DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Private parking tickets
*****************************************************
#Post#: 111867--------------------------------------------------
Starbucks, Stansted - DB Legal
By: Claimagainst123 Date: March 3, 2026, 5:26 am
---------------------------------------------------------
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
#Post#: 111872--------------------------------------------------
Re: Starbucks, Stansted - DB Legal
By: InterCity125 Date: March 3, 2026, 5:44 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Post up the claim form and PCN redacting personal info and
passwords etc.
Can we assume that the driver has never been identified?
#Post#: 111878--------------------------------------------------
Re: Starbucks, Stansted - DB Legal
By: Claimagainst123 Date: March 3, 2026, 6:28 am
---------------------------------------------------------
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.
HTML 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...
#Post#: 111892--------------------------------------------------
Re: Starbucks, Stansted - DB Legal
By: InterCity125 Date: March 3, 2026, 8:35 am
---------------------------------------------------------
When you say 'contacted them' - did you ever put anything in
writing which may have identified a driver?
#Post#: 111915--------------------------------------------------
Re: Starbucks, Stansted - DB Legal
By: Claimagainst123 Date: March 3, 2026, 11:23 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Hi,
Nothing in writing.
#Post#: 111916--------------------------------------------------
Re: Starbucks, Stansted - DB Legal
By: Brenda_R2 Date: March 3, 2026, 11:26 am
---------------------------------------------------------
So verbal only - did you identify yourself as the driver?
#Post#: 112002--------------------------------------------------
Re: Starbucks, Stansted - DB Legal
By: Claimagainst123 Date: March 4, 2026, 3:52 am
---------------------------------------------------------
I did not identify myself as the driver
#Post#: 112015--------------------------------------------------
Re: Starbucks, Stansted - DB Legal
By: InterCity125 Date: March 4, 2026, 6:07 am
---------------------------------------------------------
So, I'd send a very simple reply in response which precisely
sets out the position;
[font=Times New Roman]To whom it may concern,
Thank you for your letter before claim which I have safely
received.
I write as the Registered Keeper of the vehicle.
Liability for the parking charge is vigorously denied and will
be defended if required.
For the purposes of complete clarity;
Your client's managed land at Southgate Park clearly falls
within the legally established boundary of the Statutory area
which makes up Stansted Airport - this automatically means that
the land is not relevant land for the purposes of PoFA and, as
such, there is no legal route to keeper liability due to the
location.
Liability is therefore denied.
The driver of the vehicle is not known to your client and there
is no legal requirement for me to identify the driver.
This leaves you with no one to pursue.
I would also like to take this opportunity to point out that
your clients PCNs are issued in breach of your client's Code of
Practice - your client's PCNs routinely state PoFA based
liability at a location where PoFA cannot possibly apply - a
breach of the Code of Practice is automatically a breach of your
client's KODAE contract with the DVLA.
I believe that I have now adequately set out my legal position
on this matter.
I am sorry that I am unable to assist you further.
Best wishes,
xxxxxx xxxxxx
[/font]
#Post#: 112031--------------------------------------------------
Re: Starbucks, Stansted - DB Legal
By: Claimagainst123 Date: March 4, 2026, 8:02 am
---------------------------------------------------------
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?
#Post#: 112049--------------------------------------------------
Re: Starbucks, Stansted - DB Legal
By: InterCity125 Date: March 4, 2026, 9:56 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Sorry, my bad.
I misread and thought this was at the LBC stage.
We'll need to come up with a more robust defence.
Have you logged into MCOL and submitted an AOS?
*****************************************************
DIR Next Page