I have received the Notoce of Allocations now. MCOL website shows this A claim was issued against you on 15/02/2023 Your acknowledgment of service was submitted on 28/02/2023 at 18:12:10 Your acknowledgment of service was received on 01/03/2023 at 08:06:22 Your defence was submitted on 15/03/2023 at 14:50:57 Your defence was received on 15/03/2023 at 16:05:09 Case Stay Lifted on 12/05/2023 DQ sent to you on 12/05/2023 DQ filed by claimant on 12/05/2023

thanks dx.. MCOL status still says defence

Nothing yet on DQ ... this is a bit concerning ! and no indication that they have dropped it either Am thinking of sending the DQ response by downloading the template earlier in the thread?

Still at defence on mcol site. No DQ letters from the courts

mcol website last update says defence was received... Your defence was submitted on 15/03/2023 at XXXXX Your defence was received on 15/03/2023 at XXXXX

Apologies , turns out the thing i have received is an acknowledgement of defence and not the DQ from the courts. I was on a work trip out of town last few days- so wasnt able to check. flattie texted me that there was a court stamped letter deliverd . Thanks DX I have read up some of the threads that you pointed me to .. so back to waiting for the DQ from the courts. How did the chances get their DQ so early? Did they download it from the site and sent across on their own accord without court had a chance to send them the letter? I m now a bit worried that I missed any mail due to being away.

Now have received the DQ from the courts on 23 march 2023. How much time do i have to respond to the DQ Also. I should send this by recorded delivery?

So - I have received an email from Gadstones saying they intend to proceed and they have attached a copy of the Claimant’s completed Directions Questionnaire, I didnt give them my email , only to the MCOL website. Not sure if the courts shared my email with them. Acc to other threads, I have to send them an email stating NOT to use email for communications correct? Also , I wait for my own DQ from the court to fill out?

Aye aye Captain DX

Submitted the defence.. If they don't cancel now.. they have themselves to blame .. lol

Thanks @Nicky Boy @FTMDave- Appreciate your inputs. Which points from my defence would you advise to cut out? I have only added #4 & #5 BTW - I used the generic defence template. The POC is only for our reference.

POC - For Reference 1.The driver of the vehicle with registration XXXX parked in breach of the terms of parking stipulated on the signage (the contract) at Gatwick 80 Crawley CCTV – Gatwick rd Crawley West Sussex RH10 9PL on 06/08/2021, thus incurring the parking charge (The PCN). 2.The PCN was not paid within 28 days of the issue. 3. The claimant claims the unpaid PCN from the defendant as the driver/keeper of the vehicle. 4.Despite demands being made, the defendant has failed to settle their outstanding liability. The claimant claims £100 for the PCN, £ 70 Contractual costs pursuant to the contract and the PCN terms and conditions, together with statutory interest of £xx pursuant to s69 of the county courts act 1984 at 10.25% per annum, continuing £0.05 per day Defence 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 the vehicle XXX. 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. The Defendant avers that the Claimant failed to serve a Notice to Keeper compliant with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. Consequently, the claimant cannot transfer liability for this charge to the Defendant as keeper of the vehicle. 5. It is unclear from the particulars of the claim in which capacity, the claimant is pursuing the defendant - the driver or the keeper. 6. In any case it is denied that the Defendant broke the terms of a contract with the Claimant. 7. The Claimant is attempting double recovery by adding an additional sum not included in the original offer. 8. Not withstanding the above on xx xxxx 2021 I made a request pursuant to CPR 31.14 for the claimant to disclose its necessary evidence in support if its claim. Therefore the claimant is put to strict proof to evidence its cause of action and contractual costs and what loss it has suffered. 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. The Particulars of Claim is denied in its entirety. It is denied that the Claimant is entitled to the recovery or any recovery at all. Please advise on any refinements. Also a couple of questions if you can answer 1> Does my friend need to declare the driver at this stage? 2> Re #3 in defence The Claimant was simply contracted by the landowner to provide car-park management services and is not capable of entering into a contract Since we havent seen the PPC contract with the landowner yet, is it okay to put this in defence as stated fact?

Thanks DX. So its time for the defence. In the defence .. Should my friend state who the driver was, if he was himself was driving?

Adding the google maps images of the location. The red rectangle is where the parking event took place in page 1. The only images of restrictions at entry is the same as the page 3 of the original Wall Sign PDF. Its also confusing because it seems that they are referring to the Marshalls Toyota car park to the left. The Euro Car Parts shop is straight on the road and that road doesnt at all look like a managed car park. BTW the post code mentioned in the PCN is wrong as well. RH10 9PL as per Google is the next side street that my friend says he has never entered ever. GoogleMaps_Images1.pdf

Thanks DX. Details as per the sticky thread MCOL Northampton claim Name of the Claimant: Premier Park Ltd Claimants Solicitors: Gladstones Date of issue – 15th Feb 2023 Date for AOS - 24th Feb 2023 Date to submit Defence – 17 March 2023 What is the claim for- 1.The driver of the vehicle with registration XXXX parked in breach of the terms of parking stipulated on the signage (the contract) at Gatwick 80 Crawley CCTV – Gatwick rd Crawley West Sussex RH10 9PL on 06/08/2021, thus incurring the parking charge (The PCN). 2.The PCN was not paid within 28 days of the issue. 3. The claimant claims the unpaid PCN from the defendant as the driver/keeper of the vehicle. 4.Despite demands being made, the defendant has failed to settle their outstanding liability. The claimant claims £100 for the PCN, £ 70 Contractual costs pursuant to the contract and the PCN terms and conditions, together with statutory interest of £xx pursuant to s69 of the county courts act 1984 at 10.25% per annum, continuing £0.05 per day What is the value of the claim? Amount Claimed 195.23 court fees 35 legal rep fees 50 Total Amount 280.23