Hi. I’m seeking advice as I received letter from dcblegal in behalf of Euro Car Parks Limited asking me to pay £ 170 . Date of contravention 31/05/2023 , location : Jerome Retail Park - Walsall , at this location 90 min free ( the ticket still needs to be displayed ), the car park machine was not working to print the ticket . I have not kept it penalty notice charge and did not appeal it , as I was very much annoyed . What can be done now ??
[ Guests cannot view attachments ]
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.
Thank very much , I will do that . Regards
Hi ,I have replied as you suggested . I have received their reply now . I will attach their email . They have not supplied information to all of the questions and have said that it’s not relevant to the issue in dispute , please what can be done next .
[ Guests cannot view attachments ]
First pat of the email
[ Guests cannot view attachments ]
Second part of the email
[ Guests cannot view attachments ]
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]
Thank you very much , I will do that . I forgot to tell you that they did send me a picture of the parking prices sign , I will attach this , thank you again
[ Guests cannot view attachments ]
Hi , I have received Claim form now , I’m going to attach the PoC page as you asked , thank you very much for helping me with this .
Hi again , I’m having trouble to insert the promised picture here ( PoC page ) , how do I do that please
What is the issue date of the claim?
Hi. The issue date 28 August 2025 , thank you
With an issue date of 28th August you have until 4pm on Tuesday 16th September to submit your defence. If you submit an Acknowledgement of Service (AoS) before then, you would then have until 4pm on Tuesday 30th September to submit your defence.
You only need to submit an AoS if you need extra time to prepare 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=0MCOL CPR16.4 only defence
Until very recently, we never advised using the MCOL to submit a defence. However, due to recent systemic failures within the CNBC, we feel that it is safer to now submit a short defence using MCOL as it is instantly submitted and entered into the "system". Whilst it will deny the use of some formatting or inclusion of transcripts etc. these can always be included with the Witness Statement (WS) later, if it ever progresses that far.
You will need to copy and paste it into the defence text box on MCOL. It has been checked to make sure that it will fit into the 122 lines limit.
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 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 submits that courts have previously struck out 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 CPR PD 7C.5.2(2), but chose not to do so.
AND upon the claim being for a very modest sum such that the court considers it disproportionate and not in accordance with the overriding objective to allot to this case any further share of the court's resources by ordering further particulars of claim and a further defence, each followed by further referrals to the judge for 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 5 days after service of this order, failing which no such application may be made.
