Free Traffic Legal Advice

Respond with the following letter. Save it as a PDF and attach it in an email to info@dcblegal.co.uk and CC in yourself.

[Your Name]
[Your Address]

DCB Legal Ltd
Direct House
Greenwood Drive
Manor Park
Runcorn
WA7 1UG

[Date]

By email: info@dcblegal.co.uk

Subject: Response to Letter of Claim – Disputed Debt

Dear Sir/Madam,

I acknowledge receipt of your Letter of Claim dated 27 February 2025 regarding an alleged debt of £510.00 on behalf of your client, Vehicle Control Services Limited (VCS). I dispute this claim in its entirety, both on substantive and procedural grounds. Accordingly, I require full and detailed clarification before any further action is taken. Failure to provide the required information will be considered a breach of the Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims (PAP) and may be cited in any subsequent proceedings.

1. Pre-Action Protocol Non-Compliance

Your Letter of Claim fails to comply with the requirements of the Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims (PAP) in the following ways:

No Clear Breakdown of the Debt (£510.00)

The LoC fails to itemise the charges beyond stating a lump sum amount.

I require a full breakdown showing:

- The original Parking Charge(s) amount.
- Any alleged additional fees, including "debt recovery costs" or "legal fees."
- Justification for any additional costs beyond the original PCN amount.
- Explanation of how such fees comply with the Supreme Court ruling in ParkingEye v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67.

Failure to Provide Key Evidence

Your letter does not include any documentary evidence to substantiate the claim, such as:

- A copy of the original Parking Charge Notice(s) (PCNs).
- Photographic or ANPR evidence showing the alleged contravention, including timestamped images of entry and exit.
- A full copy of the terms and conditions allegedly breached, including the signage that the claimant is relying on that formed the contract with the driver, as displayed at the time of the alleged contravention.
- Evidence that VCS has the authority to issue parking charges at the location in question.
- Proof that the alleged sum reflects actual loss or liquidated damages enforceable under contract law.

No Demonstration of Keeper Liability Under PoFA 2012

- If your client seeks to rely on the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA) Schedule 4, strict compliance is required.
- I request confirmation that the Notice to Keeper (NtK) sent complies with PoFA 2012, Schedule 4, Paragraph 9, including:

- Clear invitation for the keeper to pay the charge.
- Delivery within the statutory timeframe.
- The inclusion of mandatory wording as per PoFA 9(2)(e)(i).

- If no such compliance exists, VCS has no basis for holding me liable as keeper.

Potential Abuse of Process – Unreasonable Additional Costs

- The addition of any ‘debt recovery costs’ beyond the original PCN is likely unrecoverable and may constitute an abuse of process.
- In Britannia Parking v Semark-Jullien (2020), the courts ruled that adding a flat £60 debt recovery fee was an abuse of process and struck out the claim.
- If this claim proceeds with added fees, I will seek to have them struck out and will request costs for unreasonable behaviour.

2. Demand for Further Disclosure

To facilitate a meaningful response and comply with the Overriding Objective under CPR 1.1, I request the following within 30 days:

- A full breakdown of the claimed sum, showing any debt collection or legal fees.
- A copy of the original Parking Charge Notice(s) (PCNs).
- Timestamped ANPR or photographic evidence of the alleged contravention.
- Copies of the signage in place at the material time, including the full contractual terms.
- Evidence of landowner authority, showing VCS has the right to issue PCNs at the site.
- Clarification on whether the claim is pursued under contract law or trespass.
- If alleging Keeper Liability, confirmation that all PoFA 2012 requirements have been met.

If you fail to provide the above, I will draw this to the court’s attention as a failure to engage in pre-action conduct, potentially seeking an adverse costs order.

3. Next Steps & Potential Complaint

If you fail to provide the requested information or continue to pursue an unmeritorious claim:

- I will formally complain to the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) regarding potential breaches of SRA Code of Conduct (Principles 1, 4, 5 & 7) regarding misleading demands for payment.
- I will escalate a complaint to the DVLA for breach of the Keeper at Date of Event (KADOE) contract, as VCS’s misuse of DVLA data warrants investigation and potential sanctions.
- If you issue a claim without addressing these issues, I will request summary judgment or strike-out for failure to follow the PAP.
- If the claim proceeds, I will seek full costs under CPR 27.14(2)(g) for unreasonable behaviour.

4. No Admission of Liability & Right to Seek Further Advice

This letter should not be construed as an admission of any liability. I reserve the right to seek independent legal advice, and if necessary, to counterclaim for unreasonable conduct.

Please confirm receipt of this letter and provide a full response within 30 days.

Yours faithfully,

[Your Name]
[Your Address]
[Email Address]

Good afternoon,

Thank you once again for your advice. I have today received the email below from DCB Legal, in response to the reply that I sent them, in accordance with your advice above. If you would be so kind, I would appreciate your further advice on their latest communication please. They have attached copies of the original notice, photos of the car, of which I am the registered keeper, signage at the area in concern, and copies of our previous correspondence. Thanks in advance.

Dear x,
 

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

We now respond to the same as follows.

Please find attached all evidence we currently hold on file. We confirm that prior to the event of a hearing, all relevant evidence will be provided.


If there are any documents that you have requested, but that are not attached, 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.
 

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 terms and conditions on the signs stated no stopping. The vehicle was recorded stopped in an area where stopping was prohibited as is demonstrated in the photographic evidence enclosed. The parking charge ("PC") was issued correctly.
 

In order to identify the Registered Keeper of the vehicle, our client submitted a request for details to the DVLA. Your details were provided and thereafter notices were sent to you by our Client at your serviceable address. Those notices asked you to either make payment or, if you were not driving, nominate a driver by providing their name and full address. You did neither and as such you are now pursued on the basis that you were driving. On the balance of probabilities, if you were not the driver, you would have nominated.
 

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 engage in dispute resolution. 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 debt resolution so the amount due would not have increased.
 

For the avoidance of doubt, please see below a breakdown of the £510.00 outstanding.

 
PC no.

PC amount.

Debt recovery fee.

VCSxx

£100.00

£70.00

VCSxx

£100.00

£70.00

VCSxx

£100.00

£70.00


You now have 30 days from the date of this email to make payment of £510.00. Failure to make payment will result in a Claim being issued against you without any further reference.
 

Payment can be made via bank transfer to our designated client account: -

Account Name: DCB Legal Ltd Client Account   
Sort Code: xx 
Account Number: xx

You must quote the correct case reference (xx) 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/.

 
Kind Regards,
 

xx
Litigation Support Associate
DCB Legal Ltd 

You can respond with the following to info@dcblegal.co.uk and CC yourself:

[Date]

DCB Legal Ltd
Direct House
Greenwood Drive
Manor Park
Runcorn
WA7 1UG

By email only: info@dcblegal.co.uk

Subject: Response to your email dated [insert date] – VCS / [Reference Number(s)] – Keeper Liability Not Applicable

Dear Sir/Madam,

I write further to your email dated [insert date], and must express astonishment at the level of misunderstanding and procedural ineptitude it contains. I respond purely for the benefit of the court, should this charade ever be escalated to litigation.

Let me be clear: I am the registered keeper, and at no stage have I identified the driver. Yet, despite my prior explanation—and the fact that the location in question is Bristol Airport, land subject to statutory control under byelaws—you persist in attempting to argue that I am liable as the keeper under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA). Your failure to grasp such a fundamental legal point is, frankly, embarrassing.

1. Airport Land Is Not “Relevant Land” – Keeper Liability Is Irrelevant

For avoidance of any further confusion (which appears chronic), land governed by airport byelaws is excluded from the definition of “relevant land” under Paragraph 3 of Schedule 4 to the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA).

You cannot hold a keeper liable.

There is no grey area. This is basic statutory interpretation—something one would reasonably expect a litigation firm to understand before threatening court action. Yet here we are, with your firm still insinuating that liability passes to the keeper, as if PoFA applies where it manifestly does not.

The Keeper is under no legal obligation to identify the driver to your client, an unregulated private parking company. Moreover, there can be no presumption or inference that the Keeper was the driver, as already confirmed in persuasive appellate case law—including your own client’s loss in Vehicle Control Services Ltd v Edward (2023) [HOKF6C9C]. To continue suggesting otherwise demonstrates either wilful ignorance or a staggering level of incompetence.

2. Misrepresentation of the Law – Baseless ‘Balance of Probabilities’ Argument

Your assertion that I am liable “on the balance of probabilities” because I did not name the driver is both legally baseless and intellectually lazy.

As already explained above, PoFA does not apply to airport land. In such cases, where there is no statutory mechanism for transferring liability from driver to keeper, your client must prove as a matter of fact that I was the driver. There is no legal presumption, and the Keeper is under no obligation to assist a private firm by naming the driver.

Your reliance on inference in the absence of evidence is a misrepresentation of the applicable legal test. In the persuasive appellate case of Vehicle Control Services Ltd v Edward (2023) [HOKF6C9C], HHJ Gargan made clear at paragraph 35.3:

“It is consistent with the appropriate probability analysis whereby simply because somebody is a registered keeper, it does not mean on balance of probability they were driving on this occasion, because one simply cannot tell.”

The judge was unambiguous: unless the Claimant can clearly and specifically evidence that the defendant was the driver, no such inference can be drawn.

Your continued reliance on this flawed reasoning is not only legally incorrect—it is professionally embarrassing. To attempt to manufacture liability through inference where none exists, and in direct contradiction to established and persuasive appellate authority, falls well below the standards expected of regulated legal practitioners.

Should you persist in advancing this fiction, I will bring it to the court’s attention and will include it in my formal complaint to the Solicitors Regulation Authority, highlighting your firm’s apparent willingness to misstate the law and pursue claims without proper legal foundation.

3. DVLA Data Misuse – Formal Complaints Imminent

Your client obtained my keeper data via the DVLA’s KADOE contract, which strictly prohibits use of that data where PoFA is not applicable and where the keeper cannot be held liable.

Continued use of that data in pursuit of an unenforceable claim is not only unlawful but in breach of the KADOE contract and the UK GDPR.

Should this baseless pursuit continue, I will not hesitate to escalate matters to:

The DVLA, for breach of the KADOE terms; and
The Information Commissioner’s Office, for unlawful processing of personal data.

4. Fake Add-Ons – Abuse of Process

Your attempt to inflate the claim with three separate £70 “debt recovery” charges is equally absurd. The added sums represent no genuine loss, nor are they contractually agreed.

This exact conduct was condemned by the courts in Britannia Parking v Semark-Jullien (2020), where such practices were found to be an abuse of process. Adding these sums not only displays a complete lack of legal rigour, but if a claim is issued including them, I will seek summary judgment or strike-out, and pursue costs under CPR 27.14(2)(g) for unreasonable conduct.

5. Pre-Action Protocol – Your Response Is Woefully Non-Compliant

Despite my reasoned and structured response, your firm has simply repeated your client’s unmeritorious position and cherry-picked which questions you deemed “proportionate.” That is not how the Pre-Action Protocol works.

Paragraph 6(a) of the Protocol requires a full and considered reply to every substantive point raised. Your approach—consisting largely of automated bluster and evidence you believe supports your client—falls well short of what the court will expect.

6. Final Position

Let me be crystal clear: any further attempt to pursue me, as the keeper, for a purported contravention on non-relevant land, will be taken as evidence of:

• A deliberate abuse of process;
• A flagrant misuse of DVLA data; and
• A breach of the SRA Principles, notably:

• Principle 1: Upholding the rule of law
• Principle 4: Acting with honesty
• Principle 5: Acting with integrity
• Principle 7: Acting in the best interests of each client

Should your firm be foolish enough to escalate this to court, I will include this and all previous correspondence in my witness statement, and will formally request that the court issue a finding of unreasonable behaviour against your client, and against you as their representatives.

I strongly suggest that you now take competent legal advice before humiliating yourselves and your client further.

Yours faithfully,

[Your Name]
Registered Keeper – Not Liable