You can email back with the following to info@dcblegal.co.uk and CC yourself:
Subject: Your ref: [reference number] — Non-compliant Letter of Claim / Southgate Park (Stansted Airport land)
Dear Sirs,
Thank you for your correspondence enclosing only a copy of the Notice to Keeper (NtK). Your reply still fails to comply with the Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims (the Protocol) and Practice Direction – Pre-Action Conduct (PD PAC) because you have not provided the key documents previously requested (contract with landowner, contemporaneous photographs of the signage in situ on the material date, the specific clause(s) alleged to have been breached, and a breakdown and basis for all sums claimed).
1) Not “relevant land” — no keeper liability under PoFA 2012
Southgate Park lies within the boundary of Stansted Airport and is subject to airport byelaws. Land under statutory control is expressly excluded from “relevant land” for the purposes of Schedule 4 Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. Accordingly, your client cannot rely on PoFA to pursue the registered keeper. If you contend otherwise, put your position beyond doubt by providing:
(a) the byelaws plan or authoritative map showing Southgate Park outside the controlled area (if that is your case), and
(b) your detailed legal basis for asserting PoFA applies here despite the statutory exclusion.
Pending such proof, any suggestion of keeper liability is misconceived and should be withdrawn.
2) Standing and authority
You have still not provided a copy of the written agreement with the landowner (unredacted as to the parties, site, term, and authority) demonstrating that MET Parking has locus to offer parking contracts and to litigate in its own name. Please supply this document. Absent standing, there is no cause of action.
3) Signage and alleged contractual terms
Your generic assertions about “overstay” are insufficient. Provide contemporaneous photographs of the signage as it appeared on the material date (not library images), the site plan showing sign positions, and the exact clause(s) allegedly breached. Without this, there is no basis to assess any alleged contract or breach.
4) The £70 add-on
Your attempt to add £70 “debt recovery” is unrecoverable. The Supreme Court in ParkingEye v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67 upheld a £85 parking charge because it already covered the operator’s running costs, and did not endorse bolt-on “damages” or collection fees. Numerous Circuit/County Court decisions have since disallowed such add-ons as double recovery and/or unfair under the CRA 2015. If you maintain the £70 is due, identify the pleaded cause of action for it and whether VAT is accounted for (and if not, why not).
5) Misstatement of law regarding GPEOL
Your stock paragraph about “genuine pre-estimate of loss” and Beavis is irrelevant. I have not advanced a GPEOL argument. Please refrain from template mischaracterisations and address the actual issues in dispute (non-relevant land; standing; signage; quantum).
6) Protocol compliance
Your reply still fails to comply with the Protocol and PD-PAC because you have not provided the key documents previously requested, nor have you engaged with the dispositive ‘non-relevant land’ issue. I hold an official Stansted Airport boundary map (exhibited and available on request) which clearly shows Southgate Park within the airport byelaw area. If proceedings are issued without first addressing this point and providing the key documents, I will apply, without further notice, for (i) strike-out under CPR 3.4(2)(a) on the basis that keeper liability is not available in law on non-relevant land and there is otherwise no reasonable ground for bringing the claim, or (ii) in the alternative, summary judgment under CPR 24.2. I will also seek costs for unreasonable conduct.
7) Without prejudice “offer”
Your “without prejudice” invitation to pay £100 is rejected. Given the PoFA point alone, the proper course is discontinuance.
Action required
Within 14 days, please provide:
1. Your confirmation that PoFA 2012 Schedule 4 is not relied upon (and that keeper liability is not alleged), or your detailed legal basis for asserting that Southgate Park is ‘relevant land’ notwithstanding the airport byelaws—together with the authoritative mapping or documentary material you say supports that position.
2. The unredacted (as to parties, site, term and authority) landowner agreement demonstrating MET Parking’s standing to operate the location and to litigate in its own name.
3. Contemporaneous photographs of all signage as displayed on the material date and the site plan showing their positions, together with the exact clause(s) you say were breached.
4. An itemised breakdown of the sum claimed, identifying the pleaded cause of action for each element, including the £70 add-on and its VAT position (and, if VAT is not charged, the basis on which it is said to be outside the scope of VAT).
5. The full name, role, and regulatory status of the person with conduct of this matter.
If you are unwilling or unable to provide the above, please confirm within the same period that you will discontinue any claim against the registered keeper. Otherwise, any proceedings will be met with an immediate application for strike-out or, in the alternative, summary judgment, with a costs application for unreasonable conduct.
Yours faithfully,
[Name]
[Address] | [Email]
It will NOT "go to court"!!!!! Yes, a county court claim will be issued but I will accept any bets at 100:1 odds that it will NEVER reach a hearing and will either be struck out or discontinued.
With regards to the LoC, you should respond to info@dcblegal.co.uk and CC yourself with the following:
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
6. The full name and role of the person with conduct of this matter and their regulatory status/authorisation to conduct litigation
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]