Subject: Response to your Letter of Claim Ref: [reference number]
Dear Sirs,
Your Letter Before Claim contains insufficient detail of the claim and fails to provide copies of the evidence your client places reliance upon, putting it in clear breach of the Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims.
As a supposed firm of solicitors, one would expect you to comply 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 exist to facilitate informed discussion and proportionate resolution. You may wish to reacquaint yourselves with them.
The Civil Procedure Rules 1998, Pre-Action Conduct and Protocols (Part 3), require the exchange of sufficient information to understand each other’s position. Part 6 clarifies that this includes disclosure of key documents relevant to the issues in dispute.
Your template letter refers to a “contract” yet encloses none. That omission undermines the only foundation upon which your client’s claim allegedly rests. It is not possible to engage in meaningful pre-litigation dialogue while you decline to furnish the very document you purport to enforce.
I confirm that, once I am in receipt of a Letter Before Claim that complies with para 3.1(a), I shall seek advice and submit a formal response within 30 days, as required. Accordingly, please provide:1. A copy of the original Notice to Keeper (NtK) and any notice chain relied upon to assert PoFA 2012 liability.
2. A copy of the contract you allege exists between your client and the driver, being an actual photograph of the sign(s) in place on the material date (not a stock image), together with a site plan showing the sign locations.
3. The precise wording of the clause(s) allegedly breached.
4. The written agreement between your client and the landowner evidencing standing/authority to enforce and to litigate.
5. A breakdown of the sums claimed, identifying whether the principal sum is claimed as consideration or damages, and whether the £70 “debt recovery” add-on includes VAT.
I am entitled to this information under paragraphs 6(a) and 6(c) of the Practice Direction, and I require it to meet my own obligation under paragraph 6(b).
If you fail to provide the above, I will treat that as non-compliance with the PAPDC and Pre-Action Conduct and will raise a formal complaint to the SRA regarding your conduct. I reserve the right to place this correspondence before the Court and to seek appropriate sanctions and costs (including, where appropriate, a stay and/or other case management orders).
Until your client complies and provides the requested material, I am unable to respond properly to the alleged claim or to consider my position. It would be premature and a waste of costs and court time to issue proceedings. Should you do so, I will seek immediate case management relief pursuant to paragraph 15(b) of the Practice Direction and an order compelling provision of the above.
For the avoidance of doubt, my full legal name is [Full Name]. Please correct your records.
Please note, I will not engage with any web portal; I will only respond by email or post.
Yours faithfully,
[Your name]
Okay great, and the default judgment is in favour of the defendant in that 95%?You're misunderstanding slightly. They issue thousands of claims every year - a very large proportion of those are ignored by the recipients, meaning the parking companies win by default. When they're making so much money out of the ones that don't put up a fight, they have comparatively little appetite to expend much time and cost with the few that do put up a fight, so discontinue these. The few that do go to hearings tend to be outliers, or claims involving several PCNs, where the potential gain is much larger.
How would I Park be beaten in my case?As b789 noted above, I Park usually use DCB Legal to handle their legal action for them. A distinct pattern has emerged over the last few years where as long as a case is defended, almost every case involving DCB Legal ends up getting discontinued before it reaches a hearing, regardless of the merits of the case. You can see a list of 601 examples (at time of writing) here: DCB LEGAL RECORD OF PRIVATE PARKING COURT CLAIM DISCONTINUATIONS (https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6377263/dcb-legal-record-of-private-parking-court-claim-discontinuations/p1). If you search here on FTLA you'll also find a sample of similar cases. We can't provide any guarantees, but so far we've only seen perhaps 2 or 3 cases actually go to a hearing, and these often involve more than a single PCN (more money at stake makes it more worth their while).
Suggesting that you pay even £20 is foolish.OP - in your case, as you have discovered, we're past the £20 stage, but as above, I Park can nearly always be beaten.
Full tariff paid: operator suffered no lossYou'd still need to extinguish Beavis for that. Some Judges (if it gets that far) may not blink at £100. Remember if they call it will be in the £250 region by the time they've added mythical charges.
Suggesting that you pay even £20 is foolish.Although the £20 option is now off the table in this case, pointing out that is is an option that exists in some mis-keying cases is not foolish, and members. Nor is it foolish of people to take that option if they decide that in their circumstances, reluctantly parting with £20 is preferable to the time and faff involved in fighting a court claim.
Full tariff paid: operator suffered no lossThese parasites don't usually collect the tariff. They only 'enforce' the rules and only get paid for breaches - this is why they won't drop it...
genuine key-entry error with payment should be capped at £20In their world that's only if you accept that offer to dispose of the matter immediately. (As you've found out that is lost going to IAS)
Consumer Rights Act 2015: penalties must be fair and proportionate; £100 is excessiveYou'd still need to extinguish Beavis for that. Some Judges (if it gets that far) may not blink at £100. Remember if they call it will be in the £250 region by the time they've added mythical charges.
Should I hold firm and wait for a Letter Before Claim, or pay the £100 now?Only you can decide whether you want to fill their coffers to dispose of it without 'hassle'. They can clearly attribute the payment to the stay and are now seeking gain for a technicality.
How likely would they be to follow it up with a small claims preceding and how likely would I be to win in a small claims court. I feel I have a pretty good standing but am receiving a lot of different advice.