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.
This is all normal. Do not panic.
When you receive 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.
You can respond to DCB Legal by email to info@dcblegal.co.uk and CC in yourself with the following:
Dear Sirs,
Your response dated [insert date] is noted. However, it remains materially non-compliant with the Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims and the Practice Direction – Pre-Action Conduct.
Contrary to your assertion that my requests are “disproportionate,” the information and documents sought are precisely those required under paragraphs 3.1(a)-(d), 5.1, and 5.2 of the Protocol, and paragraphs 6(a) and 6(c) of the Practice Direction. Your refusal to provide:
• A copy of the contract with the landowner authorising enforcement
• A site plan showing signage locations
• Photographs of signage (including size, font, and positioning)
• A copy of the alleged contract with the driver
• A breakdown of the £70 fee and its contractual or statutory basis
• Clarification of whether the principal sum is pleaded as damages or consideration
...is a clear breach of your client’s obligations. These are not optional disclosures. They are essential to understanding the claim and enabling me to respond meaningfully, as required under paragraph 6(b) of the Practice Direction.
Your reliance on ParkingEye v Beavis is misplaced. That case concerned a specific set of facts and signage at a retail park, and did not grant carte blanche to levy arbitrary charges or bypass pre-action obligations. Moreover, your vague justification for the £70 fee fails to establish any contractual entitlement or actual loss, and is therefore likely to be struck out as an abuse of process.
Further, your assertion that the £70 debt recovery fee is VAT exempt is demonstrably false. HMRC guidance (VATFIN3255) confirms that debt collection services are specifically excluded from the VAT exemption and are subject to VAT at the standard rate. If your client is charging £70 for debt recovery, then either VAT is due and must be itemised, or your client is unlawfully passing on a VAT-inclusive cost while misrepresenting its tax status. This is not only misleading but may constitute a breach of consumer protection and tax regulations. I reserve the right to refer this misrepresentation to HMRC for investigation.
I remind you again that the Protocol binds all parties, regardless of claim size or type. Your client’s serial litigation does not exempt them from compliance. Should proceedings be issued without full disclosure, I will immediately apply for:
• A stay under paragraph 15(b) of the Practice Direction
• An order compelling disclosure of the withheld documents
• Costs sanctions under paragraphs 13 and 16, relying on Webb Resolutions Ltd v Waller Needham & Green [2012] EWHC 3529 (Ch), Daejan Investments Ltd v The Park West Club Ltd [2003] EWHC 2872 (TCC), and Charles Church Developments Ltd v Stent Foundations Ltd [2007] EWHC 855 (TCC)
Furthermore, I put you on notice that any proceedings issued in the absence of Protocol compliance will be met with a formal application for costs under CPR 27.14(2)(g), on the basis that your client has behaved unreasonably in bringing a claim without first complying with its pre-action obligations.
You now have 14 days to provide the outstanding documents and confirm whether your client intends to comply with the Protocol. If you fail to do so, any proceedings issued will be met with a robust application for stay and costs.
Yours faithfully,
[Your Name]
This will go to a claim being issued. Not a problem and if you follow the advice given here, you win't be paying a penny to ECP.
For now, you respond to the Letter of Claim (LoC) with the following by email to info@dcblegal.co.uk and you also CC 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]
Eventually, when the claim does arrive, let us know and show us the N1SDT Claim Form, but only the page with Particulars of Claim (PoC) on them. You can discard all the other forms that come with it. We will provide a suitable defence and advice. In due course, the claim will either be struck out or discontinued.