-
Trust me, it makes no difference. Our Sky account is in my wife's name. However, I deal with it as she lives in Canada. Whenever I have to call, they always ask if I am the account holder. I learnt very early on, just to say yes. I don't disguise my voice. I mentally dare them to question if I am really the account holder. Of course they won't as they are probably way too woke to question it.
-
I’d have to remember to change my voice. The RK and I are not the same gender! LOL!
-
Or you could just pretend to be the defendant and go through the motions of this time wasting exercise!
-
Many thanks. Will put something together with the RK in the next day or so.
-
The current N180 (11/24) literally asks: “What is the name and contact details of the person who will be attending your mediation appointment?” — it does not say it must be the party themself. The logical reading is that you may name whoever will attend, provided they have full authority to speak for (and, if appropriate, settle on behalf of) the party.
Two practical points to make this work:
1. Put the attendee in E1 (that can be you, if you’ll attend for the RK with written authority). Then ensure HMCTS/SCMS know you are the point of contact for the appointment. The N180 text supports this interpretation.
2. If language is an issue, tick E3 “Yes” (interpreter) and specify the language. The form itself says the court can arrange and meet the cost of an interpreter and that you should contact the court immediately — so use that route and also mention it in E4.
-
E1 — Mediation contact<br>
No, the mediation service will only deal directly with the named party to the claim — i.e. the Registered Keeper (RK). You can, however, assist them in preparing for it, and if necessary, be present quietly in the background if it’s a phone call, provided the mediator and claimant agree. But formally, you cannot be the “named contact.”
Thank you for responding.
Not sure I totally agree with that, the form says "E1 : What is the name and contact details of the person who will be attending your mediation appointment?" This wording suggests to me that "the person" can be someone other than the person referred to as "your", because "your" details are already more complete in section B. If the details for E are supposed to be the same as the party to the claim, then there would be no point in asking this question in the first place.
However, I will do as suggested, and make myself available to be on-hand at mediation. The RK will be briefed beforehand broadly what to say, and to resist any suggestions from anyone to offer anything other than the recommended "£0".
Other than meeting the 13 November 2025 deadline, is there any guidance on when to respond, or is asap good enough? There are no benefits to delaying at all?
-
E1 — Mediation contact
No, the mediation service will only deal directly with the named party to the claim — i.e. the Registered Keeper (RK). You can, however, assist them in preparing for it, and if necessary, be present quietly in the background if it’s a phone call, provided the mediator and claimant agree. But formally, you cannot be the “named contact.”
E4 / F6 — Language or vulnerability
Yes, it’s appropriate to mention that English is not the RK’s first language and that they may be vulnerable to misunderstanding complex or pressured negotiations. Under the current mandatory mediation scheme, they should not be expected to take part unless an interpreter is available. You can word this clearly and neutrally, e.g.:
“The defendant’s first language is not English, and they would require an interpreter to participate meaningfully in mediation. Without one, there is a significant risk of misunderstanding or being disadvantaged in the process.”
That ensures the court and the Small Claims Mediation Service are aware that the defendant requires an interpreter rather than simply preferring written communication.
F1 — Nearest County Court
That’s fine. It’s routine for a defendant’s “nearest County Court hearing centre” to be in the next county. The allocation process will assign the case to the most appropriate local court. There’s no need to comment or apologise for geography.
G — Other information / Welsh language rights
The form’s question G allows for any extra notes, but you don’t need to mention the Welsh-language point unless it’s relevant. HMCTS will automatically provide that information if the case is in Wales or a party requests to use Welsh. It’s not something that must be advised before this stage, so you can safely leave that section blank.
-
The RK received today (Monday 1 November 2025) a "Notice of Proposed Allocation to the Small Claims Track" dated "27 October 2025". It took five days to arrive!?
There is an N149A cover letter.
An information sheet about how HMCTS are making things easier, giving QR code to N180 Direction Questionnaire, brief instructions and reasons to do it online.
An 8 page N180 form.
An electronic version has been downloaded and will be filled in as suggested.
A few questions:
E1 : Can I be the name and contact for the mediation appointment?
E4,F6 : If the RK attends the mediation, English is not their first language, and I would have thought possibly vulnerable to being mislead into agreeing to something disadvantageous. Is it worth mentioning this in E4,F6? I am not sure they would need an interpreter under E3, F5.
F1 : I presume that the RK's nearest CC being in the next county is not a problem?
G : Other information, none of the paperwork received has advised the RK of the right to give evidence in Welsh or English (not that it matters), they don't speak Welsh anyway. Should this advice been given before reaching this point in the questionnaire?
-
You should check it periodically. Once the claim is transferred to your local court, MCOL will play no further part.
After submitting your defence it should confirm receipt of it. The next thing to look out for is when it tells you that your N180 Directions Questionnaire (DQ) has been sent.
As soon as you see that, just follow this instruction:
Having received your own N180 (make sure it is not simply a copy of the claimants N180), do not use the paper form. Ignore all the other forms that came with it. you can discard those. Download your own here and fill it in on your computer. You sign it by simply typing your full name in the signature box.
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/673341e779e9143625613543/N180_1124.pdf
Here are the answers to some of the less obvious questions:
• The name of the court is "Civil National Business Centre".
• To be completed by "Your full name" and you are the "Defendant".
• C1: "YES"
• D1: "NO". Reason: "I wish to question the Claimant about their evidence at a hearing in person and to expose omissions and any misleading or incorrect evidence or assertions.
Given the Claimant is a firm who complete cut & paste parking case paperwork for a living, having this case heard solely on papers would appear to put the Claimant at an unfair advantage, especially as they would no doubt prefer the Defendant not to have the opportunity to expose the issues in the Claimants template submissions or speak as the only true witness to events in question.."
• F1: Whichever is your nearest county court. Use this to find it: https://www.find-court-tribunal.service.gov.uk/search-option
• F3: "1".
• Sign the form by simply typing your full name for the signature.
When you have completed the form, attach it to a single email addressed to both dq.cnbc@justice.gov.uk and info@dcblegal.co.uk and CC in yourself. Make sure that the claim number is in the subject field of the email.
-
Should MCOL be checked periodically, or can we rely on some correspondence arriving to indicate that something has happened and needs attention?
-
Defence submitted.
Now we wait...
-
You only need complete the AoS if you need more time to prepare your defence. There is no advantage to completing the AoS otherwise.
-
Right! This is the correct thread...
As the defence is ready to be copied and pasted from the previous post. I presume it is complete, and that an AOS is not necessary.
Or is there some benefit to be had by doing an AOS anyway?
-
With an issue date of 9th September you have until 4pm on Monday 29th September to submit your defence. If you submit an Acknowledgement of Service (AoS) before then, you would then have until 4pm on Monday 13th October to submit your defence.
You only need to submit an AoS if you need extra time to prepare your defence. If you want to submit an AoS then follow the instructions in this linked PDF:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/xvqu3bask5m0zir/money-claim-online-How-to-Acknowledge.pdf?dl=0
Until very recently, we never advised using the MCOL to submit a defence. However, due to recent systemic failures within the CNBC, we feel that it is safer to now submit a short defence using MCOL as it is instantly submitted and entered into the "system". Whilst it will deny the use of some formatting or inclusion of transcripts etc. these can always be included with the Witness Statement (WS) later, if it ever progresses that far.
You will need to copy and paste it into the defence text box on MCOL. It has been checked to make sure that it will fit into the 122 lines limit.
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 adequately 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 PD 16, para 7.3(1);
(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 submits that courts have previously struck out materially similar claims of their own initiative for failure to adequately comply with CPR 16.4, particularly where the Particulars of Claim failed to specify the contractual terms relied upon or explain the alleged breach with sufficient clarity.
5. In comparable cases involving modest sums, judges have found that requiring further case management steps would be disproportionate and contrary to the overriding objective. Accordingly, strike-out was deemed appropriate. 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 due to the Claimant’s failure to adequately comply with CPR 16.4, rather than permitting an amendment. The Defendant proposes that the following Order be made:
Draft Order:
Of the Court's own initiative and upon reading the particulars of claim and the defence.
AND the court being of the view that the particulars of claim do not adequately comply with CPR 16.4(1)(a) because: (a) they do not set out the exact wording of the clause (or clauses) of the terms and conditions of the contract which is (or are) relied on; and (b) they do not adequately set out the reason (or reasons) why the claimant asserts that the defendant was in breach of contract.
AND the claimant could have complied with CPR 16.4(1)(a) had it served separate detailed particulars of claim, as it could have done pursuant to PD 7C, para 5.2, but chose not to do so.
AND upon the Court determining, having regard to the overriding objective (CPR 1.1), that it would be disproportionate to direct further pleadings or to allot any further share of the Court’s resources to this claim (for example by ordering further particulars of claim and a further defence, with consequent case management).
ORDER:
1. The claim is struck out.
2. Permission to either party to apply to set aside, vary or stay this order by application on notice, which must be filed at this Court not more than 7 days after service of this order, failing which no such application may be made.
-
Here you go...
(https://i.ibb.co/wF4QqpFh/Claim-Form-090925.png)
-
Just the front page, that contains the Particulars of Claim. Obscure the claim # and MCOL password, and any personal details.
-
I have been told that a letter arrived today from "HM Courts and Tribunals Service", accompanied by a 5 page "Claim Form".
I should be able to see this myself perhaps today, but certainly in a day or so.
How much of this do you need to see?
-
Ok I will instruct to not work or do anything.
Many thanks.
-
It's EPC and DCB Legal. Just wait for the claim. It is easily defended and guaranteed to be discontinued.
-
Sorry that came other monster sized! Cut-n-paste seems to have done something odd there!
-
Hmmm, there's no helping some people.
The keeper has received an email from someone called Emily Maloney (Litigation Support Associate) DCB Legal Ltd. (see below). The keeper forwarded a ZIP containing 5 PDF files:
- Appeal and response to appeal : Contains copy of appeal sent by keeper and the response to appeal.
- Images : images of car entering leaving car park with time stamps.
- Notices : a copy of the original notice.
- Signs : photos of signs from the car park.
- Sitemap : a sketch of car park layout
I asked the keeper if the previously suggested email had been sent, but apparently not! :-\
They are abroad at the moment, and due back in about three weeks.
The email below was dated "31/07/2025", and gives 30 days to pay, or a Claim will be issued, which suggests that no harm has been done.
I haven't had a chance to redact all the PDFs, and not altogether sure how I can do that anyway. I'll try and sort that out in case any of it needs to be seen.
The case does relate to one I recall helping with on Pepipoo, where ECP were issuing notices for a Car Park called Sussex House in Crawley, West Sussex. This is a building that was demolished over a decade ago I believe, to be replaced by a Morrisons Superstore, Travelodge and car park. ECP seemed to be continuing to issue notices on the old address. There are now newer websites appeared that refer to the new building as Sussex House, but these were not present at the time of the original notice.
Information on old Sussex House building:
https://www.wessexarch.co.uk/sites/default/files/62680%20-%20Sussex%20House%2C%20Crawley.pdf
This is the new website, and WayBackmachine suggests this appeared and was crawled the first time in May 2022, which is two months after the original notice, and I wonder if notices being appealed on wrong location were why this was created at the time:
https://www.fidumpm.com/portfolio/sussex-house/
Anyway, what if anything should be done now, or can things wait until the keeper has returned to the UK?
Dear XXXXXXXXXXXXX
We write in response to your correspondence received in our office.
As per your request, please find attached the evidence DCB Legal hold concerning the Parking Charge issued. If there are any documents that you have requested, but that are not enclosed with this email, it is because we have deemed the request to be disproportionate and/or not relevant to the substantive issues in dispute.
Having considered your response, our position in respect of this matter remains as per our Letter of Claim.
You now have 30 days from the date of this email to make payment of the outstanding balance of £170.00. Failure to make payment will result in a Claim being issued against you without any further reference.
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 (XXXXXXXXXXXXX) 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.
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/ (https://dcblegal.co.uk/response/pay-online/).
Kind Regards,
Emily Maloney
Litigation Support Associate
DCB Legal Ltd
Tel: 0203 434 0433 | DX 23457 Runcorn
dcblegal.co.uk (https://dcblegal.co.uk/) | Twitter (https://twitter.com/LegalDcb) | Linkedin (https://www.linkedin.com/company/dcblegalltd/) | Facebook
(https://www.facebook.com/dcblegalltd/)
Registered Office Direct House, Greenwood Drive, Manor Park, Runcorn WA7 1UG | Fax: 01606 783702 | ICO Reg: ZA279934
The information contained in this message and any attachments is confidential and may also be privileged. If you are not the intended addressee you may not disclose, distribute or further copy or use this communication or the information in it. If you have received this communication in error please notify us as soon as possible and delete the message. All reasonable steps have been taken by us to ensure that this message is free from viruses. We do not accept liability for any loss resulting from corruption or alteration of data or importation of any virus as a result of receiving it. Unless the contents of this message relate to legal advice given to a client of the firm in accordance with instructions or correspondence in a client transaction the views expressed in this electronic communication may be personal opinions of the author for which DCB Legal Limited accepts no liability.
DCB Legal is a trading name of DCB Legal Limited company registration 10633864. We are authorised and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority. SRA No. 638321
-
Send the following to info@dcblegal.co.uk and CC yourself:
Subject: Re: Your Letter Before Claim – Further Notice of Temporary Unavailability
Ref: [DCBLegal reference no]
Dear Sirs,
Further to my letter dated [insert date of original response], I note that I have received no substantive reply addressing the deficiencies I identified in your Letter Before Claim, nor any of the documents and information I formally requested under the Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims and the Practice Direction – Pre-Action Conduct.
I write to inform you that I will be unavailable from [insert date] to [insert date], during which time I will be unable to respond to any correspondence or proceedings. Should your client issue a claim during this period, I will be unable to respond within the required timeframe, and will seek an immediate stay and/or relief from sanctions on return.
Given your client’s ongoing failure to comply with the Pre-Action Protocol, any claim issued now would be procedurally abusive and premature. I therefore request confirmation that no proceedings will be issued until I have received a compliant Letter Before Claim and had a reasonable opportunity to respond.
Should your client proceed regardless, I will rely on the cases cited in my previous letter and seek appropriate sanctions and costs.
Yours faithfully,
[Name]
-
The registered keeper has not had a response either by email or post.
They are going out of the country tomorrow for about a month, is this going to present a problem, should a response be sent whilst they are away? Or is anything that is likely to happen, going to be easily dealt with on their return?
-
The email has been sent.
-
We really do not need to see the rubbish from DCBL. As for the Letter of Claim (LoC), respond to it by email to info@dcblegal.co.uk and CC yourself with the following:
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.
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]
-
Change thread title.
-
The registered keeper (RK) received these today, I told them to ignore these, but included them here for completeness:
(https://i.ibb.co/pBYKpDpb/DCBL120625-1.png)
(https://i.ibb.co/bjs4WV5L/DCBL120625-2.png)
The following was then handed to me, which the RK says arrived today as well. So the above was posted about a week before this and yet arrived together!?
I asked if they had been in the same envelope. Apparently they were not.
(https://i.ibb.co/2YsKSFHb/DCBLegal180625-1.png)
(https://i.ibb.co/Lh95z7dT/DCBLegal180625-2.png)
I understand this is not to be ignored. Told RK to await instructions from me.
-
Useful to know, although I do not intend getting into such a situation myself.
Clearly the YouTuber could have faired better had he known this information.
Anyway, all I can do is wait and see what the RK receives next, which could be some time I guess.
Thanks.
-
DCBL and DCB Legal are sister companies. They do not "sell" debt between them. They are agents for each other. A private parking company can assign (i.e., "sell") the alleged debt to a third party, but it is relatively uncommon and not the same as simply instructing a debt recovery agency or solicitor to act on their behalf.
Most commonly, the parking operator retains ownership of the alleged debt and merely instructs a debt recovery agency (DRA) or solicitor to pursue it on their behalf. This is not a sale or assignment. The third party acts as an agent, and any payment is forwarded to the parking company (minus fees).
Assignment (Selling the Debt) means the parking company transfers legal ownership of the alleged debt to the third party. The third party becomes the new creditor.
This must comply with section 136 of the Law of Property Act 1925:
• The assignment must be in writing.
• Notice of assignment must be given to the debtor (you/the keeper/driver).
• Only then can the third party enforce the debt in its own name.
If a third party claims to own the debt, request:
• A copy of the Deed of Assignment, or confirmation that the debt was assigned.
• Proof of notice of assignment, sent to you as required by law.
Without this, they are likely just an agent with no standing to sue in their own name.
-
I saw a video on YouTube by someone about that.
They claims to be "sister" organisations.
The YouTuber claims that they sell debts between each other to rack up fees.
https://youtu.be/oer7hzW2gzk?si=yb3BtCJq_qDL_WaJ
I didn't watch it all, it got repetitive, but I got the gist.
He had a CCJ to clear with one of them (DCB Legal), which had a couple of weeks to its due date.
He called them to pay the ~£200, to be informed by DCB Legal they were no longer handling the debt and had sold it to DCBL.
He called DCBL a couple of days later and they said they had bought the debt only two days prior, i.e. on the day he had called DCB Legal, and were now only going accept ~£400 to clear the CCJ.
It all sounded it bit suspect to me, but whether or not he had things right or wrong, it was clear that these companies were between them, an "absolute shower".
-
A minor distinction to be aware of, DCBL and DCB Legal fulfil different roles. DCBL are debt collectors - as b789 correctly notes, they are to be ignored. DCB Legal are a law firm, and if/when they get involved, you should return for advice.
-
Oh I am, don't worry. They don't bother me, not least because it isn't my correspondence anyway.
Just being curious. I haven't been floating around FTLA for quite a while, I was on Pepipoo from 2008 until it died. Since moving away from London, I haven't been so involved with these things. In London I came across quite a lot of cases, but out here not so much. Even the wife has managed to stay out of trouble!! LOL!
Good to see this is still going though. Pepipoo was great and I will not forget the gratitude I felt to the people on the forum then, especially when they helped me get the best part of £500 back after the wife's car was towed by a council.
Anyway consider DCBL dutifully ignored! ;D
-
Nobody cares about DCBL. They are useless, powerless debt crawlers. Ignore them.
-
I have just been scanning through the private parking forum, and it looks like DCBL have been quite busy lately.
Have they stepped up their actions?
-
Many thanks.
I will instruct to file the letters and await the next one and come back to me.
-
Ignore all debt recovery letters. All a debt collector can do is try and persuade the low-hanging fruit own the gullible tree to pay up out of ignorance and fear.
As they are acting on behalf of ECP, you will, eventually, receive a Letter of Claim (LoC) from their sister, bulk litigation company, DCB Legal. Show us the LoC and we will provide a suitable response.
In dues course, they will issue an N1SDT Claim Form from the CNBC. Again, show that to us, redacting only your personal details, the claim number and the MCOL password. Leave all dates visible, especially the issue date.
We will provide instructions and a suitable defence. After several months of some procedure l stuff, the claim will eventually be struck out or they will discontinue and that will be the end of the matter.
As long as you follow the advice here, you will not be paying a penny to ECP.
-
I have been shown the following letters by the Registered Keeper (RK) of the vehicle concerned:
First dated 28/04/2025:
(https://i.ibb.co/QjCT0Srh/DCBL220425-1.png)
(https://i.ibb.co/6JYbZv81/DCBL220425-2.png)
Second dated 13/05/2025:
(https://i.ibb.co/xK8b9hfW/DCBL130525-1.png)
(https://i.ibb.co/ccBXfy59/DCBL130525-2.png)
Unfortunately this case started on Pepipoo, and so the intervening history is missing.
My recollection is that it was worked out that the "Location:" referred to a building that no longer exists. Sussex House was demolished in 2008, I believe an appeal was made based on that information.
Now three years later, the RK has received these letters, and I was wondering what the best thing is to advise them?