DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Private parking tickets
*****************************************************
#Post#: 115858--------------------------------------------------
DCB letter of claim- smart parks-cresta court altrincham after 3
years.
DIR By: Tuffnut
Date: April 14, 2026, 10:11 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Dear community
I just received my first ever DCB Legal LoC for a PCN 3 years
ago. So here I am. I dont recall receiving this PCN by post so
this came as a surprise.
#Post#: 115861--------------------------------------------------
Re: DCB letter of claim- smart parks-cresta court altrincham
after 3 years.
DIR By: RichardW
Date: April 14, 2026, 10:22 am
---------------------------------------------------------
HTML https://www.ftla.uk/private-parking-tickets/read-this-first-private-parking-charges-forum-guide/
#Post#: 115969--------------------------------------------------
DCB letter of claim- smart parks-cresta court altrincham after 3
years.
DIR By: Tuffnut
Date: April 15, 2026, 8:27 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Dear community,
I just received a LoC from DCB legal after 3 years. I dont
recall receiving any PCN for the same and we are usually
thorough with our mails. So this came as a surprise. Any help on
how to go about this would be appreciated. I am attaching the
image URLs which includes 1. DCB legal letter of claim (front
page and back page)
2. The original PCN
3. Picture of car entry and exit time.
In the contravention details it only mentions “insufficient paid
time” it does not mention whether the driver has paid any amount
at all for any period of time.
HTML https://www.imagebam.com/view/ME1C7NV6<br
/>
HTML https://www.imagebam.com/view/ME1C7NV8
HTML https://www.imagebam.com/view/ME1C7O87
HTML https://www.imagebam.com/view/ME1C7NZO
#Post#: 116067--------------------------------------------------
Re: DCB letter of claim- smart parks-cresta court altrincham
after 3 years.
DIR By: Tuffnut
Date: April 16, 2026, 10:01 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Hi guys,
Would appreciate any help in constructing my first email to dcb
legal. I have found some templates from previous similar cases
on this forum, shall I just use the exact ones, or should i make
any changes? Kindly looking for directions
Many thanks
#Post#: 116076--------------------------------------------------
Re: DCB letter of claim- smart parks-cresta court altrincham
after 3 years.
DIR By: Dave65
Date: April 16, 2026, 11:17 am
---------------------------------------------------------
The best replies to DCB Legal were wrote by b789, unfortunately
he/she is no longer posting.
Do a search in the box for DCB Legal
This is one of the replies that was suggested.
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.
I am the registered keeper of the vehicle. I am not obliged to
identify the driver and I decline to do so. As there is no legal
presumption that the keeper of a vehicle was its driver on any
particular occasion, your client cannot pursue me as driver as
per VCS v Edward (2023) [H0KF6C9C].
As your client cannot pursue me as driver or keeper, it would be
an abuse of the court’s process for your client to issue a claim
against me and I will defend any such claim vigorously and seek
costs in relation to your client’s unreasonable and vexatious
conduct under Part 27.14(2)(g)
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,
#Post#: 116077--------------------------------------------------
Re: DCB letter of claim- smart parks-cresta court altrincham
after 3 years.
DIR By: DWMB2
Date: April 16, 2026, 11:23 am
---------------------------------------------------------
For some reason, Imagebam isn't playing ball for me today. I'll
take a look when it is.
Given this was 3 years ago there is a fair chance it was before
Smart Parking made any effort to comply with PoFA. If that is
the case I'd probably recommend a far more straightforward
response to the LoC that sets out that as the keeper you cannot
be liable.
#Post#: 116127--------------------------------------------------
Re: DCB letter of claim- smart parks-cresta court altrincham
after 3 years.
DIR By: jfollows
Date: April 16, 2026, 11:31 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Contravention date 08/01/2023
Issue date 31/01/2023
Assuming this to be the original PCN, if the driver is not
identified and the original poster is the registered keeper and
the car’s V5C was up to date, then it is issued too late to
transfer liability to the registered keeper under PoFA 2012, as
@DWMB2 has already observed.
Your simpler reply can follow the Practice Directions:
HTML https://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/procedure-rules/civil/rules/pd_pre-action_conduct#3.1
--- Quote ---
> The reply should include confirmation as to whether the claim
is accepted and, if it is not accepted, the reasons why,
together with an explanation as to which facts and parts of the
claim are disputed
--- End Quote ---
#Post#: 116225--------------------------------------------------
Re: DCB letter of claim- smart parks-cresta court altrincham
after 3 years.
DIR By: Tuffnut
Date: April 17, 2026, 4:51 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Hi, could you kindly clarify by what you mean that it is too
late to transfer liability? Does that mean if they had issued
the PCN within a specified time I would’ve been liable as a
keeper?
Also [member=103]DWMB2[/member] were you able to access the
pics, if not i can try to use other means to attach.
#Post#: 116233--------------------------------------------------
Re: DCB letter of claim- smart parks-cresta court altrincham
after 3 years.
DIR By: jfollows
Date: April 18, 2026, 12:35 am
---------------------------------------------------------
The notice to keeper has to be sent to arrive within 14 days in
order to be able to transfer liability from the (unknown) driver
to the registered keeper. From the dates above, with the caveats
above, this notice was not sent in time.
Read the link in [member=103]DWMB2[/member]’s post to the
legislation.
9(4) and 9(5) in particular.
--- Quote ---
> (4)The notice must be given by—
>
> (a)handing it to the keeper, or leaving it at a current
address for service for the keeper, within the relevant period;
or
>
> (b)sending it by post to a current address for service for the
keeper so that it is delivered to that address within the
relevant period.
>
> (5)The relevant period for the purposes of sub-paragraph (4)
is the period of 14 days beginning with the day after that on
which the specified period of parking ended.
--- End Quote ---
#Post#: 116362--------------------------------------------------
Re: DCB letter of claim- smart parks-cresta court altrincham
after 3 years.
DIR By: Tuffnut
Date: April 19, 2026, 4:29 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Amazing. Thanks for pointing this out for me.
I’ve just drafted this response. What do you guys think?
Dear Sir/Madam,
I write in response to your Letter of Claim. I deny any
liability for the alleged debt.
Your Letter of Claim contains a material factual inaccuracy. You
state the “Issue Date” as 08/01/2023, whereas the actual Notice
to Keeper is dated 31/01/2023. This is a significant
misrepresentation of a key fact and calls into question your
compliance with the Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims.
Further, the Notice to Keeper was not delivered within the
strict 14-day period required by Schedule 4 of the Protection of
Freedoms Act 2012. As such, your client has failed to establish
keeper liability. I am the registered keeper only, and I am
under no legal obligation to identify the driver. I will not be
doing so.
In the absence of full compliance with the Protection of
Freedoms Act 2012, your client has no lawful basis to pursue me
as keeper. Any attempt to do so will be robustly defended.
The additional £70 sought is also disputed. This appears to be
an attempt at double recovery and is unsupported by statute or
case law. In ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis, the Supreme Court made
clear that the parking charge itself already includes the
operational costs of enforcement. The added sum is therefore
unrecoverable and has been repeatedly disallowed by the courts.
Please provide the following documents and information:
* A copy of the original Parking Charge Notice
* Evidence of the date of posting and delivery of the Notice to
Keeper
* All photographs relied upon
* A copy of the contract with the landowner authorising your
client to operate and issue charges
* A full breakdown of the sum claimed and the legal basis for
each element
Pending provision of the above, the matter is not suitable for
litigation. You are required to place the case on hold for no
less than 30 days pursuant to the Pre-Action Protocol for Debt
Claims.
Should you proceed with a claim despite the above, I will seek
to rely on your client’s failure to comply with statutory
requirements, the inaccuracies within your Letter of Claim, and
your attempt to recover an inflated and unrecoverable sum. I
will also seek recovery of my costs pursuant to CPR 27.14(2)(g)
for unreasonable conduct.
Any further processing of my personal data without lawful basis
will be challenged.
Yours faithfully,
*****************************************************
Page 1 of 3
DIR Next Page