No nothing new in MCOL. I take it I don’t need to bother responding then?

Thanks Nicky will do. Very kind of them to give me notice of the good news awaiting!

Hi I’ve just had my latest letter off DCB advising their client intends to proceed with claim. The court will direct both parties to file directions questionnaires in due course. In anticipation we are enclosing a copy. ….our client may be prepared to settle this case. Therefore call 0203 838 7038 within 7 days. form N180 enclosed and completed

Many thanks for replies, I'll send letter off shortly

Not sure. Maybe through Parkonomy?? Only other occasion was on MCOL form.

thanks HB will do. Infuriating how they able to even grab hold of my no in the first place.

Hi all DCB just tried calling me unannounced. They caught me a bit off guard so when the asked for me, I said me wasn’t available at the moment. They asked for me to call them back. Hope I didn’t say the wrong thing.

Ok that’s great thanks. I’ll wait another hour then send it

Is it safe to reveal phone number and email to MCOL? Or just leave it blank?

Thanks DX just getting the ball rolling now

Just double checking will the defence I posted above be sufficient for later today?

Hi I believe my defence is due Monday. But I wouldn’t say maths is my strong point, therefore would you suggest sending over tomorrow might be a good idea just to be on the safe side, taking the weekend into account?

Thanks DX. No I just had a loose end tonight so wanted to put it to good use. I will deffo hold fire for now tho thanks

Thanks Nicky, this one... 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 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.