If the mediator says they are not legally trained, or refuses to say:
“Thank you. In that case I’ll simply rely on my filed defence. For settlement purposes my position is that liability is denied and my offer is £0, or the claimant can discontinue with no order as to costs. I don’t wish to go into the legal arguments in detail; that is a matter for the trial judge.”
If the mediator says they are legally trained:
“Thank you. I appreciate that, but I am not here to debate the legal merits with you. I will explain my case to the judge if it goes to a hearing. For settlement purposes my position is that liability is denied and my offer is £0, or the claimant can discontinue with no order as to costs. I’d be grateful if you could relay that.”
If the mediator starts probing the defence or expressing opinions on its strength:
“May I ask in what capacity you are raising that – as a neutral mediator or as a legal adviser to one of the parties? I do not expect legal opinions from the mediator. I will rely on my filed defence and I will set out my arguments to the judge. For today, my settlement position is that liability is denied and my offer is £0, or the claimant can discontinue with no order as to costs.”
As for your second question about tiny “tariff level”. if the claimant offers to settle for the original parking tariff or some nominal amount, you have a straight choice: principle versus guaranteed closure.
If you want closure and are not absolutely wedded to principle:
"Without any admission of liability, I am prepared to pay £[tariff/nominal amount] in full and final settlement of all claims arising from this PCN and this court claim, on the basis that the claimant discontinues the claim and there is no order as to costs.”
If you are driven by principle and are comfortable going as far as a hearing (99.9% for sure will never happen):
“My position remains that liability is denied and my offer is £0, or the claimant can discontinue with no order as to costs.”
There is no hidden legal trap in accepting a trivial sum, provided the mediator records that it is without admission of liability, in full and final settlement, with the claim to be discontinued and no order as to costs. But it is entirely legitimate for you to refuse and stand on a £0 offer if that is your preference.
I have already explained that this will never get as far as a hearing and will be either struck out or discontinued if you let it run its course.
Yes, the General Sanctions Order is the reminder you received about the N180 DQ. As MCOL now shows your DQ as "filed" that is all you need to do regarding that.
For the mediation call, the only requirement is for you "attend" the call. It is not part of the judicial process and no judge is involved.
This is what I advise you to say when you receive the call from the mediator:
“Before I set out my position, please confirm from the claimant’s side:
• the full name of the person attending for them;
• their role/position at their legal representative’s firm; and
• whether they hold written authority to negotiate and settle today.
Please relay that back to me before we continue.”
After the mediator calls back...
If identified and authority confirmed:
“Thank you. I’m content to proceed on that basis. My settlement offer is £0, or I invite the claimant to discontinue with no order as to costs.”
If no/unclear authority:
“Please record that the claimant’s attendee has not confirmed settlement authority. My position remains that liability is denied and my offer is £0, subject to prompt approval by an authorised solicitor if they choose to discontinue.”
If the mediator probes your defence:
”In what capacity are you asking that question? Are you legally trained? If not, please refrain from offering opinions. I will be reporting any attempt to do so as inappropriate.”
All you need to know is the name and the position of the person acting for the claimant and report that back to us. It will be over within minutes. Complete waste of time otherwise.
Just wait for the claim. However, you can also report DCB Legal to the SRA. Just email the following to report@sra.org.ukand CC in yourself:
To: report@sra.org.uk
Subject: Complaint Regarding DCB Legal Ltd – Misleading and Non-Compliant Pre-Action Conduct
Dear Sirs,
I am writing to raise concerns regarding the conduct of DCB Legal Ltd (SRA ID: 638291) in relation to a Letter of Claim sent to me on behalf of their client Bay Sentry Solutions Ltd, reference number [insert reference number].
Summary of Concern
DCB Legal issued a Letter of Claim dated [insert date] which purports to comply with the Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims (PAPDC). However, the letter fails to comply with multiple provisions of the Protocol, including paragraphs 3.1(a)-(d), 5.1, and 5.2, and also breaches the Practice Direction – Pre-Action Conduct paragraphs 6(a) and 6(c).
I responded with a formal request for the information and documentation required under the Protocol. DCB Legal replied on [insert date], refusing to supply several key documents and claiming, without basis, that my requests were "disproportionate" or "not relevant". I enclose copies of the Letter of Claim, my response, and DCB Legal's reply for your review.
Specific Issues
1. Failure to Provide Sufficient Detail of the ClaimThe Letter of Claim does not specify whether the claim is based on contract, trespass, or another cause of action, nor does it clarify whether the client is pursuing me as the driver or registered keeper. These omissions hinder any meaningful engagement and breach the PAPDC.
2. Refusal to Provide Key DocumentsDCB Legal refused to supply:
• The client’s contract with the landowner,
• Evidence of signage at the time of the alleged contravention,
• An explanation of the legal basis for the £70 “debt recovery” charge.
3. Misleading Demand for Additional ChargesDCB Legal has attempted to recover an added £70 which appears to be for “debt recovery” or staff time. This charge is not supported by the contract nor by established legal precedent (
Excel Parking Services Ltd v Wilkinson [2020]). No attempt has been made to identify a valid legal basis for it.
4. Misleading Reference to VAT TreatmentThe response included an explanation referencing the VAT Supply and Consideration Manual, implying that the PCN falls outside the scope of VAT. This raises further questions about whether the charge is being pleaded as contractual consideration or as a penalty/damages, yet no clarity was provided.
Breaches of SRA Principles and Code of Conduct
I believe this conduct breaches the following regulatory standards:
• SRA Principle 1: Failure to uphold the rule of law by issuing defective legal threats.
• SRA Principle 2: Undermining public trust in the profession through misleading and incomplete correspondence.
• SRA Principle 5: Acting without integrity, given DCB Legal’s knowledge and experience in handling thousands of similar parking claims.
• SRA Code of Conduct Rule 1.2(d) and 11.1: Taking unfair advantage of an individual by failing to comply with pre-action obligations.
I request that the SRA review this matter and consider whether DCB Legal’s conduct amounts to a breach of professional obligations. This appears to be part of a wider pattern of issuing non-compliant letters of claim, making misleading representations about costs, and attempting to pressure consumers into payment without proper legal grounding.
Please let me know if any further information or documentation is required.
Yours faithfully,
[Your full name]
[Your postal address]
[Your email address]
Oh dear... SNAFU.
I am assuming that the drivers identity has been blabbed, when there was no legal obligation to do so.
The Notice to Keeper (NtK) states that they are relaying on paragraph 8(2)(b) of PoFA to hold the Keeper liable. They can only rely on PoFA paragraph 8 if they have have previously issued a windscreen Notice to Driver (NtD) under PoFA paragraph 7. Was there an NtD affixed to the vehicle?
An NtK cannot be issued under PoFA paragraph 8 less than 28 days after the date of the alleged contravention, or later than 56 days after it. This NtK has been issued only 10 days after the date of the alleged contravention.
However, all that was blown out the window when the Keeper identified as the driver simply by using "I did this or that" rather than referring to the driver in the third person with "the driver did this or that".
Never mind. You still have a saving grace which is that they are using the incompetents at DCB Legal to file a claim.
As long as you follow the advice from now and don't deviate, you can guarantee with greater than 99% certainty, that the claim, which will definitely be filed, will eventually be either struck out or discontinued.
For now, I advise you to respond to the Letter of Claim (LoC) by email to info@dcblegal.co.uk and CC in yourself, with the following:
Subject: Response to your Letter of Claim. Your ref: [insert their ref no.]
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]
Remember, follow the advice and you won't be paying a penny to BaySentry. Make sure you show us any response and the N1SDT Claim Form when it arrives. Redact only your personal details, Claim number and MCOL password. Leave ALL dates and times showing.