Free Traffic Legal Advice

Hi, I can only wish I have been recommended your forums last summer. It would have saved me so much hassle.

To tell you my story short. I work at Basildon since Spring of 2024 and on Mondays to Fridays have always parked in the same car park. I have never missed a payment nor overstayed in the car park. I use Britannia Parking app where our car registration details are saved and use them as default without needing to input manually any time I park.

Back in July, out of nowhere, my husband received to Notice to Keeper from Britannia Parking. He is the registered keeper of the car. Both of them claim ‘failed to make a valid payment’.

At that time, not knowing how greedy this industry is, I, with my full name, have made a sincere appeal outlining that NtK’s were issued incorrectly as I have a proof of payments that show full payments were made on the day. I have also included bank statement showing clearly that correct payments were made on the day.  Unfortunately, we have received a reply stating that PCN’s were issued correctly but they are willing to cancel them if I will pay £20 for the minor mistake I did.

I was livid as there definitely was no mistake form me.  I have emailed Britannia Parking but they refused to budge. As it was summertime and I went away with children, it completely slipped my mind to send an appeal to POPLA. On my return from holidays, I found few letters from DCBL issued to my husband’s name.

I have sent couple of emails to DCBL requesting to send me bullying and harassing letters as I have done nothing wrong and yet every time a new letter would arrive to my husband’s name. I have never received an email or letter sent to my name.
Just few weeks ago we received one letter from DCBL marked as final demand for one of pcn’s. However the next day we received a Letter of Claim from DCB Legal for the other pcn.

I have looked through these forums for possible responses but believe I need your help. We are more than happy to take this to the court if need be as it is a daylight robbery in my eyes of what they are trying to do.

In one of Britannia Parking posts I have read that their most of their NtK’s  are not fully compliant with either PoFA or the PPSCoP and can be challenged on that. Is it too late to send the statement mentioning this to DCB Legal and something instead should be sent?

Any guidance and help would greatly be appreciated.

https://imgur.com/a/u2dmVgq

Thank you very, very, very much!

I can confirm that the email was sent yesterday and was signed in my husbands name.

Will update as soon as he gets anything back.

I'm sure I've mentioned it elsewhere that these bulk litigators are incompetent...

The Letter of Claim (LoC) you received only referred to a single PCN. Their recent email response now demands payment for two PCNs, but it does not state that it is a new LoC, nor does it include the required forms or details to comply with the Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims.

This is a procedural irregularity. Each alleged debt should be the subject of a separate and properly issued LoC, or at least a single, clear and compliant LoC that itemises both PCNs and includes all required information and forms. Their email does neither.

You should not respond to that email. It is not a valid LoC, and replying now would serve no benefit. The best course of action is to wait and see when they issue a court claim.

If they try to include both PCNs in the claim without first issuing a compliant LoC for both, this breach of protocol can be raised in your defence. It will support a request to strike out the claim, and potentially a costs argument for unreasonable conduct.

I'm sure I've mentioned it elsewhere that these bulk litigators are incompetent...

First I'm hearing of it 

Their first response talks about a PCN (£170) but then demands £340 without explaining the second charge—this lack of clarity breaches the Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims, which requires transparency regarding the debt(s).

They cite HMRC VAT guidance to justify adding £70, claiming it's outside the scope of VAT. But this misses the point: you are not liable for a third party’s operational costs, especially where there is no contractual basis for doing so.

They fail to engage with your request for clarification about the legal basis (contractual sum vs. damages), or whether the Notices to Keeper were PoFA compliant. These are critical points in any defence and their silence is notable.

Respond to their latest letter with the following:

Dear Sirs,

Re: Letter of Claim dated 26 March 2025
Your Reference: [Insert Ref from Letter]
PCN References: [Insert both if known]

I write in response to your latest Letter of Claim dated 26 March 2025, received recently.

Please note that I dispute the alleged debt in its entirety and will defend any claim issued. I also reiterate that my address for service remains:

[Your Full Address]

It is clear from your prior response (dated [insert date of their reply]) that you have failed to engage with key points raised in my correspondence of 9 March 2025, including:

- Whether the £70 add-on per PCN is net of VAT, and your client's contractual or legal basis for adding it;
- Whether the original charge is claimed as a contractual sum or damages for alleged breach;
- Your client’s failure to respond to my earlier representations, including proof of valid app payments made on the dates in question;
- Your failure to confirm whether the Notices to Keeper complied with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4;
- The nature of the signage relied upon, including a copy of the specific sign that allegedly formed the contract, and its location in relation to the vehicle.

Your email and subsequent letter confuse the matter by initially referring to one PCN and then demanding £340 without listing any schedule or individual PCN dates. This approach is opaque and in breach of the Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims, which requires that the alleged debts be set out clearly and individually, with supporting evidence.

Accordingly, I again require:

1. A full breakdown of each alleged charge, with dates and locations of the alleged contraventions;
2. Copies of both Notices to Keeper (NtKs);
3. Copies of the photographs showing the vehicle and the signage upon which you rely;
4. A copy of the contract between your client and the landowner authorising enforcement;
5. An explanation of the legal basis of each charge (contractual sum or damages);
6. Clarification of whether your client relies on Schedule 4 of PoFA 2012 to hold me liable as Keeper;
7. A copy of the Privacy Notice displayed at the location(s) as required by the UK GDPR and ICO guidance;
8. A copy of your client’s data-sharing agreement with Britannia Parking Ltd, authorising the transfer of Keeper data to DCB Legal.

Please be advised that your client is required to comply with the Civil Procedure Rules, and failure to provide the above documents will be brought to the attention of the court.

Unless and until this documentation is supplied, I am unable to provide a meaningful response to the Letter of Claim. Should a claim be issued without full compliance with the Protocol, I will ask the court to stay proceedings and to make a costs order under CPR 27.14(2)(g) for unreasonable conduct.

Yours faithfully,

[Your Full Name]

Hi, just a quick update. My husband has received an email with their reply to the last email sent to them. Alongside the email they attached pictures of the car entering and leaving the car park, pictures of the site terms and conditions, previous letters sent, etc. Funny how they have not attached the email from Britannia Parking admitting that partial payments were recorded on the system

Anyways, back to the email, here it is:

Dear xxx xxx,
 
We write in response to correspondence received in our office dated 13th April 2025.       
                       
We have made a record of the contents of your correspondence and noted this on your file accordingly.     
     
Each of the points raised in your correspondence are dealt with in turn below. We now respond to the same as follows.
 
Prior to the issue of the parking charge, our Client applied to the DVLA for the details of the Registered Keeper of the Vehicle. Your name and address (xxx xxx xxx) were provided. Our Client therefore correctly issued correspondence to you at that address. Having not received payment, address verification was carried out prior to the Letter of Claim being sent. Your address was located and as such the Letter of Claim was issued to you at the traced address, which has remained unchanged.
 
The parking charge was not affixed to the vehicle because our client utilises Automatic Number Plate Recognition (“ANPR”) technology on the land where the parking charge was issued in order to manage the parking. This means that cameras capable of accurately recognising the vehicle registration number of a vehicle are constantly monitoring the entrance and exit to the land.  A photograph is taken of each vehicle as it enters and exits the land. Any vehicle found to have breached the terms of parking will be issued with a parking charge via the post.
 
When parking on private land, the contractual terms of the site are set out on the signs. You are entering a contract and agreeing to the terms by parking and staying on the site. Parking in breach of the terms as stipulated on the signage means that you are then breaking the terms of the contract. The breach in contract would make you liable for a parking charge.   
 
The terms and conditions on the signs stated that parking was permitted for vehicles clearly displaying a valid permit/ticket, or otherwise a parking charge notice would be issued. A valid permit/ticket was not on display on any of the contravention dates and as such the parking charge was issued correctly. Images of the signs on site are enclosed along with a site map which highlights there locations.
 
 
You should always be vigilant when entering any land that you are not familiar with or that you know is privately owned and there are parking terms in place. As the driver of the vehicle it is your responsibility at all material times to ensure you understand the terms and conditions operating on the land prior to exiting your vehicle. Furthermore, it is your responsibility to ensure that you have read and understood the terms operating prior to parking your vehicle. 
 
The Notice to Keeper was issued to you after the dates of contravention. Copies are enclosed. You were afforded the opportunity to; appeal the parking charge, transfer liability to the driver (if it was not you) or make payment. Neither a successful appeal, nor an adequate nomination were received, yet payment remains outstanding.   
 
The Reminder Notices were issued to you upon receipt of the Notices to Keeper. Copies are enclosed. This notice reiterated that payment was outstanding and confirmed that legal action may be taken and additional costs incurred if the parking charge was not paid.     
 
 In regard to the debt recovery fee of £70.00 being claimed, you would have been made aware of this through the signs available on the car parks site as previously mentioned above. This does not include any VAT. The HMRC ‘VAT Supply and Consideration manual’ (VATSC06140), which was last updated on 02 September 2020, confirmed that parking charge notices falls out of the scope of VAT. There is no requirement for a VAT invoice to be issued to you.         
 
Further to the above, in accordance with the appeal decision made on 29th July 2020 in Britannia Parking Group Ltd v Semark-Julien [2020] EW Mis 12 (CC), it is not correct to propose this claim should be struck out as an ‘abuse of process’ due to the contractual costs claimed.         
 
With reference to the above, this parking charge is being pleaded as a breach of contract to which damages are payable in light of the matters raised in this correspondence.     
     
Pursuing a legally owed debt is not harassment. You may wish to seek independent legal advice in this regard. Our client pursuing this matter through the Small Claims Court is the correct course of action.
 
If there are any documents that you have requested, but that are not enclosed with this letter, it is because we have deemed the request to be disproportionate and/or not relevant to the substantive issues in dispute. We respectfully draw your attention to paragraph 2.1(c) of the Protocol and remind you that both parties are expected to act reasonably and proportionately. 
 
DCB Legal have been instructed as all previous attempts to resolve the matter have been unsuccessful.     
 
You have 14 days from the date of this letter to pay the outstanding balance of £340.00. Failure to do so will result in a claim being issued against you without further notice.   
   
Payment can be made via bank transfer to our designated client account:-         
   
 
Account Name: DCB Legal Ltd Client Account         
Sort Code: 20-24-09           
Account Number: 60964441         
 
 
You must quote the correct case reference (xxx xxx) when making payment. If you do not, we may be unable to correctly allocate the payment. If further action is taken by us as a result of an incorrect reference being quoted, you will be liable for any further fees or costs incurred.
 
We would ask that you kindly furnish us with your most up to date telephone number and email address, this can be emailed to us at info@dcblegal.co.uk.
 
Alternatively, you can contact DCB Legal Ltd on 0203 838 7038 to make payment over the telephone or online at https://dcblegal.co.uk/response/pay-online/. 

Kind Regards,
 
Isabel Mwamba
Administration Associate
DCB Legal Ltd 
 
Tel: 0203 434 0433 | DX 23457 Runcorn
dcblegal.co.uk | Twitter | Linkedin | Facebook

Thank you b789, we will send that to them, really appreciate your input even whilst being away.

No need to panic. You still have time. If you follow the advice, this will eventually be struck out or discontinued.

With an issue date of 13th June, you have until 4pm on Wednesday 2nd July to submit your defence. If you submit an Acknowledgement of Service (AoS) before then, you would then have until 4pm on Monday 16th July to submit your defence.

If you want to submit an AoS then follow the instructions in this linked PDF:

https://www.dropbox.com/s/xvqu3bask5m0zir/money-claim-online-How-to-Acknowledge.pdf?dl=0

Otherwise, here is the defence and link to the draft order that goes with it. You only need to edit your name and the claim number. You sign the defence by typing your full name for the signature and date it. There is nothing to edit in the draft order.

When you're ready you combine both documents as a single PDF attachment and send as an attachment in an email to claimresponses.cnbc@justice.gov.uk and CC in yourself. The claim number must be in the email subject field and in the body of the email just put: "Please find attached the defence and draft order in the matter of Britannia Parking Group Ltd v [your full name] Claim no.: [claim number]."

IN THE COUNTY COURT

Claim No: [Claim Number]

BETWEEN:

Britannia Parking Group Ltd
Claimant

- and -

[Defendant's Full Name]

Defendant

---

DEFENCE

1. The Defendant denies the claim in its entirety. The Defendant asserts that there is no liability to the Claimant and that no debt is owed. The claim is without merit and does not adequately disclose any comprehensible cause of action.

2. There is a lack of precise detail in the Particulars of Claim (PoC) in respect of the factual and legal allegations made against the Defendant such that the PoC do not comply with CPR 16.4.

3. The Defendant is unable to plead properly to the PoC because:

(a) The contract referred to is not detailed or attached to the PoC in accordance with CPR PD 16.7.3(1);

(b) The PoC do not state the exact wording of the clause (or clauses) of the terms and conditions of the contract (or contracts) which is/are relied on;

(c) The PoC do not adequately set out the reason (or reasons) why the claimant asserts the defendant has breached the contract (or contracts)

(d) The PoC do not state with sufficient particularity exactly where the breach occurred, the exact time when the breach occurred and how long it is alleged that the vehicle was parked before the parking charge was allegedly incurred;

(e) The PoC do not state precisely how the sum claimed is calculated, including the basis for any statutory interest, damages, or other charges;

(f) The PoC do not state what proportion of the claim is the parking charge and what proportion is damages;

(g) The PoC do not provide clarity on whether the Defendant is sued as the driver or the keeper of the vehicle, as the claimant cannot plead alternative causes of action without specificity.

4. The Defendant attaches to this defence a copy of a draft order approved by a district judge at another court. The court struck out the claim of its own initiative after determining that the Particulars of Claim failed to comply with CPR 16.4. The judge noted that the claimant had failed to:

(i) Set out the exact wording of the clause (or clauses) of the terms and conditions relied upon;

(ii) Adequately explain the reasons why the defendant was allegedly in breach of contract;

(iii) Provide separate, detailed Particulars of Claim as permitted under CPR PD 7C.5.2(2).

(iv) The court further observed that, given the modest sum claimed, requiring further case management steps would be disproportionate and contrary to the overriding objective. Accordingly, the judge struck out the claim outright rather than permitting an amendment.

5. The Defendant submits that the same reasoning applies in this case and invites the court to adopt a similar approach by striking out the claim for the Claimant’s failure to comply with CPR 16.4.

Statement of truth

I believe that the facts stated in this Defence are true. I understand that proceedings for contempt of court may be brought against anyone who makes, or causes to be made, a false statement in a document verified by a statement of truth without an honest belief in its truth.

Signed:


Date:

Draft Order for the defence