DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Private parking tickets
*****************************************************
#Post#: 115582--------------------------------------------------
Re: Stansted Airport
DIR By: Gaz88
Date: April 11, 2026, 2:51 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Many thanks for your reply, I managed to find a similar thread
so used the response from that and sent to DCBL.
Awaiting their reply and will update here once I hear back.
Thanks again and have a good weekend!
#Post#: 116293--------------------------------------------------
Re: Stansted Airport
DIR By: Gaz88
Date: April 18, 2026, 2:31 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Quick update on this, here is the email I sent to DCBL along
with their reply. All they included in their reply was the
original NTK, my appeal to MET, the reply from MET, a copy of
the parking charge final reminder, and ANPR images of my
vehicle.
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.
Here is the response I received;
We write in response to your correspondence received in our
office.
We now respond to the same as follows.
Please find attached all relevant evidence we hold on the
matter, as per your request.
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.
In relation to the Parking Charge, when parking on private land,
the contractual terms of the site are set out on the signs. You
are entering a contract, 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.
A Notice to Keeper was issued to you. A copy is attached. You
were afforded the opportunity to; appeal the parking charge
however you did seem it did not yield the desired outcome. You
had an opportunity to escalate it further to an independent
appeals services.
A Reminder Notice was also issued to you. A copy is attached.
This notice reiterated that payment was outstanding and
confirmed that legal action may be taken, and additional costs
incurred if the parking charge was not paid.
You now have 30 days from the date of this email to make payment
of £170.00. Failure to make payment may result in a Claim being
issued against you without any further reference.
Payment
can be made via bank transfer to our designated client account.
Could anyone kindly advise on what I should do now?
Many thanks!
#Post#: 116971--------------------------------------------------
Re: Stansted Airport
DIR By: Gaz88
Date: April 25, 2026, 6:38 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Bumping this hoping someone might help :)
#Post#: 116972--------------------------------------------------
Re: Stansted Airport
DIR By: RichardW
Date: April 25, 2026, 6:40 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Well, unless you want to pay, just got to wait it out till they
issue a claim.
#Post#: 116973--------------------------------------------------
Re: Stansted Airport
DIR By: Gaz88
Date: April 25, 2026, 6:45 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Thanks, shouldn't I reply to them?
#Post#: 116987--------------------------------------------------
Re: Stansted Airport
DIR By: jfollows
Date: April 25, 2026, 8:50 am
---------------------------------------------------------
No
#Post#: 117030--------------------------------------------------
Re: Stansted Airport
DIR By: Gaz88
Date: April 25, 2026, 6:46 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Okay thanks a lot for the replies
#Post#: 119978--------------------------------------------------
Re: Stansted Airport
DIR By: Gaz88
Date: May 29, 2026, 4:01 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Hi guys,
I have now received a claim form from HM Courts & Tribunal
Service, dated 18 May 2026. I'm going to submit the AoS today.
Could anyone kindly advise how I should word the defence?
Particulars of claim;
1. The Defendant (D) is indebted to the Claimant (C) for a
Parking Charge (PC) issued to vehicle XXXX XXX at Southgate
Park, Stansted, CM24 1PY.
2. The date of contravention is XXX and the D was issued with a
PC by the Claimant.
3. The Defendant is pursued as the driver of the vehicle for
breach of the terms on the signs (the contract). Reason:
Overstay.
4. In the alternative the Defendant is pursued as the keeper
pursuant to POFA 2012, Schedule 4.
I know the main defence is that the keeper cannot be held liable
under POFA due to not being relevant land but I'm unsure how to
accurately word the defence. Would really appreciate some help /
advise.
Many thanks!
#Post#: 119979--------------------------------------------------
Re: Stansted Airport
DIR By: jfollows
Date: May 29, 2026, 4:05 am
---------------------------------------------------------
There will be some examples from similar cases if you search the
forum.
#Post#: 119980--------------------------------------------------
Re: Stansted Airport
DIR By: Gaz88
Date: May 29, 2026, 4:17 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Thanks, I was hoping someone might have a template or draft as
there are lots of individual cases on here and I don't want to
screw it up
*****************************************************
Page 3 of 4
DIR Previous Page
DIR Next Page