Author Topic: MET victim - DCB Legal letter of claim Stansted Southgate  (Read 1591 times)

0 Members and 1675 Guests are viewing this topic.

MET victim - DCB Legal letter of claim Stansted Southgate
« on: »
Hello! I've noticed a very supportive team here behind helping with Stansted Southgate! I have come late as the letter of claim has been issued on the 26th of August and I have only now read a bit more about legal aspects and decided not to ignore it, as I have done with MET letters, expecting the thing to die out. Hoping very much you can advise me before my time runs out ;)  Based on all previous advice here, I'm still struggling to figure out how I should formulate the response. I guess this is one of the reasons people go to pay PCNs. Unfortunately, I was unable to locate the original MET letters that were sent during this period. I understand that the keeper is not obliged to reveal who was driving the car. What I know about the alleged offence is the car parked at night, where now I guess all the "claim" is about, since they expect people to put reg numbers in Starbucks, or have some form of prepayment. A year ago, there was no indication that this was required, only that there was a 1-hour limit. And the car has left the parking before the hour ran out. I'm attaching the letter of claim (1) https://ibb.co/CKtsYhkq (2) https://ibb.co/fzw16J41
« Last Edit: September 20, 2025, 06:29:49 pm by booker64 »

Share on Bluesky Share on Facebook


Re: MET victim - DCB Legal letter of claim Stansted Southgate
« Reply #1 on: »
Because the location is not ‘relevant land’, PoFA provisions for transferring liability from the driver to the registered keeper can not be used, although MET will say that they do.

POPLA would probably have cancelled this on this basis, but you didn’t appeal.

So it will go to court. DCB Legal will discontinue before having to pay the court fee as long as you defend the claim.

Re: MET victim - DCB Legal letter of claim Stansted Southgate
« Reply #2 on: »
There are plenty of replies to DCB Legal letters of claim here also, but essentially you don’t pay them or fill in their forms, and in due course they’ll raise a court claim, and you’ll get advice here on the process.

Re: MET victim - DCB Legal letter of claim Stansted Southgate
« Reply #3 on: »
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:

Quote
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]
Never argue with stupid people. They will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience” - Mark Twain

Re: MET victim - DCB Legal letter of claim Stansted Southgate
« Reply #4 on: »
@jfollows
@b789

Thank you both to take time to reply!

I shall mail DCB Legal as suggested, sounds good.

Will keep you posted once I'll get the court claim. To be fair even if it gets to hearing - lets see it.

Thank you once again.
« Last Edit: September 21, 2025, 10:57:32 pm by booker64 »

Re: MET victim - DCB Legal letter of claim Stansted Southgate
« Reply #5 on: »
Hello @b789, and here's the reply from DCB and the PDF they've sent me.

No copy of contract  and it seems they say asking for it is unreasonable.  :o


Quote
We write in response to your correspondence received in our office.

The parking charge has been issued due to overstay.

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 Notice to Keeper was issued to you on 12/08/2024. A copy is attached. 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 Notice was issued to you on 16/09/2024. A copy is attached. 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.

The amount owed is a genuine pre-estimate of the losses incurred in managing the parking location to ensure compliance with the clearly displayed terms and conditions. However, in Parking Eye Ltd v Beavis, it was found, both at County Court and Court of Appeal level, that appealing a Parking Charge on the basis that the amount is not a genuine pre-estimate of loss is, in fact, not a successful legal defence.

The sum added is a contribution to the actual costs incurred by our Client as a result of your non-payment. Our Client’s employees have spent time and material attempting to recover the debt. This is not our Client’s usual business and the resources could have been better spent in other areas of the business. Had you of paid as per the Contract, there would have been no need for recovery action so the amount due would not have increased. 

For the avoidance of doubt, the outstanding balance consists of £100.00 for the breach in contract as per the signage displayed on site, and £70.00 debt recovery fee.

If there are any documents or information that you have requested, but that are not enclosed, 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.

WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

I can confirm our Client would be agreeable to £100.00 in full and final settlement of this Claim. The current outstanding balance is £170.00.

You now have 30 days from the date of this email/letter to make payment of £100.00. Failure to make payment may result in a Claim being issued against you without further reference.

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 (***MET) 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.

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/.

PDF: https://ibb.co/jk7FwKcW
« Last Edit: October 19, 2025, 07:15:18 pm by booker64 »

Re: MET victim - DCB Legal letter of claim Stansted Southgate
« Reply #6 on: »
You can email back with the following to info@dcblegal.co.uk and CC yourself:

Quote
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]
Never argue with stupid people. They will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience” - Mark Twain

Re: MET victim - DCB Legal letter of claim Stansted Southgate
« Reply #7 on: »
@b789, thank you very much sir. Sending it out.