Email them back and CC in yourself with the following:Thanks for your response. Email sent :)QuoteDear Sirs,
Your Letter of Claim contained insufficient detail of the claim and failed to provide copies of evidence your client places reliance upon and thus is in complete contravention of the Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims. Your subsequent response has not changed that fact and I now respond again, further advising you of your failures and that I now require further specific information.
Dear Sirs,
Your Letter of Claim contained insufficient detail of the claim and failed to provide copies of evidence your client places reliance upon and thus is in complete contravention of the Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims. Your subsequent response has not changed that fact and I now respond again, further advising you of your failures and that I now require further specific information.
Because your letters lack specificity and breach the requirements of the Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims (paragraphs 3.1(a)-(d), 5.1 and 5.2) as well as the Practice Direction - Pre-Action Conduct (paragraphs 6(a) and 6(c)), you must treat this letter as a further formal request for all of the documents/information that the protocol now requires your client to provide. Your client must not issue proceedings without complying with that protocol.
As solicitors you must surely be familiar with the requirements of both the Practice Direction and the Pre-Action Protocol for debt claims and your client, as a serial litigator of debt claims, should likewise be aware of them. As you (and your client) must know, the Practice Direction and Protocol bind all potential litigants, whatever the size or type of the claim. Its express purpose is to assist parties in understanding the claim and their respective positions in relation to it, to enable parties to take stock of their positions and to negotiate a settlement, or at least narrow the issues, without incurring the costs of court proceedings or using up valuable court time. It is embarrassing that a firm of Solicitors are sending a consumer a vague and un-evidenced 'Letter of Claim' in complete ignorance of the pre-existing Practice Direction and the Pre-Action Protocol.
I confirm that, once I am in receipt of a Letter Before Claim that fully complies with the requirements of para 3.1 (a) of the Pre-Action Protocol, I shall then seek advice and submit a formal response within 30 days, as required by the Protocol. Thus, I require your client to comply with its obligations by sending me the following information/documents:1. An explanation of the cause of action
2. whether they are pursuing me as driver or keeper
3. whether they are relying on the provisions of Schedule 4 of POFA 2012
4. what the details of the claim are; for how long it is claimed the vehicle was parked, how the monies being claimed arose and have been calculated
5. Is the claim for a contractual breach? If so, what is the date of the agreement? The names of the parties to it and provide to me a copy of that contract.
6. If the claim is for a contractual breach, photographs showing the vehicle was parked in contravention of said contract.
7. Is the claim for trespass? If so, provide details.
8. Provide me a copy of the contract with the landowner under which they assert authority to bring the claim, as required by the BPA/IPC Private Parking Single Code of Practice (PPSCoP).
9. a plan showing where any signs were displayed
10. Photographs of the signs displayed (size of sign, size of font, height at which displayed) at the time of any alleged contravention.
11. Provide details of the original charge, and detail any interest and administrative or other charges added
12. Am I to understand that the additional £70 represents what is dressed up as a 'Debt Recovery' fee, and if so, is this nett or inclusive of VAT? If the latter, would you kindly explain why I am being asked to pay the operator’s VAT?
13. With regard to the principal alleged PCN sum: Is this damages, or will it be pleaded as consideration for parking?
I am clearly entitled to this information under paragraphs 6(a) and 6(c) of the Practice Direction. I also need it in order to comply with my own obligations under paragraph 6(b).
If your client does not provide me with this information then I put you on notice that I will be relying on the cases of Webb Resolutions Ltd v Waller Needham & Green [2012] EWHC 3529 (Ch), Daejan Investments Limited v The Park West Club Limited (Part 20) Buxton Associates [2003] EWHC 2872, Charles Church Developments Ltd v Stent Foundations Limited & Peter Dann Limited [2007] EWHC 855 in asking the court to impose sanctions on your client and to order a stay of the proceedings, pursuant to paragraphs 13, 15(b) and (c) and 16 of the Practice Direction, as referred to in paragraph 7.2 of the Protocol.
Until your client has complied with its obligations and provided this information, I am unable to respond properly to the alleged claim and to consider my position in relation to it, and it is entirely premature (and a waste of costs and court time) for your client to issue proceedings. Should your client do so, then I will seek an immediate stay pursuant to paragraph 15(b) of the Practice Direction and an order that this information is provided.
Yours faithfully,
[Your name]
I’ve posted a couple of LoC responses over the last few days. Have a search and you can use one of those. Just show us before you send it to info@dcblegal.co.uk and CC in yourself.
You ignore all debt collector letters from powerless scammers like ZZPS (and their sister company GCTT). We don't need to see any debt collector letters. Never, ever, communicate with a useless, powerless debt collector. They are not a party to the contract allegedly breached by the driver.
Come back when you receive an LoC which is more likely than not going to be issued by DCB Legal (not their debt collection arm, DCBL).
Just ignore that letter and wait for them to issue their appeal rejection and a POPLA code. POPLA is unlikely to be much use in this instance either.
The most likely outcome to resolving this PCN is to let UKPC issue a county court claim through DCB Legal, defend it using a provided defence template and wait for their eventual discontinuation. They will discontinue a defended claim.
Once the council adopt those roads, that will be the end of UKPC's little profit machine in that area.
Not to worry though. No one pays a penny to UKPC if they're here getting advice. This is likely to of all the way to a claim in the county court issued by DCB Legal. If defended, as it will be if you're here. it will eventually be discontinued before they have to pay the rial fee. I am prepared to place money on that being the outcome.
I wonder if it's worth submitting the query to the council explicitly as a Freedom of Information Act request, to force a response.
Do both. Let's see which is responded to first.
I am the keeper of the vehicle and I dispute your 'parking charge'. I deny any liability or contractual agreement and I will be making a complaint about your predatory conduct to your client landowner.
As your Notice to Keeper (NtK) does not fully comply with ALL the requirements of PoFA 2012, you are unable to hold the keeper of the vehicle liable for the charge. Partial or even substantial compliance is not sufficient. There will be no admission as to who was driving and no inference or assumptions can be drawn. UKPC has relied on contract law allegations of breach against the driver only.
The registered keeper cannot be presumed or inferred to have been the driver, nor pursued under some twisted interpretation of the law of agency. Your NtK can only hold the driver liable. UKPC have no hope at POPLA, so you are urged to save us both a complete waste of time and cancel the PCN.
Interesting that the whole estate is unadopted. There appears to be statutory signage as required under the Traffic Management Act. Looking at GSV, there do not appear to be any signs that indicate the driver is entering private property that is managed by UKPC.
(https://i.imgur.com/rHPJchD.jpeg) (https://maps.app.goo.gl/RhfboUiGhzcz8NBT6)
That is the first sign on entering the estate and it is not compliant with the requirements of the BPA Code of Practice (CoP) for entrance signs. As it is sign with restrictions, it does not conform with requirements for readability from a moving vehicle.
This whole estate appears have public roads. You need to clarify the following in order to determine what is actually going on at this location:Quote1. Check with the Local Authority:
Contact the local council (often the Highways or Planning department) to inquire whether the roads are considered public highways or are subject to any specific statutory regulations. Even if the roads are unadopted, the local authority may have powers under certain statutes (like the Highways Act 1980 or Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984) to impose restrictions or make Traffic Regulation Orders (TROs) affecting the estate.
Ask for clarification on whether any TROs have been made that apply to these roads. If TROs are in place, statutory enforcement (such as parking or stopping restrictions) might apply despite the roads being unadopted.
2. Search for Traffic Regulation Orders (TROs):
Local authorities can issue Traffic Regulation Orders that apply to both adopted and unadopted roads. These orders can impose parking, stopping, or traffic restrictions on private roads open to the public.
Many councils publish TROs on their websites. Check the local council’s website for public notices or TRO registers.
You can also ask the council directly if any TROs have been made for the estate’s roads. If so, the restrictions would be legally enforceable under statutory law.
3. Check the Land Registry Records:
Obtain the Land Registry title documents for the estate. These documents can reveal who owns the roads and whether any public rights of way or legal agreements, like easements, have been granted that could impose statutory obligations or rights on the roads.
If public rights of way exist over the unadopted roads, there may be statutory obligations related to maintaining or regulating the roads.
4. Review Planning Permissions and Agreements (Section 106 or 38 Agreements):
Planning agreements made under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 or Section 38 of the Highways Act 1980 might contain provisions about how roads within an estate are managed. These agreements could require certain public access or maintenance obligations that involve statutory control.
Contact the council’s planning department to request details of any Section 106 agreements related to the estate’s development. These agreements can also include obligations for roads to be brought up to an adoptable standard, which could affect whether statutory law applies in the future.
5. Review Any Byelaws:
Check if the local council has enacted any byelaws that cover the estate. Some councils, especially in cases of new towns or regeneration areas, may have special byelaws in place that regulate traffic, parking, or stopping on unadopted roads.
Byelaws are typically published on the local council’s website or can be requested from the legal services department.
6. Consult Relevant Local Acts or Orders:
Some areas, particularly those with significant regeneration or new developments, may be governed by local acts or orders (e.g., New Town Acts) that impose statutory controls over roads within specific areas. You can inquire with the council or consult local archives to check if any such special legislative provisions apply to the estate.
8. Check Public Access Rights:
Statutory provisions often apply to roads or areas where the public has a legal right of access. Even if a road is privately owned and unadopted, if the public has a general right of access (or has used the road without restriction for a period, potentially creating a public right of way), some statutory controls, like road safety or parking enforcement laws, might still apply.
I seriously doubt that those roads in that estate are not covered by some statute or other.
Here is a suggested draft of an email or letter you should send to the council:QuoteSubject: Inquiry Regarding Statutory Controls on Roads in Berewood Estate, Waterlooville (Marellsmoore Avenue)
Dear [Council Official or Department Name],
I am writing to inquire about the status of the roads within the Berewood Estate, Waterlooville, specifically focusing on Marellsmoore Avenue. I would like to understand whether there are any statutory controls or Traffic Regulation Orders (TROs) governing these roads.
I am particularly concerned about the activities of an unregulated private parking company (UKPC), which is issuing Parking Charge Notices (PCNs) to motorists within the estate. UKPC is presenting these PCNs under the guise of enforcing traffic offences, such as stopping or parking on yellow lines, and they claim the ability to hold vehicle keepers liable under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA).
To ensure a clear understanding of the legal framework governing these roads, I would be grateful if you could confirm the following:
Are the roads in the Berewood Estate, specifically Marellsmoore Avenue, subject to any statutory controls or Traffic Regulation Orders (TROs) issued by Hampshire County Council or any other statutory authority?
If so, could you provide details of any such orders or controls, including how they might affect parking enforcement on these roads?
Does Hampshire County Council have any role in regulating the parking arrangements or enforcement practices on these unadopted roads within the estate?
Your clarification would be helpful, as it will assist in understanding the legal position regarding the private parking company’s enforcement practices and whether they align with any statutory or contractual regulations in place.
Thank you for your assistance, and I look forward to your response.
Yours sincerely,
[Your Name]
[Your Contact Information]
1. Check with the Local Authority:
Contact the local council (often the Highways or Planning department) to inquire whether the roads are considered public highways or are subject to any specific statutory regulations. Even if the roads are unadopted, the local authority may have powers under certain statutes (like the Highways Act 1980 or Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984) to impose restrictions or make Traffic Regulation Orders (TROs) affecting the estate.
Ask for clarification on whether any TROs have been made that apply to these roads. If TROs are in place, statutory enforcement (such as parking or stopping restrictions) might apply despite the roads being unadopted.
2. Search for Traffic Regulation Orders (TROs):
Local authorities can issue Traffic Regulation Orders that apply to both adopted and unadopted roads. These orders can impose parking, stopping, or traffic restrictions on private roads open to the public.
Many councils publish TROs on their websites. Check the local council’s website for public notices or TRO registers.
You can also ask the council directly if any TROs have been made for the estate’s roads. If so, the restrictions would be legally enforceable under statutory law.
3. Check the Land Registry Records:
Obtain the Land Registry title documents for the estate. These documents can reveal who owns the roads and whether any public rights of way or legal agreements, like easements, have been granted that could impose statutory obligations or rights on the roads.
If public rights of way exist over the unadopted roads, there may be statutory obligations related to maintaining or regulating the roads.
4. Review Planning Permissions and Agreements (Section 106 or 38 Agreements):
Planning agreements made under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 or Section 38 of the Highways Act 1980 might contain provisions about how roads within an estate are managed. These agreements could require certain public access or maintenance obligations that involve statutory control.
Contact the council’s planning department to request details of any Section 106 agreements related to the estate’s development. These agreements can also include obligations for roads to be brought up to an adoptable standard, which could affect whether statutory law applies in the future.
5. Review Any Byelaws:
Check if the local council has enacted any byelaws that cover the estate. Some councils, especially in cases of new towns or regeneration areas, may have special byelaws in place that regulate traffic, parking, or stopping on unadopted roads.
Byelaws are typically published on the local council’s website or can be requested from the legal services department.
6. Consult Relevant Local Acts or Orders:
Some areas, particularly those with significant regeneration or new developments, may be governed by local acts or orders (e.g., New Town Acts) that impose statutory controls over roads within specific areas. You can inquire with the council or consult local archives to check if any such special legislative provisions apply to the estate.
8. Check Public Access Rights:
Statutory provisions often apply to roads or areas where the public has a legal right of access. Even if a road is privately owned and unadopted, if the public has a general right of access (or has used the road without restriction for a period, potentially creating a public right of way), some statutory controls, like road safety or parking enforcement laws, might still apply.
Subject: Inquiry Regarding Statutory Controls on Roads in Berewood Estate, Waterlooville (Marellsmoore Avenue)
Dear [Council Official or Department Name],
I am writing to inquire about the status of the roads within the Berewood Estate, Waterlooville, specifically focusing on Marellsmoore Avenue. I would like to understand whether there are any statutory controls or Traffic Regulation Orders (TROs) governing these roads.
I am particularly concerned about the activities of an unregulated private parking company (UKPC), which is issuing Parking Charge Notices (PCNs) to motorists within the estate. UKPC is presenting these PCNs under the guise of enforcing traffic offences, such as stopping or parking on yellow lines, and they claim the ability to hold vehicle keepers liable under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA).
To ensure a clear understanding of the legal framework governing these roads, I would be grateful if you could confirm the following:
Are the roads in the Berewood Estate, specifically Marellsmoore Avenue, subject to any statutory controls or Traffic Regulation Orders (TROs) issued by Hampshire County Council or any other statutory authority?
If so, could you provide details of any such orders or controls, including how they might affect parking enforcement on these roads?
Does Hampshire County Council have any role in regulating the parking arrangements or enforcement practices on these unadopted roads within the estate?
Your clarification would be helpful, as it will assist in understanding the legal position regarding the private parking company’s enforcement practices and whether they align with any statutory or contractual regulations in place.
Thank you for your assistance, and I look forward to your response.
Yours sincerely,
[Your Name]
[Your Contact Information]
That whole estate appears to be infested with UKPC signs. However, are you sure that those roads in the estate are under statutory control? Are they maintained privately or does the local authority maintain them?
Is the road covered under the Traffic Management Act 2004?
You can confirm whether the road is public or private by checking with the local authority's highway department. Some councils also maintain online maps or lists of adopted roads. If the road is “adopted”, then it is under statutory control and there can be no Keeper liability, no matter how UKPC try to mendaciously suggest otherwise in their NtK.
Do you have any photos of the signage at the site? It's very often rubbish at these sort of private road set ups.
Another thing to check is whether the site is indeed a private road and not an adopted highway.
We can help with appeals etc. If they are unsuccessful then as b789 notes, this will probably end up in a court claim being issued. A pattern has emerged with UKPC where they eventually discontinue any claim that is defended. Nobody can (or should) offer you any guarantees, as past conduct does not guarantee future conduct, but based on their track record there's a very strong chance. Some entertaining reading to be found on the matter here: DCB LEGAL RECORD OF PRIVATE PARKING COURT CLAIM DISCONTINUATIONS (https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6377263/dcb-legal-record-of-private-parking-court-claim-discontinuations)