Free Traffic Legal Advice

Subject: Pre-Action Non-Compliance, Standing, and Intended SRA Complaint

Ref: [DCB Legal ref] / PCN: [PCN ref]

Dear Ms Maloney,

Thank you for your email.

You state that a claim has now been submitted. For the avoidance of doubt, I do not accept liability for this alleged debt and will deal with the claim strictly through the court process once the claim form is served.

This letter is to record:

1. your continuing failure to comply with the Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims and the Practice Direction on Pre-Action Conduct; and
2. your client’s failure to prove any standing from the landowner to operate and enforce at this site.

1. Pre-Action non-compliance

From the outset I have asked for basic “key documents” that the Practice Direction requires to be exchanged before proceedings are issued. You have repeatedly refused to provide them, relying on a stock phrase that the requests are “disproportionate and/or not relevant”.

For the record, you have still not provided:

• A copy of the original Notice to Keeper relied upon to found any alleged keeper liability.
• Contemporaneous photographs of the *actual* signs in situ on the material date, together with the precise wording allegedly forming the contract and the term said to have been breached.
• A copy of the written authority from the landowner/landholder which your client relies on.
• A clear breakdown of the £247.59 claimed, explaining the legal basis of each element and the provenance of the added “debt recovery” sum.

These are not peripheral; they go directly to whether your client has any cause of action at all. Issuing a claim while still refusing to disclose them will be put before the court in support of an argument that you and/or your client has behaved unreasonably and that sanctions in costs and case management are appropriate.

2. Standing and landowner authority (PPSCoP Section 14)

You have produced no evidence whatsoever that your client has any authority from the landowner or landholder to:

• operate at Airport Retail Park; and/or
• issue PCNs and court claims in their own name.

The Private Parking Single Code of Practice requires that operators hold written authority from the landholder before they operate and enforce on any site. Section 14 – and in particular 14.1(a)–(j) – sets out what that written authority must cover, including:

• the identity of the landholder;
• the land to which it relates;
• the duration;
• the extent of the operator’s mandate; and
• whether the operator has been authorised to bring legal proceedings in its own name.

Unless there is a contract or written authority from the landowner that satisfies Section 14.1(a)–(j), your client has no standing to issue PCNs at this location and no standing to sue me in its own name.

I therefore again require:

• A contemporaneous, unredacted copy of the contract / letter of authority from the landowner on which your client relies; and
• Confirmation of the landholder’s capacity (freeholder/long leaseholder/other).

If you are unable to produce this, the correct course is to discontinue the claim. If you persist without producing proper landowner authority, I will invite the court to draw an adverse inference and to treat that as a serious conduct issue.

3. SRA escalation

You have now:

• Issued (or purported to issue) a claim without disclosing basic standing and liability documents requested at the pre-action stage;
• Repeatedly relied on templated, non-responsive wording instead of addressing clear, specific legal points; and
• Ignored the requirements of the Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims and the Practice Direction on Pre-Action Conduct.

In view of this, I am preparing a formal report to the Solicitors Regulation Authority regarding DCB Legal Ltd’s conduct in this matter, including concerns about:

• Failure to comply with pre-action obligations;
• Failure to properly address fundamental standing issues before issuing proceedings; and
• The use of standardised debt-collection templates in place of a competent, case-specific legal response.[/indent\

A copy of this letter, together with your correspondence, will be provided to the SRA and to the court.

4. Communications

I will not discuss this matter by telephone or portal. All communication must be in writing, preferably by email.

Yours faithfully,

[Name]
[Postal address]
[Email]

Subject: SRA Complaint – Conduct of DCB Legal Ltd in Private Parking Litigation (Failure to Comply with Pre-Action Protocol and Standing Requirements)

Dear Sirs,

I wish to raise a formal complaint about the conduct of DCB Legal Ltd in relation to a private parking claim they are pursuing against me on behalf of their client, relating to Airport Retail Park, CV3 4RP.

DCB Legal have sent a series of “Letter of Claim” style communications which I contend do not comply with the Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims or with the general requirements of pre-action conduct. From the outset I made clear and specific requests for key documents, including:

1. A copy of the original Notice to Keeper on which any alleged keeper liability is based.
2. Contemporaneous photographs of the actual signage in situ on the material date, and the precise wording of the terms allegedly forming the contract and said to have been breached.
3. The written authority from the landowner or landholder upon which their client relies to operate at the site and to issue PCNs and court claims in its own name.
4. A clear breakdown of the total sum claimed, explaining the legal basis for each element and the source of the added “debt recovery” sum.

Instead of responding substantively, DCB Legal sent repeated template replies asserting that their Letter of Claim was “compliant”, that my requests were “disproportionate and/or not relevant”, and that the appeal window had expired. The appeal-window point is irrelevant to pre-action engagement, but they have persisted in using it as a stock answer. They have refused to provide key documents that go directly to liability and standing, while insisting that they may proceed to issue a claim.

In their correspondence, members of staff such as “Sofia Marth, Administration Associate” and “Emily Maloney, Litigation Support Associate” have purported to deal with these matters. When I asked DCB Legal to identify the authorised person responsible for the conduct of the litigation, including their SRA number, they failed to do so. I am concerned that unqualified administrative staff are effectively “fronting” the litigation, using standard debt-collection templates, without proper supervision or review by an authorised litigator.

I am particularly concerned about the question of standing. Under the Private Parking Single Code of Practice, the operator must hold written authority from the landholder which meets the requirements set out in section 14, including 14.1(a) to (j). That written authority should show, among other things, the identity and capacity of the landholder, the extent of the land, the term of the authority, and whether the operator is permitted to bring court proceedings in its own name. Despite repeated requests, DCB Legal have not produced any such authority or contract, nor have they indicated that they have checked whether their client in fact has standing to operate or sue at this location. In my submission, DCB Legal are pressing on with a claim while knowing, or being reckless as to whether, their client has any entitlement from the landowner at all.

DCB Legal have now informed me that a claim has been submitted to the court, while still refusing to provide the basic documents described above. They have persisted with formulaic, non-responsive wording, asserting compliance with the Protocol but not addressing the specific points raised. I consider this to be a failure to comply with their pre-action duties and a failure to provide a competent standard of service in contentious work.

I ask the SRA to investigate:

1. Whether DCB Legal have complied with their obligations regarding pre-action conduct, including the proper exchange of key documents and meaningful engagement with disputes about liability and standing, before issuing a claim.

2. Whether authorised solicitors at DCB Legal are properly supervising these files, or whether administrative staff are effectively conducting litigation and giving template legal responses without adequate supervision, contrary to the rules on reserved legal activities and supervision.

3. Whether it is proper for DCB Legal to continue to pursue court proceedings where they have not obtained, or will not disclose, any written landowner authority satisfying the requirements now placed on private parking operators by the Private Parking Single Code of Practice.

4. Whether their use of stock, debt-collection style templates, their refusal to address clear legal issues, and their decision to issue proceedings in these circumstances is compatible with the SRA Principles and Code of Conduct, particularly in relation to upholding the rule of law, acting with integrity, providing a competent standard of service, and ensuring proper supervision.

I can supply copies of all relevant correspondence between myself and DCB Legal, including the Letters of Claim, my detailed responses, and their template replies, together with any claim form once served.

Please let me know what further information you require.

Yours faithfully,

[Full name]
[Address]
[Email]

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 adequately 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 PD 16, para 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 submits that courts have previously struck out materially similar claims of their own initiative for failure to adequately comply with CPR 16.4, particularly where the Particulars of Claim failed to specify the contractual terms relied upon or explain the alleged breach with sufficient clarity.

5. In comparable cases involving modest sums, judges have found that requiring further case management steps would be disproportionate and contrary to the overriding objective. Accordingly, strike-out was deemed appropriate. 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 due to the Claimant’s failure to adequately comply with CPR 16.4, rather than permitting an amendment. The Defendant proposes that the following Order be made:

Draft Order:

Of the Court's own initiative and upon reading the particulars of claim and the defence.

AND the court being of the view that the particulars of claim do not adequately comply with CPR 16.4(1)(a) because: (a) they do not set out the exact wording of the clause (or clauses) of the terms and conditions of the contract which is (or are) relied on; and (b) they do not adequately set out the reason (or reasons) why the claimant asserts that the defendant was in breach of contract.

AND the claimant could have complied with CPR 16.4(1)(a) had it served separate detailed particulars of claim, as it could have done pursuant to PD 7C, para 5.2, but chose not to do so.

AND upon the Court determining, having regard to the overriding objective (CPR 1.1), that it would be disproportionate to direct further pleadings or to allot any further share of the Court’s resources to this claim (for example by ordering further particulars of claim and a further defence, with consequent case management).

ORDER:

1. The claim is struck out.

2. Permission to either party to apply to set aside, vary or stay this order by application on notice, which must be filed at this Court not more than 7 days after service of this order, failing which no such application may be made.