DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Private parking tickets
*****************************************************
#Post#: 54339--------------------------------------------------
Re: MET parking fine Krispy Kreme Donuts New Malden - parked
within time limit but they say driver was not a customer
DIR By: b789
Date: January 21, 2025, 9:18 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Much better.
So, the Notice to Keeper (NtK) is PoFA compliant which means
that if the driver is not identified, the liability for the
charge can transfer to the Keeper. However, that is not an issue
here as the argument is going to be over whether a contractual
term was breached by the driver.
As the appeals process has been exhausted, you are going to have
to wait for MET to issue a claim in the county court. Until
then, there is not much you can do. You can safely ignore all
debt collection letters. They are powerless to do anything as
the debt collectors are not a party to the contract allegedly
breached by the driver.
Never, ever, ever communicate with a powerless debt collector.
If you receive a Letter of Claim (LoC). then please come back
and show us. It is not crucial to respond to an LoC but
showtimes it is worthwhile, even if only to make the bar
stewards work for it.
When the N1SDT Claim Form arrives from the CNCB, that must be
responded to. Show it to us when you receive it, redacting only
your personal data, the claim number, your VRM and the MCOL
password. Leave everything else visible, especially the
Particulars of Claim (PoC) and all dates.
The only other thing to note is that they are most likely to use
DCB Legal as their bulk litigator which means that you are
unlikely going to be able to use the arguments discussed above
as it is 99.9% likely that they will discontinue before it ever
gets to a hearing.
#Post#: 54364--------------------------------------------------
Re: MET parking fine Krispy Kreme Donuts New Malden - parked
within time limit but they say driver was not a customer
DIR By: Jengie
Date: January 21, 2025, 11:41 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Thank you so much, that is so helpful.
I will let you know when I receive a letter of claim.
#Post#: 90420--------------------------------------------------
Re: MET parking fine Krispy Kreme Donuts New Malden - parked
within time limit but they say driver was not a customer
DIR By: Jengie
Date: September 17, 2025, 12:40 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Hello, I have now received a letter of claim for this.
Should I reply setting out the basis on which I am disputing the
claim?
Any advice?
#Post#: 90423--------------------------------------------------
Re: MET parking fine Krispy Kreme Donuts New Malden - parked
within time limit but they say driver was not a customer
DIR By: jfollows
Date: September 17, 2025, 12:55 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Please show it to us
#Post#: 90445--------------------------------------------------
Re: MET parking fine Krispy Kreme Donuts New Malden - parked
within time limit but they say driver was not a customer
DIR By: Jengie
Date: September 17, 2025, 2:52 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
HTML https://imgur.com/a/RjwmG7G
Here is the link. Can you see this?
#Post#: 90446--------------------------------------------------
Re: MET parking fine Krispy Kreme Donuts New Malden - parked
within time limit but they say driver was not a customer
DIR By: b789
Date: September 17, 2025, 2:54 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Respond to the LoC by email to info@dcblegal.co.uk and CC
yourself:
--- 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:
>
> [indent]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[/indent]
>
> 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,
--- End Quote ---
#Post#: 90448--------------------------------------------------
Re: MET parking fine Krispy Kreme Donuts New Malden - parked
within time limit but they say driver was not a customer
DIR By: roythebus
Date: September 17, 2025, 3:23 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
The argument that the driver needs to be the customer is a bit
odd. Supposing a cab driver takes customers in there and doesn't
buy anything for himself? Or you drop the mrs in there and don't
buy anything?
#Post#: 90559--------------------------------------------------
Re: MET parking fine Krispy Kreme Donuts New Malden - parked
within time limit but they say driver was not a customer
DIR By: Jengie
Date: September 18, 2025, 3:33 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Thank you, I'll send the response you suggest. Good point also
about the driver being the customer.
#Post#: 94777--------------------------------------------------
Re: MET parking fine Krispy Kreme Donuts New Malden - parked
within time limit but they say driver was not a customer
DIR By: Jengie
Date: October 20, 2025, 5:46 am
---------------------------------------------------------
So, I emailed your suggested response on 5th October and
received no reply. I have now received a letter from HM Courts
& Tribunals service with a claim form attached from the civil
national business cenre dated 15th October.
So it's look like they are proceeding with the court claim. I
will upload the claim form.
So, I now have to write a defence, correct?
#Post#: 94781--------------------------------------------------
Re: MET parking fine Krispy Kreme Donuts New Malden - parked
within time limit but they say driver was not a customer
DIR By: Jengie
Date: October 20, 2025, 6:00 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Imagur is no longer working so I've uploaded the letter to
dropbox. Can you see it?
*****************************************************
Page 2 of 8
DIR Previous Page
DIR Next Page