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.
All normal and as expected. You are now waiting for your own N180 DQ. Follow this advice:
Having received your own N180 (make sure it is not simply a copy of the claimants N180) or been notified on MCOL that yours has been sent, do not use the paper form. Ignore all the other forms that came with it. you can discard those. Download your own N180 DQ 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.
Reply with the following:
Subject: Re: Without Prejudice Settlement Offer – Ref XXXX.XXXXX
Dear Sirs,
I write in response to your latest correspondence dated [insert date].
This response is with prejudice and may be relied upon in any future proceedings.
Despite repeated requests, your client continues to withhold core documents required under the Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims and the Practice Direction – Pre-Action Conduct. These include, but are not limited to:
• A copy of the Notice to Keeper (NtK)
• Evidence of the date of posting of the NtK, as required under PPSCoP 8.1.2(e)
• A copy of the contract with the landowner authorising enforcement
• Timestamped ANPR logs showing entry and exit
• A site plan showing signage locations
• Photographs of signage present at the material time
• A breakdown of the claimed sum, including clarification of whether the principal sum is damages or consideration
Your continued refusal to disclose these documents — while simultaneously threatening court action — is procedurally improper and undermines the credibility of your client’s position.
Furthermore, your reliance on VATSC06140 to dismiss VAT applicability to the £70 debt recovery fee remains legally incoherent. You have not clarified whether this sum is pleaded as damages or consideration. If it is the latter, VAT applies. If it is the former, your client must justify the quantum as a genuine pre-estimate of loss. You have done neither.
Your client’s continued refusal to disclose these documents — while threatening litigation — is procedurally improper and obstructive. It is not “proportionate”; it is evasive.
Position on Liability and Settlement
I remain unable to assess the merits of any alleged claim until your client complies with its pre-action obligations. Any attempt to resolve this matter must be preceded by full and proper disclosure. Until then, I do not accept liability and reject any suggestion that I am obliged to settle an unsubstantiated claim.
Should proceedings be issued without compliance, I will seek:
• A stay under paragraph 15(b) of the Practice Direction
• Sanctions under paragraphs 13 and 16
• Costs under CPR 27.14(2)(g) for unreasonable conduct
I reserve the right to place your client’s conduct before the court and, if necessary, refer this matter to the Solicitors Regulation Authority.
Yours faithfully,
[Your Name]
Typical rubbish from the utter incompetents at DCB Legal. You can guarantee that when they issue the claim, they will fail to comply with CPR 16.4(1)(a).
In the meantime, you can respond with the following:
Dear Sirs,
I refer to your correspondence dated [insert date], which — while lengthy — fails to supply even the most rudimentary evidence required under both the Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims and the Practice Direction – Pre-Action Conduct.
1. Failure to Provide the Core Document: Notice to Keeper
Your letter makes repeated reference to a Notice to Keeper (NtK), which you claim was issued and served. And yet, you have failed to disclose a copy of this notice. Given that your client’s case either depends on or is materially shaped by this document, your continued refusal to supply it is procedurally improper.
Moreover, pursuant to Section 8.1.2(e), Note 2 of the Private Parking Code of Practice – Single Code of Practice (PPSCoP), your client must retain and disclose evidence of the actual date of posting — not merely the date a notice was generated or handed off to a mail consolidator:
"A notice sent by post is to be presumed, unless the contrary is proved, to have been delivered on the second working day after the day on which it is posted... Therefore, parking operators must retain a record of the date of posting of a notice, not simply of that notice having been generated."
You have failed to produce either the NtK or the required evidence of dispatch. Until you do, your claim cannot proceed in good faith. You are now formally required to disclose both the NtK and the postage log compliant with PPSCoP guidelines.
2. Legally Illiterate Assertions Regarding Keeper Liability
Your letter states:
"On the balance of probabilities, if you were not the driver, you would have nominated."
This statement is legally embarrassing.
There is no statutory obligation to nominate a driver, and silence from the registered keeper is not an admission of liability. The “balance of probabilities” is a judicial standard, not a substitute for evidentiary burden. If your client seeks to rely on Schedule 4 of POFA 2012, then it must demonstrate full compliance — including timely service of a compliant NtK and all other statutory conditions. You have not done so.
Your assertion is not only incorrect, but it signals a worrying level of intellectual malnourishment within your client’s litigation strategy.
3. Ongoing Non-Disclosure and Evasion
Your response fails to provide:
• A copy of the contract with the landowner
• Evidence of the ANPR timestamped logs
• A site plan showing signage positions
• Photographs of the signage present at the material time
• A transparent breakdown of the claimed sum
• Clarification as to whether the principal sum is damages or consideration
Each of these items is expressly required under paragraphs 3.1(a)-(d), 5.1, and 5.2 of the Protocol. Your failure to supply them, coupled with a claim that the request was "disproportionate," is nonsensical — especially when your client is threatening legal action without foundational evidence.
4. Procedural Sanctions and Costs
You continue to assert compliance with the Pre-Action Protocol while refusing to disclose the very documents required to substantiate your claim. This ongoing evasion is not proportionate — it is obstruction.
Accordingly, I put you on notice that should proceedings be issued without full and proper disclosure:
• I will seek a stay under paragraph 15(b) of the Practice Direction – Pre-Action Conduct
• I will apply for sanctions under paragraphs 13 and 16
• I will pursue costs under CPR 27.14(2)(g) for unreasonable conduct
5. VAT Liability and Your Client’s Position
Your attempt to dismiss VAT applicability to the £70 debt recovery fee by quoting HMRC’s VATSC06140 guidance — without any analysis — is either a deliberate attempt to mislead HMRC or a demonstration of fundamental incompetence.
Your client cannot claim this sum arises from contractual damages and simultaneously declare the charge to be outside the scope of VAT. You are reminded that if this fee reflects consideration under a contract, it is subject to VAT — and your client must issue a VAT invoice or absorb the tax.
Your failure to address this contradiction reinforces the view that your client's position is legally incoherent, procedurally defective, and fiscally questionable. Should the matter proceed to litigation, I reserve the right to raise this before the court and, if necessary, HMRC.
6. Professional Conduct Warning
Your persistent failure to comply with the Pre-Action Protocol — coupled with evasive language and refusal to provide basic evidence — gives rise to serious concerns regarding professional standards. If this non-compliance continues, I will lodge a formal complaint with the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) citing either procedural incompetence or deliberate obfuscation. Solicitors acting in the name of litigation are expected to uphold both the law and its spirit; your client's conduct — and your complicity in it — falls short on both fronts.
Yours faithfully,
[Your Name]
Just send the following response by email to info@dcblegal.co.uk and CC in yourself:
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]