline date is 4.00 p.m. on 21/09/26