OK, so you are now waiting for the N1SDT Claim Form to arrive. However, you need to respond with the following to that correspondence:
Subject: Pre-Action Non-Compliance, Standing, and Intended SRA Complaint
Ref: [DCB Legal ref] / PCN: [PCN ref]
Dear Ms Maloney,
Thank you for your email.
You state that a claim has now been submitted. For the avoidance of doubt, I do not accept liability for this alleged debt and will deal with the claim strictly through the court process once the claim form is served.
This letter is to record:
1. your continuing failure to comply with the Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims and the Practice Direction on Pre-Action Conduct; and
2. your client’s failure to prove any standing from the landowner to operate and enforce at this site.
1. Pre-Action non-compliance
From the outset I have asked for basic “key documents” that the Practice Direction requires to be exchanged before proceedings are issued. You have repeatedly refused to provide them, relying on a stock phrase that the requests are “disproportionate and/or not relevant”.
For the record, you have still not provided:
• A copy of the original Notice to Keeper relied upon to found any alleged keeper liability.
• Contemporaneous photographs of the *actual* signs in situ on the material date, together with the precise wording allegedly forming the contract and the term said to have been breached.
• A copy of the written authority from the landowner/landholder which your client relies on.
• A clear breakdown of the £247.59 claimed, explaining the legal basis of each element and the provenance of the added “debt recovery” sum.
These are not peripheral; they go directly to whether your client has any cause of action at all. Issuing a claim while still refusing to disclose them will be put before the court in support of an argument that you and/or your client has behaved unreasonably and that sanctions in costs and case management are appropriate.
2. Standing and landowner authority (PPSCoP Section 14)
You have produced no evidence whatsoever that your client has any authority from the landowner or landholder to:
• operate at Airport Retail Park; and/or
• issue PCNs and court claims in their own name.
The Private Parking Single Code of Practice requires that operators hold written authority from the landholder before they operate and enforce on any site. Section 14 – and in particular 14.1(a)–(j) – sets out what that written authority must cover, including:
• the identity of the landholder;
• the land to which it relates;
• the duration;
• the extent of the operator’s mandate; and
• whether the operator has been authorised to bring legal proceedings in its own name.
Unless there is a contract or written authority from the landowner that satisfies Section 14.1(a)–(j), your client has no standing to issue PCNs at this location and no standing to sue me in its own name.
I therefore again require:
• A contemporaneous, unredacted copy of the contract / letter of authority from the landowner on which your client relies; and
• Confirmation of the landholder’s capacity (freeholder/long leaseholder/other).
If you are unable to produce this, the correct course is to discontinue the claim. If you persist without producing proper landowner authority, I will invite the court to draw an adverse inference and to treat that as a serious conduct issue.
3. SRA escalation
You have now:
• Issued (or purported to issue) a claim without disclosing basic standing and liability documents requested at the pre-action stage;
• Repeatedly relied on templated, non-responsive wording instead of addressing clear, specific legal points; and
• Ignored the requirements of the Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims and the Practice Direction on Pre-Action Conduct.
In view of this, I am preparing a formal report to the Solicitors Regulation Authority regarding DCB Legal Ltd’s conduct in this matter, including concerns about:
• Failure to comply with pre-action obligations;
• Failure to properly address fundamental standing issues before issuing proceedings; and
• The use of standardised debt-collection templates in place of a competent, case-specific legal response.[/indent\
A copy of this letter, together with your correspondence, will be provided to the SRA and to the court.
4. Communications
I will not discuss this matter by telephone or portal. All communication must be in writing, preferably by email.
Yours faithfully,
[Name]
[Postal address]
[Email]
At the same time send the following SRA complaint about DCB Legal to report@sra.org.uk and CC yourself:
Subject: SRA Complaint – Conduct of DCB Legal Ltd in Private Parking Litigation (Failure to Comply with Pre-Action Protocol and Standing Requirements)
Dear Sirs,
I wish to raise a formal complaint about the conduct of DCB Legal Ltd in relation to a private parking claim they are pursuing against me on behalf of their client, relating to Airport Retail Park, CV3 4RP.
DCB Legal have sent a series of “Letter of Claim” style communications which I contend do not comply with the Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims or with the general requirements of pre-action conduct. From the outset I made clear and specific requests for key documents, including:
1. A copy of the original Notice to Keeper on which any alleged keeper liability is based.
2. Contemporaneous photographs of the actual signage in situ on the material date, and the precise wording of the terms allegedly forming the contract and said to have been breached.
3. The written authority from the landowner or landholder upon which their client relies to operate at the site and to issue PCNs and court claims in its own name.
4. A clear breakdown of the total sum claimed, explaining the legal basis for each element and the source of the added “debt recovery” sum.
Instead of responding substantively, DCB Legal sent repeated template replies asserting that their Letter of Claim was “compliant”, that my requests were “disproportionate and/or not relevant”, and that the appeal window had expired. The appeal-window point is irrelevant to pre-action engagement, but they have persisted in using it as a stock answer. They have refused to provide key documents that go directly to liability and standing, while insisting that they may proceed to issue a claim.
In their correspondence, members of staff such as “Sofia Marth, Administration Associate” and “Emily Maloney, Litigation Support Associate” have purported to deal with these matters. When I asked DCB Legal to identify the authorised person responsible for the conduct of the litigation, including their SRA number, they failed to do so. I am concerned that unqualified administrative staff are effectively “fronting” the litigation, using standard debt-collection templates, without proper supervision or review by an authorised litigator.
I am particularly concerned about the question of standing. Under the Private Parking Single Code of Practice, the operator must hold written authority from the landholder which meets the requirements set out in section 14, including 14.1(a) to (j). That written authority should show, among other things, the identity and capacity of the landholder, the extent of the land, the term of the authority, and whether the operator is permitted to bring court proceedings in its own name. Despite repeated requests, DCB Legal have not produced any such authority or contract, nor have they indicated that they have checked whether their client in fact has standing to operate or sue at this location. In my submission, DCB Legal are pressing on with a claim while knowing, or being reckless as to whether, their client has any entitlement from the landowner at all.
DCB Legal have now informed me that a claim has been submitted to the court, while still refusing to provide the basic documents described above. They have persisted with formulaic, non-responsive wording, asserting compliance with the Protocol but not addressing the specific points raised. I consider this to be a failure to comply with their pre-action duties and a failure to provide a competent standard of service in contentious work.
I ask the SRA to investigate:
1. Whether DCB Legal have complied with their obligations regarding pre-action conduct, including the proper exchange of key documents and meaningful engagement with disputes about liability and standing, before issuing a claim.
2. Whether authorised solicitors at DCB Legal are properly supervising these files, or whether administrative staff are effectively conducting litigation and giving template legal responses without adequate supervision, contrary to the rules on reserved legal activities and supervision.
3. Whether it is proper for DCB Legal to continue to pursue court proceedings where they have not obtained, or will not disclose, any written landowner authority satisfying the requirements now placed on private parking operators by the Private Parking Single Code of Practice.
4. Whether their use of stock, debt-collection style templates, their refusal to address clear legal issues, and their decision to issue proceedings in these circumstances is compatible with the SRA Principles and Code of Conduct, particularly in relation to upholding the rule of law, acting with integrity, providing a competent standard of service, and ensuring proper supervision.
I can supply copies of all relevant correspondence between myself and DCB Legal, including the Letters of Claim, my detailed responses, and their template replies, together with any claim form once served.
Please let me know what further information you require.
Yours faithfully,
[Full name]
[Address]
[Email]
You can respond to that with the following:
Subject: Non-compliant Letter of Claim, Templated Responses, and Request for Authorised Litigator Details
Ref: [insert their case ref and PCN ref]
Dear Ms Marth,
Your latest reply does not engage with the specific issues raised and again relies on a generic template. It is legally embarrassing that, when put to strict proof and directed to the relevant Protocol provisions, you have chosen formulaic assertions over substance.
The Letter of Claim remains non-compliant with the Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims and the Practice Direction – Pre-Action Conduct and Protocols. You have still failed to provide the key documents required for meaningful pre-action engagement, namely:
1. The original Notice to Keeper relied upon (to establish any PoFA 2012 keeper liability).
2. Contemporaneous photographs of the actual signage in situ on the material date and the exact contractual wording allegedly breached (not library images).
3. The written landowner authority conferring standing to issue charges and litigate.
4. A clear breakdown of the sum claimed, identifying the legal basis of each element (consideration or damages) and the provenance of the £70 add-on.
Your repeated reliance on Protocol para 2.1(c) (proportionality) does not displace your obligation to provide “key documents relevant to the issues in dispute” under PD-PACP 6(a)–(c) and the information required by Protocol paras 3.1, 5.1 and 5.2. The “appeal window” point is irrelevant at this stage.
You also continue to characterise the parking charge as a “genuine pre-estimate of loss”. That is wrong in law. The Supreme Court in ParkingEye v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67 confirmed that such charges are not assessed by the GPEOL test. Please correct your position.
As for the £70 “debt recovery” add-on, it is denied. It is a duplicated cost of business, irrecoverable on the small-claims track and inconsistent with the Government’s Private Parking Single Code of Practice (17 February 2025). Your own admission that no VAT is chargeable underscores that no taxable supply is made to the motorist.
Given the above, please now:
A) Identify the authorised person responsible for the conduct of this matter (full name and SRA number). The conduct of litigation is a reserved activity under the Legal Services Act 2007 and must be carried out by an authorised or exempt person.
B) Serve a Protocol-compliant response enclosing the documents at 1)–4), or provide a short refusal schedule for each item with reasons.
Further obfuscation or persistence with templated, non-responsive correspondence will leave me with no option but to lodge a formal complaint with the SRA, addressing compliance with the SRA Principles and Code of Conduct (including supervision and the provision of a competent standard of service).
I will correspond in writing only. Do not telephone me. Upon receipt of a Protocol-compliant response, I will take advice and provide a substantive reply within 30 days, as required by the Protocol. If you issue proceedings without first complying, I will apply for a stay and seek appropriate sanctions and costs under PD-PACP 13–16.
Yours faithfully,
[Name]
[Postal address]
[Email]
With regards to the LoC, you should respond robustly with something along these lines, which you send by email to info@dcblegal.co.uk and you also CC yourself:
Subject: Response to you Letter of Claim Ref: [reference number]
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.
As a firm of supposed solicitors, one would expect you to be capable of crafting a letter that aligns 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 do not exist for decoration—they exist to facilitate informed discussion and proportionate resolution. You might wish to reacquaint yourselves with them.
The Civil Procedure Rules 1998, Pre-Action Conduct and Protocols (Part 3), stipulate that prior to proceedings, parties should have exchanged sufficient information to understand each other’s position. Part 6 helpfully clarifies that this includes disclosure of key documents relevant to the issues in dispute.
Your template letter mentions a “contract”, yet fails to provide one. This would appear to undermine the only foundation upon which your client’s claim allegedly rests. It’s difficult to engage in meaningful pre-litigation dialogue when your side declines to furnish the very document it purports to enforce.
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. A copy of the original Notice to Keeper (NtK) that confirms any PoFA 2012 liability
2. A copy of the contract (or contracts) you allege exists between your client and the driver, in the form of an actual photograph of the sign you contend was at the location on the material date, not a generic stock image
3. The exact wording of the clause (or clauses) of the terms and conditions of the contract(s) which is (are) relied upon that you allege to have been breached
4. The written agreement between your client and the landowner, establishing authority to enforce
5. A breakdown of the charges claimed, identifying whether the principal sum is claimed as consideration or damages, and whether the £70 “debt recovery” fee includes VAT
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]