DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Private parking tickets
*****************************************************
#Post#: 116488--------------------------------------------------
Re: UKPC - Parking charge, Harbour Exchange Square London E14
DIR By: jfollows
Date: April 20, 2026, 12:50 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Essentially, from
HTML https://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/procedure-rules/civil/rules/pd_pre-action_conduct#6.1
--- 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 ---
You don’t need to boil the ocean at this stage, just reply
simply.
#Post#: 121620--------------------------------------------------
Re: UKPC - Parking charge, Harbour Exchange Square London E14
DIR By: TwistedEdge
Date: June 12, 2026, 10:15 am
---------------------------------------------------------
I've had a few like this now. I assume I keep ignoring, but
posting a snap of it just to check...
HTML https://i.postimg.cc/2SNqrYPm/oaklegal.jpg
#Post#: 121621--------------------------------------------------
Re: UKPC - Parking charge, Harbour Exchange Square London E14
DIR By: InterCity125
Date: June 12, 2026, 10:26 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Yes - Ignore
#Post#: 121674--------------------------------------------------
Re: UKPC - Parking charge, Harbour Exchange Square London E14
DIR By: jfollows
Date: June 13, 2026, 3:17 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Note how their letter mentions “CCJ” four times, to make sure
you’re frightened into paying.
#Post#: 127259--------------------------------------------------
Re: UKPC - Parking charge, Harbour Exchange Square London E14
DIR By: TwistedEdge
Date: August 8, 2026, 10:12 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Today I had this letter. It looks different so I think it may be
the one to respond to. 🤔
HTML https://i.postimg.cc/SK70Y7M0/claimletter1.jpg
Fulltext:
--- Quote ---
> Civil & Commercial Litigation Solicitors
>
> Date: 03 August 2026
>
> Our Reference: [REDACTED]
>
> LETTER OF CLAIM
>
> RE:
> Our Client: UK Parking Control Limited
> Parking Charge Ref(s): Please see overleaf
> Amount Due: £170.00
>
> We act for UK Parking Control Limited and write in respect of
an unpaid parking charge(s). This is a formal Letter of Claim in
accordance with the Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims.
>
> Basis of Claim
>
> The vehicle with registration number [REDACTED] ("Vehicle")
was parked on private land ("Land") managed by our Client. The
signs displayed on the Land set out the Terms of parking (i.e.
"the Contract"). The Vehicle was parked in breach of the Terms
and as such the Contract was accepted and a Parking Charge(s)
was issued. You are liable as the Keeper or Driver. The details
of the Parking Charge(s) can be found in the schedule at the
bottom of this letter. Payment was due within 28 days of the
Parking Charge(s) being issued but remains outstanding.
>
> The amount of the debt is £170.00, which includes the Parking
Charge(s) and debt recovery costs. If a claim is issued, further
costs will be sought, together with accruing interest.
>
> Next Steps
>
> Within 30 days of the date of this letter, you should either
make payment using one of the methods detailed overleaf or
complete the Reply Form and financial statement. Failure to do
so is likely to result in a claim being issued without further
notice.
>
> Please visit www.dcblegal.co.uk/response to complete and
submit the reply form and financial statement.
>
> You will also find an additional information sheet summarising
your rights and responsibilities under the Pre-Action Protocol
for Debt Claims.
>
> Your attention is drawn to the Civil Procedure Rules 1998 and
the Court's power to impose sanctions if you fail to pay or
respond. Any such failure will be brought to the attention of
the Court when considering costs. Any non-compliance with the
Rules can increase liability for costs. The BPA Code of Practice
requires us to make the customer (driver/keeper) aware of the
implications of non-payment including, should the Court find
against them, the risk to their credit rating.
>
> We suggest you deal with this as a matter of urgency to avoid
a claim being issued. You may wish to seek independent legal
advice from a Solicitor or other free money advice organisation.
>
> If you would like a 'dispute resolution call' with our team,
or a paper copy of the information sheet, reply form or
financial statement, please call our office on 0203 434 0427.
>
> Yours sincerely,
>
> Sarah Ensall
> Head of Bulk Litigation
--- End Quote ---
#Post#: 127266--------------------------------------------------
Re: UKPC - Parking charge, Harbour Exchange Square London E14
DIR By: jfollows
Date: August 8, 2026, 11:24 am
---------------------------------------------------------
You need to respond
(
HTML https://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/procedure-rules/civil/rules/pd_pre-action_conduct#6.1)<br
/>
--- Quote ---
> the defendant responding within a reasonable time – 14 days in
a straight forward case and no more than 3 months in a very
complex one. 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 ---
It won't make any difference but it's part of the paper trail
you're laying in case this actually gets to court, and shows
you're engaging.
#Post#: 127322--------------------------------------------------
Re: UKPC - Parking charge, Harbour Exchange Square London E14
DIR By: TwistedEdge
Date: August 9, 2026, 9:22 am
---------------------------------------------------------
I am thinking that, if I send them something long-winded, like
this, then they'll be less likely to bother with the court,
because it means dredging up all the evidence I've asked for.
--- Quote ---
> Re: Letter of Claim dated 3 August 2026
> Your reference: [REFERENCE]
> UKPC Parking Charge Reference: [REFERENCE]
>
> Dear Sir/Madam,
>
> I write in response to your Letter of Claim dated 3 August
2026. I dispute the alleged debt in its entirety.
>
> I am the registered keeper of the vehicle. The identity of the
driver has not been disclosed, and no admission or inference as
to the identity of the driver should be made from this
correspondence.
>
> 1. Keeper liability
>
> Liability as registered keeper remains disputed. I maintain
that UK Parking Control Ltd has not established keeper liability
in accordance with the strict requirements of Schedule 4 of the
Protection of Freedoms Act 2012.
>
> I acknowledge that POPLA reached a contrary conclusion. I do
not accept that POPLA's decision determines my legal liability,
and liability remains denied.
>
> 2. Permission at this barrier-controlled site
>
> This was not simply an unattended car park in which a vehicle
entered and remained without interaction with site personnel.
>
> Access was controlled by an on-site security guard at a
barrier. The driver spoke to the security guard, explained that
they intended to remain for some time and was permitted to
enter. The driver reasonably understood the person controlling
access to have authority to permit entry and relied upon that
permission.
>
> UKPC subsequently produced evidence showing that the vehicle
registration was not entered on its authorised vehicle list. The
absence of an entry on that system does not establish that
permission was not given. It establishes only that the
registration was not entered into the system.
>
> 3. Disability and Equality Act 2010
>
> The driver was a disabled person, was using a valid Blue Badge
and parked in a designated disabled bay.
>
> The circumstances therefore raise issues concerning the
provision of services to disabled persons and the duty to make
reasonable adjustments under the Equality Act 2010. Disability
may affect matters including time management and the additional
time reasonably required when using a site.
>
> POPLA's decision stated that the operator had not been told
how the driver's disability affected their ability to comply
with the parking terms and treated the circumstances principally
as mitigation. That decision does not determine whether UKPC
complied with its statutory obligations, which remains disputed.
>
> 4. Authority and signage
>
> I continue to dispute whether UKPC has adequately demonstrated
the necessary authority to enforce the charge. The documentation
disclosed during the POPLA proceedings was heavily redacted and
involved a managing agent rather than establishing a clear and
verifiable chain of authority from the landowner.
>
> I also continue to dispute the adequacy of the evidence
concerning the applicable signage. In particular, UKPC relied
during the POPLA proceedings upon signage photographs dating
from 2023 in relation to a parking event on 12 November 2025.
>
> 5. Additional £70
>
> I dispute the additional £70 described as debt recovery costs.
Please identify the precise contractual and legal basis upon
which your client contends that this additional sum is
recoverable from me.
>
> 6. Request for information and documents
>
> In accordance with the Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims,
please provide:
>
> The contractual and legal basis for the additional £70,
including the specific contractual term relied upon.
> The evidence upon which your client intends to rely to
establish keeper liability under Schedule 4 of the Protection of
Freedoms Act 2012.
>
> Contemporaneous evidence of the signage and terms in force at
the site on 12 November 2025.
>
> Evidence establishing UKPC's authority to enforce parking
charges and bring proceedings at this location, including the
relevant chain of authority where authority derives through a
managing agent.
>
> The procedures, instructions or contractual arrangements
applicable on 12 November 2025 concerning the authority of
security or concierge personnel controlling the barrier to admit
vehicles, and the process for registering or exempting
authorised vehicles.
>
> Any records held concerning the vehicle's admission or
authorisation at the site on 12 November 2025, including any
relevant security, concierge, barrier-access or
vehicle-registration records.
>
> This response is intended to make my position clear and to
engage constructively with the pre-action process. The alleged
debt remains disputed in its entirety.
>
> In light of the matters above, I invite your client to
reconsider whether proceedings are appropriate. If your client
intends to continue pursuing the claim, please provide a
substantive response to the disputed issues and the information
and documents requested above before commencing proceedings.
>
> Yours faithfully,
--- End Quote ---
#Post#: 127324--------------------------------------------------
Re: UKPC - Parking charge, Harbour Exchange Square London E14
DIR By: jfollows
Date: August 9, 2026, 9:45 am
---------------------------------------------------------
If you send them something long-winded they will ignore you.
They will not respond.
In general, I advise against long-winded replies like this,
because they will simply ignore the majority of the points you
make and (maybe) respond to the minority of points they can
rebut.
It won't make any difference, as I already said, but honestly I
wouldn't bother. Keep it short and to the point.
DCB Legal always issues a county court claim and almost always
discontinues at the last moment. You only need to search the
forum to see this.
Keep the long-winded stuff for the defence to the court claim,
because the court won’t ignore points it doesn’t agree with.
#Post#: 127327--------------------------------------------------
Re: UKPC - Parking charge, Harbour Exchange Square London E14
DIR By: TwistedEdge
Date: August 9, 2026, 10:27 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Fair comment. I will send something shorter and save that for
when/if it goes to court.
#Post#: 127631--------------------------------------------------
Re: UKPC - Parking charge, Harbour Exchange Square London E14
DIR By: TwistedEdge
Date: August 12, 2026, 9:56 am
---------------------------------------------------------
I sent a much shorter dispute response – I had this email today.
Along with repeats of attachments including the original PCN
etc.
--- Quote ---
> Dear [redacted]
>
> We write in response to your correspondence received in our
office.
> We now respond to the same as follows.
>
> 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 the maximum stay
allowed, or otherwise a parking charge would be issued. The
vehicle was recorded on the land for longer than permitted, as
is demonstrated in the photographic evidence attached. The
parking charge was issued correctly.
>
> Schedule 4 (4)(1) of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (“the
Act”) states “The creditor has the right to recover any unpaid
parking charges from the keeper of the vehicle”. For the purpose
of the Act; “keeper” means the person by whom the vehicle is
kept at the time the vehicle was parked, which in the case of a
registered vehicle is to be presumed, unless the contrary is
proved, to be the registered keeper. The DVLA confirmed that you
were the Registered Keeper at the time the parking charge was
issued and as no transfer of liability has been received by our
client, they have the right to recover the parking charge from
you as the Keeper of the vehicle.
>
> In accordance with the British Parking Association (BPA) Code
of Practice, where the Parking Charge (PC) becomes overdue and
before Court proceedings have commenced, a reasonable sum may be
added for the debt recovery fees. The correct recovery fees have
been added and will not be removed. As such, the outstanding
balance of £170.00 remains payable to prevent further action.
>
> We refer to our communication as per our letter of claim, we
confirm that despite your latest correspondence, our position
remains as previously advised. As such, should our client
instruct us to proceed with further legal action, we reserve the
right to do so without any further reference to you. If you are
at all unsure of your legal position, we recommend that you seek
your own independent legal advice.
>
> 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: -
>
> Account Name: DCB Legal Ltd Client Account
> Sort Code: 20-24-09
> Account Number: 60964441
>
> You must quote the correct case reference (REDACTED) 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
HTML https://dcblegal.co.uk/response/pay-online/.
>
> Kind Regards,
--- End Quote ---
Not really addressing many of my original objections. Do I
continue to engage or continue to ignore?
*****************************************************
Page 4 of 5
DIR Previous Page
DIR Next Page