You shouldn't worry about it. They will issue a claim eventually and we will tell you exactly how to respond to that. If you follow the advice, you will not be paying a penny to them as the claim will either be struck out or discontinued.
However, you should respond to their latest email with the following and if they fail to provide the necessary documents as required under the PAP, you can then report them to the SRA:
Subject: Final Response – Your Ref: 120673.102219D
Dear Sirs,
I write in response to your latest correspondence dated 2 July 2025.
Your continued refusal to provide the documents and information required under the Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims — including a copy of the landowner contract, signage map, and a PoFA-compliant Notice to Keeper — is noted. Your assertion that these requests are “disproportionate” is incorrect and contrary to paragraphs 5.1 and 5.2 of the Protocol.
You have also asserted that your client is relying on Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, yet have failed to provide a Notice to Keeper that complies with all the mandatory requirements of that legislation, including paragraph 9(2)(e)(i). As you are no doubt aware, partial compliance is insufficient to establish keeper liability.
If your client continues to pursue this matter without first complying with its obligations under the Protocol and correcting its misstatements of law, I will have no hesitation in reporting your conduct to the Solicitors Regulation Authority. This includes potential breaches of:
• SRA Principle 1 (upholding the rule of law)
• Principle 2 (maintaining public trust)
• Principle 5 (integrity)
• Code of Conduct Paragraphs 1.2 and 1.4 (misleading others and taking unfair advantage)
This is my final response. I will not engage further unless substantive new evidence is provided or a compliant Letter of Claim is issued. Should proceedings be issued, I will seek an immediate stay and costs under CPR 27.14(2)(g) and paragraph 15(b) of the Practice Direction – Pre-Action Conduct.
Yours faithfully,
[Your Name]
Respond with the following:
Re: Your reference 120673.102219D
Parking Charge issued on 18 February 2024
Vehicle Registration: [XXXXXXX]
Dear Sirs,
Re: Your response dated [insert date of their email] and attachments provided
Thank you for your correspondence. I note your assertion that your Letter of Claim complies with the Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims. I do not agree.
Having now reviewed the documents you provided, I remain entirely unconvinced that any debt is owed. The signs you rely upon are poorly drafted, lacking in transparency, and fail to prominently display either the £100 charge or any reference to additional sums being added. These vague and cluttered signs do not create any contractual agreement for the £70 debt recovery fee which has been arbitrarily added. This is unsupported by any signage and is, on its face, an attempt at double recovery, already condemned in multiple court cases.
You have not provided a copy of the alleged payment machine data or audit trail showing that a ticket was not purchased. The driver recalls the machine being broken, and then relocated within the same car park area to purchase a ticket from a second machine. The driver paid using coins as is their usual custom, and was not aware of any alleged breach until this letter.
If your client intends to rely on ANPR timestamps or other evidence of parking time, I put you to strict proof of:
• Whether those systems were synchronised
• Whether the vehicle was actually parked or manoeuvring between machines
• The accuracy and audit trail of payment machine data
Furthermore, I reiterate that I am the registered keeper and decline to identify the driver. As your client cannot rely on Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, they cannot hold me liable as keeper.
Your client's ongoing pursuit of this matter, despite having no right to pursue either the driver or the keeper, is wholly without merit and risks being classed as unreasonable and vexatious behaviour under CPR 27.14(2)(g). Should this proceed to a claim, I will draw the court’s attention to your failure to engage constructively or transparently, your refusal to supply key evidence I am entitled to pre-litigation, and your client’s non-compliance with the PAPDC.
Should your client commence proceedings without first curing these serious procedural deficiencies, I will apply for a stay and seek costs under paragraphs 13 and 15 of the Practice Direction – Pre-Action Conduct and the overriding objective.
This response is made entirely without prejudice to my position, and I will not respond further unless substantive new evidence is provided.
Yours faithfully,
[Your Name]
You are either the Registered Keeper or you aren't. There is no legal reference to the "owner" in parking contractual disputes. If you have not previously engaged with ECP about this matter, they have no idea who the driver is and you are under no legal obligation to provide those details to an unregulated private parking company.
If you are low-hanging fruit on the gullible tree, then you can go ahead an pay the £100 charge and the added fake £70 fee. Otherwise, you can take our advice and respond to the Letter of Claim (LoC) from DCB Legal and, when it arrives (it will), defend the claim.
No one who defends a claim from ECP issued by DCB Legal pays a penny of they follow our advice as it will either be struck out of discontinued. Your choice.
I suggest you respond as follows, by email to info@dcblegal.co.uk and you also CC in yourself as long as you have not previously engaged with ECP in any appeals process:
Dear Sirs,
Your Letter of Claim, dated 28th April 2025, 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).
As you and your client are well aware, there can be no keeper liability as defined in Schedule 4 to the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 as they have already stated that they are not relying on the Act. So your client cannot pursue me as keeper.
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)
As 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 Before 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) (https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Ch/2012/3529.html), Daejan Investments Limited v The Park West Club Limited (Part 20) Buxton Associates [2003] EWHC 2872 (https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/TCC/2003/2872.html), Charles Church Developments Ltd v Stent Foundations Limited & Peter Dann Limited [2007] EWHC 855 (https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/TCC/2007/855.html) 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