To give update MCOL claim history now shows that DQ has been submitted by me and claim was transferred to county court closer to me. please see attached Hope this is ok if not please let me know. I believe I will soon be getting the date of hearing I will attach my witness statement soon to be reviewed. Original Windscreen PCN - Copy.pdf Reprinted Windscreen PCN - Copy.pdf Planning Permission - Copy.pdf

The claim history on MCOL is still not showing DQ submitted by defendant I sent the DQ in first class signed post and can also see it was received on 23rd Feb but still claim history is not updated. I tried to call Civil National Business Centre but no one picks up, what shall I do? I am worried please advice.

To give update I sent DQ today to court and solicitor

Please see MCOL claim history attached. I haven't submitted DQ yet was waiting for response here. On the letter I can't see where it says "To the claimant" and also there is deadline of 26 Feb 2024 to complete the DQ (Form N180). Please advice. MCOL latest.pdf

on 13th Feb I received attached Notice of Proposed Allocation to the Small Claims Track which I have prefilled however the pack is missing section C and D is that because it is not applicable/required? or do I need to print full copy of direction questionnaire from justice.gov.uk site and sent that instead? Noticed of proposed allocation to the small claims track - Copy.pdf

Today I received attached letter from DCBLegal mentioning they are going ahead with the claim. 2024-01-30 DCBL client proceeding + proposeed DQ N180.pdf

Please see attached pdf for widescreen ticket. 2019-12-05 MET Windscreen PCN 20-25PM.pdf

Today I received attached pack (Part 1, Part 2 I will attached immediately after this post) from DCBLegal. It says both parties will be order to file and serve all evidences they intend to rely on. In terms of evidences I actually submitted some at the very beginning will that suffice or shall I revisit the place to get fresh evidence? Attached pack also shows letter with mention of only £100 can I use DBCLegal letters with £170 as evidence of adding additional charges? Thanks. Here is the 2nd part CRP Return .pdf

Sorry but I am still confused I take that I need to say "yes" for mediation. Am I right?

can you please clarify I think mine is a case of Private Parking Ticket means no to mediation? but you advised to say yes?

I have read few threads and next step possibly is to fill out N180 Directions Questionnaire if claim proceeds? If so I have looked at the form on gov.uk and I guess same will be sent to me in Post by court? I have looked at different sections of N180 and provided answers below can you please confirm if those are fine? and please also help where I am not sure what answer to select Section A Do you agree to this case being referred to the Small Claims Mediation Service? No Section B - Here I fill my contact details but leave it blank in the copy that I send to MET and DBCL? Section C Do you agree that the small claims track is the appropriate track for this case? Yes Section D - Need help answering below question. Do you consider that this claim is suitable for determination without a hearing, i.e. by a judge reading and considering the case papers, witness statements and other documents filed by the parties, making a decision, and giving a note of reasons for that decision? Yes Or No If No, please state why not. Not sure if ‘Small Claims Paper Determination Pilot’ applies in my case and how does that work or my case is something judge needs to hear directly? Section E - For below question shall I mention address of my local county court or leave it empty? , side note also mentions that there is no guarantee of transfer to this court. At which County Court hearing centre would you prefer the small claims hearing to take place and why? Are you asking for the court’s permission to use the written evidence of an expert? No How many witnesses, including yourself, will give evidence on your behalf at the hearing? 1 Are there any days within the next six months when you, an expert or a witness will not be able to attend court for the hearing? No Section F Have you been advised of your right to give evidence in either Welsh or English? Yes Sign - again I don't do this in the copy I sent to MET and DBCL, am I right? Thanks

Thanks for your help I have submitted the defence. What is the next step? I suppose I will need to keep checking MCOL site to see if Claimant still wants to proceed with the case?

Thanks I have modified point 7 please confirm and I will submit this on MCOL site. The Defendant contends that the particulars of claim are vague and generic in nature which fails to comply with CPR 16.4. The Defendant accordingly sets out its case below and relies on CPR r 16.5 (3) in relation to any particular allegation to which a specific response has not been made. 1. The Defendant is the recorded keeper of [motor vehicle]. 2. It is denied that the Defendant entered into a contract with the Claimant. 3. As held by the Upper Tax Tribunal in Vehicle Control Services Limited v HMRC [2012] UKUT 129 (TCC), any contract requires offer and acceptance. The Claimant was simply contracted by the landowner to provide car-park management services and is not capable of entering into a contract with the Defendant on its own account, as the car park is owned by and the terms of entry set by the landowner. Accordingly, it is denied that the Claimant has authority to bring this claim. 4. In any case it is denied that the Defendant broke the terms of a contract with the Claimant. 5. The Claimant is attempting double recovery by adding an additional sum not included in the original offer. 6. The Defendant questions the claimant’s reason for a +4yrs delay in issuing this claim with regard toward their section 69 court interest figure when their legal position appears not to have changed since PCN issuance. 7. The claimant is put to strict proof to disclose and quantify what damages have been incurred which have been added to the total claim. 8. The Particulars of Claim is denied in its entirety. It is denied that the Claimant is entitled to the relief claimed or any relief at all.

Now added. The Defendant contends that the particulars of claim are vague and generic in nature which fails to comply with CPR 16.4. The Defendant accordingly sets out its case below and relies on CPR r 16.5 (3) in relation to any particular allegation to which a specific response has not been made. 1. The Defendant is the recorded keeper of [motor vehicle]. 2. It is denied that the Defendant entered into a contract with the Claimant. 3. As held by the Upper Tax Tribunal in Vehicle Control Services Limited v HMRC [2012] UKUT 129 (TCC), any contract requires offer and acceptance. The Claimant was simply contracted by the landowner to provide car-park management services and is not capable of entering into a contract with the Defendant on its own account, as the car park is owned by and the terms of entry set by the landowner. Accordingly, it is denied that the Claimant has authority to bring this claim. 4. In any case it is denied that the Defendant broke the terms of a contract with the Claimant. 5. The Claimant is attempting double recovery by adding an additional sum not included in the original offer. 6. The Defendant questions the claimant’s reason for a +4yrs delay in issuing this claim with regard toward their section 69 court interest figure when their legal position appears not to have changed since PCN issuance. 7. the defendant questions what damages the claimant has suffered. 8. The Particulars of Claim is denied in its entirety. It is denied that the Claimant is entitled to the relief claimed or any relief at all.

after all your suggestions I have now prepared below defence can you both please review? I suppose I need to submit this defence on MCOL site instead of posting? Many Thanks for your help. The Defendant contends that the particulars of claim are vague and generic in nature which fails to comply with CPR 16.4. The Defendant accordingly sets out its case below and relies on CPR r 16.5 (3) in relation to any particular allegation to which a specific response has not been made. 1. The Defendant is the recorded keeper of [motor vehicle]. 2. It is denied that the Defendant entered into a contract with the Claimant. 3. As held by the Upper Tax Tribunal in Vehicle Control Services Limited v HMRC [2012] UKUT 129 (TCC), any contract requires offer and acceptance. The Claimant was simply contracted by the landowner to provide car-park management services and is not capable of entering into a contract with the Defendant on its own account, as the car park is owned by and the terms of entry set by the landowner. Accordingly, it is denied that the Claimant has authority to bring this claim. 4. In any case it is denied that the Defendant broke the terms of a contract with the Claimant. 5. The Claimant is attempting double recovery by adding an additional sum not included in the original offer. 6. The Defendant questions the claimant’s reason for a +4yrs delay in issuing this claim with regard toward their section 69 court interest figure when their legal position appears not to have changed since PCN issuance. 6. The Particulars of Claim is denied in its entirety. It is denied that the Claimant is entitled to the relief claimed or any relief at all.