Free Traffic Legal Advice

Hi There,

Thanks for any assistance.
Rundown is as follows,bought an item from Starbucks, has the bankstatements to prove, and then parked up for 12 minutes.

I saw some advice to ignore any letters.
I then decided to talk to Starbucks, they said nothing that they can do.

Anyway, then I got letters from DCB Legal - Letter before Claim, so I saw some advice to post the following:

"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."

I haven't seen a response from them. I chased them two months ago, no response, and now have a claim form from HM courts.
Can anyone advise how I take this forward? I'm loath to pay as I have bank statements indicating I was a paying customer.

Thanks

Hi,

I don't have a copy of the original PCN, honestly, this was circa 2024 / start of 2025 (to be vague) so I assumed it was not going to be followed up.

https://ibb.co/nqd7vScn

I'm going to say yes - I did contact them and start saying that I have proof of being a customer, so I didnt think this would apply to customers, obviously a mistake, but it was more a generic 'I' as I am dealing with the issue...

Hi,

Nothing in writing.

I did not identify myself as the driver

THanks for this, obviously, I wasn't entirely clear.

I have a claim form from HM courts..so I assume that I just append this response to the MCOL claim online?

Hi, I've logged onto MCOl. Haven't done much more but i'll log on and then submit an AOS.

Do i need to contest the jurisdiction?

Thanks. AOS was submitted.

These are the bulk of the defence points which should be included.

As already advised, please read through some other threads which deal with providing a defence submission.

Please ensure that you are vaguely familiar with the process since it is not entirely complex and is designed for a litigant in person rather than a legal professional.

Give it a few days for others to add further if needed - in my opinion, this is a decent skeleton defence - more can be added in the Witness Statement if needed.

I strongly suspect that the parking operator will NOT want to provide the official plan since such a plan would destroy their business at this location.




Southgate Park Defence Points



That the claim is denied in its entirety and that no debt is owed.

It is acknowledged that I am the Registered Keeper of the vehicle specifically mentioned in the Claim Form.

In the first instance, the vehicle driver is not known by the claimant.

That this is a contract dispute and, as such, there is absolutely no legal requirement for a Registered Keeper to reveal driver details to an unregulated private parking contractor.

As such, I will not be providing any driver details and no presumption can be drawn from me simply exercising my legal right.

That the land, mentioned by the Claimant, at Southgate Park, Stansted is clearly inside the statutory boundary of the Stansted Airport Area.

That all the land inside the Stansted Airport Area is designated, by the Government, as being Land Under Statutory Control and, as such, PoFA 2012 Schedule 4 cannot be used at this particular location as this location is not 'relevant land' as defined under PoFA 2012.

That a Statutory Instrument exists and is legally in place.

That this Statutory Instrument is known as 'The Stansted - London Byelaws'.

That the Statutory Instrument sets out parking controls within the Land Under Statutory Control.

That the 'Statutory Control' mentioned in the term 'Land Under Statutory Control' is the Statutory Instrument and, as such, by definition, the Statutory Instrument covers the entire area of Land Under Statutory Control.

That while the land at Southgate Park is privately owned, it remains within the official Airport Area and therefore remains under the control of the Statutory Instrument.

The Claimant has stated (in previous communications) that the land at Southgate Park is no longer within the designated area under statutory control and that, consequently, PoFA 2012 can in fact be used to establish Keeper Liability at the location.

That I therefore put the Claimant to STRICT PROOF to provide, to the Court, a formal Airport Plan document provided by either the LOCAL AUTHORITY or the GOVERNMENT which shows the claimed revised airport area boundary which specifically excludes the land at Southgate Park.

That the airport plan often used, by the claimant, in the parking appeals process will not be accepted since that plan specifically excludes land not owned by the airport operator - meaning; that even if the land at Southgate Park was inside the Airport Area it would never be shown on that particular plan.

That, as PoFA 2012 cannot be used at Southgate Park, the Claimant is unable to move liability from the unknown driver onto the Registered Keeper.

That, with both the driver unknown and, no keeper liability, there is no legal route by which the Claimant can hold me liable.

The Claim is therefore denied in its entirety.


Additional defence points which the Court should be made aware of;

That the Claimant's issued Parking Charge Notices (PCNs) are in clear breach of the parking operators Code of Practice since the PCNs specifically mention PoFA Keeper Liability.

The operators Code of Practice EXPRESSLY PROHIBBITS operators specifying keeper liability under PoFA 2012 when PoFA cannot apply.

A breach of the Code of Practice is automatically a breach of the operator's KADOE Agreement with the DVLA since that agreement specifically requires that the operator agree to follow the Code of Practice.

My details have therefore been obtained in breach of the KADOE Agreement.

That this also constitutes a misuse of personal data.