Firstly, we apologise for any inconvenience caused.
For clarity, Judgment was previously entered in default on 03/07/2025. The Judgment was then set aside by the Court on 18/07/2025 as a response had been made to the Claim Form, prior to the Judgment being entered.
It ought to be noted, our Letter of Claim was sent to you on 09/05/2025, affording you 30 days to dispute the matter or make payment. We can confirm we received an email from yourself on 26/05/2025 and in response we requested further information on 29/05/2025 in order for us to locate your file. It is noted that details had been provided on 09/06/2025, however your email was not added onto the file until 13/06/2025, which was after the Claim had been issued on 10/06/2025. Following receipt of the details provided, all evidence in relation to the Charge was provided to yourself on 02/07/2025. For ease of reference, please find attached all evidence in relation to the Charge.
Now that Judgment has been set aside and a Defence has been filed, we can confirm our Client intends to proceed with the Claim as it remains their position that the Charge was issued correctly.
Should you be unsure of your position, you may wish to seek your own independent legal advice.
Having reviewed the content of your defence, we write to inform you that our client intends to proceed with the claim.
In due course, the Court will direct both parties to each file a directions questionnaire. In preparation for that, please find attached a copy of the Claimant's, which we confirm has been filed with the Court.
Without Prejudice to the above, in order to assist the Court in achieving its overriding objective, our client may be prepared to settle this case - in the event you wish to discuss settlement, please call us on 0203 434 0433 within 7 days and make immediate reference to this correspondence.
If you have provided an email address within your Defence, we intend to use it for service of documents (usually in PDF format) hereon in pursuant to PD 6A (4.1)(2)(c). Please advise whether there are any limitations to this (for example, the format in which documents are to be sent and the maximum size of attachments that may be received). Unless you advise otherwise, we will assume not.
Subject: Your Misconceived and Legally Incoherent Response – Claim No: [XXXXXXX]
Dear Sirs,
I write in response to your email dated 4 August 2025, the contents of which are as disjointed as they are legally incoherent. It is deeply concerning that a firm purporting to be regulated solicitors is unable to follow a straightforward court process or accurately represent the status of a live claim.
To be clear:1. Judgment was improperly entered on 3 July 2025 despite a defence having been submitted and acknowledged by the court. This has now been rectified administratively by the court, which issued an order on 18 July 2025 confirming that a response was filed before judgment and that judgment has been set aside accordingly.
2. Your statement that “the matter is now closed” is factually and procedurally nonsensical. A set-aside order restores the claim to the pre-judgment stage. It does not dispose of the underlying proceedings. Unless and until your client files and serves a Notice of Discontinuance (Form N279), the case remains live and I will treat it as such.• If, by “the matter is now closed,” you mean that your client does not intend to pursue the claim further, then you are required—under CPR 38.3—to file a formal discontinuance and serve it upon the Defendant.
• If that is not your intention, then you will kindly cease issuing misleading statements that appear designed to confuse or deter a litigant in person from responding appropriately.
3. If your firm is genuinely unaware of this basic distinction, you are advised to refer this matter to a responsible adult within your practice—ideally one who has read Part 12 and Part 38 of the Civil Procedure Rules and can distinguish between the setting aside of a judgment and the termination of a claim.
4. Your vague reference to a “bar” being “put in place” on 21 July 2025 appears to be fiction. The court record, and indeed the Order dated 18 July, makes no mention of such a procedural step. If this is not a fabrication, please produce the relevant court order or stop wasting everyone’s time with invented terminology.
5. Your refusal to provide documents requested in the Letter of Claim response, on the grounds that they are “disproportionate or not relevant,” reveals a worrying misunderstanding of your obligations under the Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims. It is not for you to cherry-pick compliance. The Defendant is entitled to inspect any documents upon which your client intends to rely, and your selective approach is noted.
6. Finally, your own timeline confirms that the Letter of Claim response was received before proceedings were issued, but your staff failed to process it in time. That is your failing—not mine—and neither the Defendant nor the court should be expected to tolerate the fallout from your administrative incompetence.
If you remain confused about the current status of proceedings, consult the Civil Procedure Rules or hand this over to someone qualified to practise.
I await your confirmation—either that a Notice of Discontinuance is being filed, or that you now intend to proceed with the claim properly and in accordance with the CPR. Silence will not be construed as withdrawal, and any further misrepresentations may be raised before the court and referred to the SRA.
Yours faithfully,
[Defendant Name]
Good afternoon,
Thank you for your correspondence. I have now reviewed your case file and set out my response below.
Firstly, to clarify, you state in your correspondence that “no Judgment has been issued in this matter.” Unfortunately, this is incorrect. Judgment was requested on 2 July 2025 and granted on 3 July 2025 for the outstanding balance of £291.60. However, it is noted that you have since made an application to set aside the Judgment, which has now been granted by the Court.
In your Letter of Claim response, you did not provide any personally identifiable information. As a result, it was necessary to request this from you. While we acknowledge that your response was dated 9 June 2025, due to the high volume of correspondence received by our office, your response was not reviewed or added to the case file until 13 June 2025. We trust you will understand that it is not reasonable to expect all correspondence to be actioned on the same day it is received. By that time, the claim had already been submitted to the Money Claim Online (MCOL) system, as shown below. You will also note that no defence was submitted in relation to this claim.
Claim History
•You submitted a claim on 09/06/2025 at 14:47:52
Your claim was issued on 10/06/2025
You submitted a judgment against [Name] on 02/07/2025 at 11:33:57
• Your judgment against [Name] was issued on 03/07/2025 at 19:09:31
A bar was put in place for [Name] on 18/07/2025
The bar in place for [Name] was removed on 18/07/2025
An application to set aside (remove) judgment against [Name] was submitted to the court on 18/07/2025
The application to set aside (remove) judgment against [Name] was granted on 18/07/2025
• A bar was put in place for [Name] on 21/07/2025
Now that the Judgment has been set aside, it is no longer necessary to continue
In relation to your request for evidence, please find attached the Notice to Keeper and Final Reminder that were issued to you as the registered keeper, by our client. Where specific documents have not been provided, this is because your request was considered to be either disproportionate or not relevant to the substantive issues in dispute. We respectfully refer you to paragraph 2.1(c) of the Pre-Action Protocol and remind you that both parties are expected to act reasonably and proportionately.
DCB Legal cannot prevent you from raising complaints with any relevant regulatory bodies.
Now that the Judgment has been set aside, it is no longer necessary to continue correspondence in relation to a case that will be closed. Should you have any further questions or queries relating to the issuance of the original parking charge, these should be directed to the British Parking Association.
I trust this clarifies matters and our position is clear.
I now consider this matter to be closed.
1. Breach of Pre-Action Protocol
Your Letter of Claim was dated 9 May 2025. I responded in full on 26 May 2025, within the 30-day period required under the Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims. My response included a request for further information and documentation, as permitted under Paragraph 5.1 of the Protocol.
On 29 May 2025, you replied stating that you were “unable to locate [my] file with the information provided” and requested the following details:• Full name
• First line of address and postcode
• DCB Legal reference number
I provided all of the requested information. Despite this, you failed to respond to my Letter of Claim response, failed to provide any of the requested documents, and instead proceeded to issue a claim on 10 June 2025.
This is a clear and deliberate breach of the Pre-Action Protocol. You had a duty to engage meaningfully with my response and provide the requested documents before issuing proceedings. Your failure to do so will be brought to the court’s attention.
Subject: Formal Complaint – Procedural Misconduct, Misleading Communication & CPR 31.14 Request
To: info@dcblegal.co.uk
Dear Sir/Madam,
Re: [Insert DCB Legal Reference Number] Claim No: [Insert Claim Number]
I am writing to lodge a formal complaint regarding your conduct in relation to the above matter. Your email dated 2 July 2025 is procedurally flawed, misleading, and indicative of a disregard for both the Civil Procedure Rules and your professional obligations.
1. Breach of Pre-Action Protocol
Your Letter of Claim was dated 9 May 2025. I responded in full on 22 May 2025, within the 30-day period required under the Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims. My response included a request for further information and documentation, as permitted under Paragraph 5.1 of the Protocol.
On 5 June 2025, you replied stating that you were “unable to locate [my] file with the information provided” and requested the following details:• Full name
• First line of address and postcode
• DCB Legal reference number
I provided all of the requested information promptly and in full. Despite this, you failed to respond to my Letter of Claim response, failed to provide any of the requested documents, and instead proceeded to issue a claim on 10 June 2025—just days later.
This is a clear and deliberate breach of the Pre-Action Protocol. You had a duty to engage meaningfully with my response and provide the requested documents before issuing proceedings. Your failure to do so will be brought to the court’s attention.
2. Misleading and Prejudicial Communication
Your email dated 2 July 2025 states:“For the avoidance of doubt, a claim was issued against you on 10th June 2025… As such the opportunity to raise substantive disputes has now passed and so we will not be responding to the same.”
This statement is legally and procedurally false. I filed a defence on 17 June 2025. The matter is now before the court. The opportunity to raise substantive disputes has not “passed”—it has only just begun. Your refusal to engage post-defence is improper and prejudicial.
Furthermore, your email refers repeatedly to a “Judgment balance” and the consequences of failing to pay within one calendar month. This is a blatant misrepresentation. No judgment has been issued in this matter. The claim is defended and contested. Your reference to credit file consequences is not only premature but appears designed to mislead and intimidate. This will be included in my complaint to the Solicitors Regulation Authority and raised with the court as evidence of unreasonable conduct.
This communication appears designed to mislead and intimidate, and constitutes a breach of your professional obligations under the SRA Code of Conduct, including:• Paragraph 1.2 – acting in a way that upholds public trust and confidence
• Paragraph 1.4 – acting with honesty
• Paragraph 1.5 – acting with integrity
• Paragraph 1.6 – not misleading or attempting to mislead
3. Formal Complaint to the SRA
Irrespective of your response to this email, I will be submitting a formal complaint to the Solicitors Regulation Authority. This will include:• Your failure to comply with the Pre-Action Protocol
• Your misleading post-claim communication
• Your refusal to engage with a valid dispute prior to litigation
• Your failure to respond substantively after requesting and receiving the information you claimed was necessary to locate the file
• Your false and coercive statements regarding a non-existent “Judgment balance”
The complaint will include a full timeline of events, supporting evidence, and a copy of this letter.
4. CPR 31.14 Request for Disclosure
Pursuant to CPR 31.14, I formally request copies of the following documents mentioned in your Particulars of Claim:• The contract or agreement relied upon
• he Notice to Keeper(s) issued
Photographic or CCTV evidence relied upon
• The signage terms allegedly forming the basis of the contract
• Evidence of your client’s authority to operate on the land in question
• A full breakdown of the £291.60 claimed, including any added costs or fees
Please provide these documents within 7 days of the date of this letter. I confirm that I am willing to pay your reasonable copying costs as per CPR 31.15(c).
I expect a full written response to this complaint and the requested documents within 7 days. Failure to comply will be noted in my witness statement and may be raised in any application for costs due to unreasonable conduct.
Yours faithfully,
[Your Full Name]
[Your Address]
[Your Email]
Dear Sirs,
Your Letter Before Claim contains insufficient detail of the claim and fails to provide copies of evidence your client places reliance upon and thus is in complete contravention of the Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims.... etc etc
We write in response to correspondence received in our office dated 9th June 2025.There are then three attachments.
We have made a record of the contents of your correspondence and noted this on your file accordingly.
For the avoidance of doubt, a claim was issued against you on 10th June 2025 in the sum of £291.60. As such the opportunity to raise substantive disputes has now passed and so we will not be responding to the same.
If you fail to pay the Judgment balance within one calendar month of the date of the Judgment, the same will remain on your credit file for a period of 6 years. If payment is made outside of the one calendar month, the Judgment will simply be marked as 'satisfied' on your credit file.
Please find enclosed the evidence we hold on file.
You now have 30 days from the date of Judgment to make payment of £291.60. Failure to make payment will result in the CCJ currently recorded on your credit file, remaining for a period of 6 years.
Payment can be made via bank transfer to our designated client account: -
Account Name: DCB Legal Ltd Client Account
Sort Code: 20-24-09
Account Number: 60964441
You must quote the correct case reference ([redacted]) when making payment. If you do not, we may be unable to correctly allocate the payment. If further action is taken by us as a result of an incorrect reference being quoted, you will be liable for any further fees or costs incurred.
We would ask that you kindly furnish us with your most up to date telephone number and email address, this can be emailed to us at info@dcblegal.co.uk.
Alternatively, you can contact DCB Legal Ltd on 0203 838 7038 to make payment over the telephone or online at https://dcblegal.co.uk/response/pay-online/.
Thank you for your request. We confirm that we have updated our records to reflect your new address for service:So they say here that they obtained the old address when the incident occurred, and yet the NtK I've just received dated 31st May uses the new one?
[New address]
All future correspondence regarding this matter will be directed to this address.
However, at the time of the parking event, our records indicate that your V5C (vehicle logbook) had not been updated with the DVLA. Therefore, when we obtained registered keeper details in accordance with our legitimate interest under Regulation 27 of the Road Vehicles (Registration and Licensing) Regulations 2002, the DVLA provided us with the address listed at that time:
[Old address]
IN THE COUNTY COURTClaim No: [Claim Number]BETWEEN:
New Generation Parking Management Ltd
Claimant
- and -
[Defendant's Full Name]
Defendant
DEFENCE
1. The Defendant denies the claim in its entirety. The Defendant asserts that there is no liability to the Claimant and that no debt is owed. The claim is without merit and does not adequately disclose any comprehensible cause of action.
2. There is a lack of precise detail in the Particulars of Claim (PoC) in respect of the factual and legal allegations made against the Defendant such that the PoC do not comply with CPR 16.4.
3. The Defendant is unable to plead properly to the PoC because:(a) The contract referred to is not detailed or attached to the PoC in accordance with CPR PD 16(7.5);
(b) The PoC do not state the exact wording of the clause (or clauses) of the terms and conditions of the contract (or contracts) which is/are relied on;
(c) The PoC do not adequately set out the reason (or reasons) why the claimant asserts the defendant has breached the contract (or contracts)
(d) The PoC do not state with sufficient particularity exactly where the breach occurred, the exact time when the breach occurred and how long it is alleged that the vehicle was parked before the parking charge was allegedly incurred;
(e) The PoC do not state precisely how the sum claimed is calculated, including the basis for any statutory interest, damages, or other charges;
(f) The PoC do not state what proportion of the claim is the parking charge and what proportion is damages;
(g) The PoC do not provide clarity on whether the Defendant is sued as the driver or the keeper of the vehicle, as the claimant cannot plead alternative causes of action without specificity.
4. The Defendant attaches to this defence a copy of a draft order approved by a district judge at another court. The court struck out the claim of its own initiative after determining that the Particulars of Claim failed to comply with CPR 16.4. The judge noted that the claimant had failed to:(i) Set out the exact wording of the clause (or clauses) of the terms and conditions relied upon;
(ii) Adequately explain the reasons why the defendant was allegedly in breach of contract;
(iii) Provide separate, detailed Particulars of Claim as permitted under CPR PD 7C.5.2(2).
(iv) The court further observed that, given the modest sum claimed, requiring further case management steps would be disproportionate and contrary to the overriding objective. Accordingly, the judge struck out the claim outright rather than permitting an amendment.
5. The Defendant submits that the same reasoning applies in this case and invites the court to adopt a similar approach by striking out the claim for the Claimant’s failure to comply with CPR 16.4.
Statement of truth
I believe that the facts stated in this Defence are true. I understand that proceedings for contempt of court may be brought against anyone who makes, or causes to be made, a false statement in a document verified by a statement of truth without an honest belief in its truth.
Signed:
Date:
They said they couldn't find the case and have replied below, I guess I should comply?
Dear Sirs,
Your Letter Before Claim contains insufficient detail of the claim and fails to provide copies of evidence your client places reliance upon and thus is in complete contravention of the Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims.
I am the registered keeper of the vehicle. I am not obliged to identify the driver and I decline to do so. As there is no legal presumption that the keeper of a vehicle was its driver on any particular occasion, your client cannot pursue me as driver as per VCS v Edward (2023) [H0KF6C9C] (https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/yvxek3kfwtb3qent3lj6y/VCS-Limited-v-Ian-Mark-Edward-H0KF6C9C.pdf?rlkey=niecohfdtj1n1ysh5prbsp52p&e=1&dl=0).
If your client is seeking to rely on Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA) in order to hold me liable as keeper, they are unable to do so. The initial Notice to Keeper was not received, as I had moved address and the V5C logbook had not yet been updated with the DVLA at the time of the alleged contravention. As such, no PoFA-compliant NtK was served within the timeframes required by paragraph 9(5) of the Act. Even if your client were to issue or re-send a copy now, it would be well outside the statutory period and would not remedy the defect. Your client is therefore unable to rely on PoFA to establish keeper liability.
As your client cannot pursue me as driver or keeper, it would be an abuse of the court’s process for your client to issue a claim against me and I will defend any such claim vigorously and seek costs in relation to your client’s unreasonable and vexatious conduct under Part 27.14(2)(g)
Because your letter lacks specificity and breaches 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 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 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]
Your immediate concern is to send NGPM a Data Rectification Notice (DRN) to their DPO instructing them to update their records with your current address for service and to erase your old address.I can confirm I have sent the data controller a DRN with bolded words included.
we need to establish whether the vehicle was permitted to be parked in the disabled bay in the first place.The driver was not permitted to park in the disabled bay, with neither a disabled passenger or any protected characteristics. The driver ignored the signs that made it clear that it was a disabled bay for blue badge holders only.