Send the following email in response to info@dcblegal.co.uk and CC yourself:
Subject: Response to your Letter of Claim Ref: [reference number]
Dear Sirs,
Your Letter Before Claim contains insufficient detail of the claim and fails to provide copies of the evidence your client places reliance upon, putting it in clear breach of the Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims.
As a supposed firm of solicitors, one would expect you to comply with paragraphs 3.1(a)–(d), 5.1 and 5.2 of the Protocol, and paragraphs 6(a) and 6(c) of the Practice Direction. These provisions exist to facilitate informed discussion and proportionate resolution. You may wish to reacquaint yourselves with them.
The Civil Procedure Rules 1998, Pre-Action Conduct and Protocols (Part 3), require the exchange of sufficient information to understand each other’s position. Part 6 clarifies that this includes disclosure of key documents relevant to the issues in dispute.
Your template letter refers to a “contract” yet encloses none. That omission undermines the only foundation upon which your client’s claim allegedly rests. It is not possible to engage in meaningful pre-litigation dialogue while you decline to furnish the very document you purport to enforce.
I confirm that, once I am in receipt of a Letter Before Claim that complies with para 3.1(a), I shall seek advice and submit a formal response within 30 days, as required. Accordingly, please provide:
1. A copy of the original Notice to Keeper (NtK) and any notice chain relied upon to assert PoFA 2012 liability.
2. A copy of the contract you allege exists between your client and the driver, being an actual photograph of the sign(s) in place on the material date (not a stock image), together with a site plan showing the sign locations.
3. The precise wording of the clause(s) allegedly breached.
4. The written agreement between your client and the landowner evidencing standing/authority to enforce and to litigate.
5. A breakdown of the sums claimed, identifying whether the principal sum is claimed as consideration or damages, and whether the £70 “debt recovery” add-on includes VAT.
I am entitled to this information under paragraphs 6(a) and 6(c) of the Practice Direction, and I require it to meet my own obligation under paragraph 6(b).
If you fail to provide the above, I will treat that as non-compliance with the PAPDC and Pre-Action Conduct and will raise a formal complaint to the SRA regarding your conduct. I reserve the right to place this correspondence before the Court and to seek appropriate sanctions and costs (including, where appropriate, a stay and/or other case management orders).
Until your client complies and provides the requested material, I am unable to respond properly to the alleged claim or to consider my position. It would be premature and a waste of costs and court time to issue proceedings. Should you do so, I will seek immediate case management relief pursuant to paragraph 15(b) of the Practice Direction and an order compelling provision of the above.
Please note, I will not engage with any web portal; I will only respond by email or post.
Yours faithfully,
[Your name]
So, they are going to reject any appeal and provide a POPLA code for a secondary appeal to the not so independent POPLA. You will have to convince POPLA that the signage is inadequate and that the Notice to Keeper (NtK) is deficient or that their procedure was deficient.
Whilst their NtK was PoFA compliant, there is a glaring deficiency in their process which has invalidate any Keeper liability...
Under Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA), a Keeper cannot be held liable unless the parking operator fully complies with the statutory requirements.
Key Dates:
• NtK Issue Date: Tuesday, 10th December 2024
• Deemed Delivery Date: Thursday, 12th December 2024 (two working days later, as per PoFA 9(6) and PPSCoP 8.1.2)
PoFA Paragraph 9(2)(f) states that the Keeper can only be held liable if the charge remains unpaid after 28 full days have elapsed from the presumed delivery date of the NtK.
Since the NtK was deemed delivered on Thursday 12th December 2024, the 28-day period runs:
• Start Date: Friday 13th December 2024
• End Date: Thursday 9th January 2025
Therefore the Keeper cannot be liable under PoFA before Thursday 9th January 2025.
UKPC issued a Final Reminder on Tuesday 24th December 2024, stating:
"As 14 days have lapsed, you, the Registered Keeper of the vehicle, can be made liable for the Parking Charge."
This is completely incorrect and does not comply with PoFA which makes UKPCs actions procedurally incorrect.
UKPC have unlawfully claimed the Keeper was liable on Tuesday 24th December 2024. In reality, the Keeper could not be held liable until Thursday 9th January 2025.
The 28-day period had not even reached halfway when UKPC made this false claim. This is a procedural failure and a clear misrepresentation of PoFA.
Another issue is UKPC's false deadline for debt recovery...
Final Reminder Issue Date: Tuesday 24th December 2024. The Final Reminder states that:
"If full payment is not made within 14 days, or if we are not provided with the driver’s details, the charge will be passed to debt recovery and a debt recovery fee of £70 will be added."
14 days from 24th December 2024 is Friday 7th January 2025. However, the Keeper cannot legally become liable under PoFA until Sunday 9th January 2025.
This means that UKPC is threatening debt recovery action and additional charges before the Keeper can even be held liable for the charge. This is an undeniable procedural failure of the PPSCoP and a misrepresentation of PoFA.
Just to make is absolutely clear why this is a major procedural breach... PoFA Schedule 4, Paragraph 9(2)(f) clearly states that the Keeper cannot be held liable until 28 days after the presumed delivery of the NtK. The Final Reminder deadline given by UKPC: Tuesday 7th January 2025. This means UKPC is threatening to escalate the charge and add a fake £70 fee two days before they can even hold the Keeper liable.
This is a clear case of UKPC falsely representing the Keeper’s liability in an attempt to pressure payment early. It is misleading, unfair, and non-compliant with both PoFA and fair trading practices.
What UKPC have done wrong is that they should not have issued a Final Reminder stating that the Keeper is already liable on 24th December 2024. They should not have set a 14-day deadline from 24th December 2024, as it expired before the Keeper could legally be held liable and they should not have threatened debt recovery escalation before 9th January 2025.
So, when the appeal rejection comes through, you will have to send UKPC a formal complaint about their procedural failures and you will also be able to raise these in your POPLA appeal.