It's certainly a weight off my mind! Thank you all for all the great advice and for taking the time to answer questions etc.

Hi. Apologies it has been a long while since my last update. In the meantime I had a phone call from UKPC's Legal Representatives requesting a conversation without prejudice, asking if I would be willing to settle the case for the original value of the PCN, which I declined. All the while the process was rumbling on, I had requested which court I would like the case to be heard and so on. Then had an email offering to settle out of court, which represented a small discount over what they were asking for. I have now received a Notice of Discontinuance and have also received an order from the court stating that the trial is vacated. This all feels like great news to me?

I have checked mcol. It says DQ filed by claimant. They filed theirs the same day it was sent to me.

Afternoon. Quick update. The N180 has been completed and sent - copy to the court and copy to the claimant (their legal rep). Is it just a case of sit tight and wait now, should I be looking at my witness statement just yet? Thanks as always!

Quick update. So as was said, it being stayed after 28 days is clearly not a thing as I have now received the Notice of Proposed Allocation paperwork. I must complete the Small Claims Directions Questionnaire (Form N180) by March 31st, so that's an activity for this weekend!

Do you mean the 28 day limit for the Claimant to respond? This was just what the court told me and just took it as read, but having no previous experience of this I'll take it thats not the case? My primary concern was that I had missed something and things were happening without my knowledge, so I am happy thats not the case.

Hi. There has been a bit of a lull in activity recently. I got a letter from the Courts saying the defence had been served to the Claimant and they need to respond within 28 days. No further comms since. In other news, the DVLA SAR info has come back. UKPC Ltd requested my details on 4/1/22 and their speculative invoice, a copy of which they sent me as part of the CPR31.14 request, was dated 5/1/22, so unfortunately it seems they have done everything within requisite time. The only thing they may not have done is actually post it, or Royal Mail may have neglected to deliver it!

Thanks dx for confirming. Defence submitted. I guess now I await further direction from the Courts?

Quick (possibly silly) question... when I post my defence on the MCOL site, should I add the additional contact details (phone, email) or leave it blank? Thanks

I am going to post the defence today, just to be sure, is there anything that stands out as being wrong with what I have? As always, any help greatly appreciated.

I have read through some threads on here and have put together my first crack at a defence - taking head to keep it brief and not go mad on adding too many points. I did read CPR 16.4 and 16.5(3) to make sure those statements were accurate before adding them. 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 16.5 (3) in relation to any particular allegation to which a specific response has not been made. 1. The Defendant was the recorded keeper of vehicle XXXX XXX, at the time of the alleged incident. The Claimant is not in a position to state if the Defendant was the driver at the time. 2. It is denied that the Defendant entered into a contract with the Claimant. 3. There are no contractual costs and interest cannot be accrued on a speculative charge, further it is denied that the Claimant’s signage is capable of creating a legally binding contract. 4. 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. 5. In any case it is denied that the Defendant broke the terms of a contract with the Claimant. 6. Therefore the claimant is put to strict proof to evidence its cause of action and contractual costs and what loss it has suffered. 7. The Claimant is further put to strict proof that it has sufficient proprietary interest in the land, or that it has the necessary authorisation from the landowner to issue parking charge notices, and to pursue payment by means of litigation. 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.

This is my concern as well, however, once DVLA respond to the SAR I should be able to see if the date on the PCN is actually accurate or not... there is always a risk of course that they requested details immediately and then sat on it for some time and backdated the PCN to ensure compliance...

Thanks for the feedback. The original PCN does have the correct address on it, odd that I never received it but have received all subsequent letters from their legal teams. This is the frustrating thing about it, it may seem like it was wanton disregard but for the duration we were genuine customers of one of the retail outlets which is why I am really annoyed that DFS left me high and dry with it. I assume that an overstay is a more challenging situation to defend against? The date on the PCN suggests it was sent within the required time frame as well.

I have managed to get everything into a single pdf, but the file size is up at 16MB, so I am going to have to break it down into multiple files to get it up here.

Got a reasonably prompt answer to my CPR31.14 request, which includes the PCNs I never received and a copy of their contract with the land owners.