UKPC -- Parking outside of bay, Valley Retail Park (Croydon)

Rhysrobin

Car1980 said:

Remove your personal details.

And read the footer in the bottom right 😉

ah yes! Thanks

Rhysrobin

I've finally got my LoC from DCB Legal. Am I right to think that the next step is emailing the solicitor with the following template (from the newbies thread)? Many thanks.

>>>

Dear Sirs,

Your ref: [insert reference number]

Proposed legal proceedings

Claimant: UK Parking Control Limited

I refer to your letter of claim.

I confirm that my address for service for the time being is as follows, and any older address must be erased from your records:

[Insert correct address here]

You should revert to your client because the 'propensity to pay' score in my case is zero, so any claim is hopeless and a waste of the court fee (whether 'fronted' by your firm or not). Move on to weaker victims.

The alleged 'debt' is disputed and any court proceedings will be vigorously defended.

Yours faithfully,

  

Car1980

That's one option and it will result in a claim soon. Another is to get them to do some work and delay the claim by sending the blurb below and then you can criticise them in your defence if they don't comply.

Your choice!



The alleged debt is disputed and any court proceedings will be fully defended. 

The Civil Procedure Rules 1998, Pre-Action Conduct and Protocols (Part 3), state:

3. Before commencing proceedings, the court will expect the parties to have exchanged sufficient information to understand each other’s position, make decisions about how to proceed and support the efficient management of those proceedings.

Part 6 states:

Steps before issuing a claim at court

The parties should exchange correspondence and information to comply with the objectives in paragraph

3, bearing in mind that compliance should be proportionate. The steps will usually include —

 (c) the parties disclosing key documents relevant to the issues in dispute.

You refer to “the Contract”, yet you fail to include a copy of the contract (quite clearly a key document), as well as fail to state the contractual nature of the breach you allege. 

Therefore, as your templated letter is not sufficient to adhere to the PACPs, I require the following:

1. A copy of the contract (or contracts) you allege exists between UK Parking Control Ltd and the driver, in the form of an actual photograph of the sign you contend was at the location on the material date. 

2. 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.

I look forward to your response.

Rhysrobin

Thanks, I'll do that

Rhysrobin

Car1980 said:

That's one option and it will result in a claim soon. Another is to get them to do some work and delay the claim by sending the blurb below and then you can criticise them in your defence if they don't comply.

Your choice!



The alleged debt is disputed and any court proceedings will be fully defended. 

The Civil Procedure Rules 1998, Pre-Action Conduct and Protocols (Part 3), state:

3. Before commencing proceedings, the court will expect the parties to have exchanged sufficient information to understand each other’s position, make decisions about how to proceed and support the efficient management of those proceedings.

Part 6 states:

Steps before issuing a claim at court

The parties should exchange correspondence and information to comply with the objectives in paragraph

3, bearing in mind that compliance should be proportionate. The steps will usually include —

 (c) the parties disclosing key documents relevant to the issues in dispute.

You refer to “the Contract”, yet you fail to include a copy of the contract (quite clearly a key document), as well as fail to state the contractual nature of the breach you allege. 

Therefore, as your templated letter is not sufficient to adhere to the PACPs, I require the following:

1. A copy of the contract (or contracts) you allege exists between UK Parking Control Ltd and the driver, in the form of an actual photograph of the sign you contend was at the location on the material date. 

2. 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.

I look forward to your response.

So I emailed the text above to DCB Legal. They've come back with the following (no reference to the clause or contract, which I'd asked for). Any advice on how to play it from here would be most welcome. Thanks in advance!

>>>>>>

Dear ****

We write to acknowledge safe receipt of your formal response to our Letter of Claim sent to you in respect of this matter.

Having considered your response, our position in respect of this matter remains as per our Letter of Claim. We note that despite your points of dispute, there is an absence of any evidence in support of the same so that we may consider this with our Client. If you do have evidence which you believe supports your dispute, please furnish us with the same within the 30 days afforded to you.

As it stands, the initial 30 day timeframe under the Pre-Action Protocol remains, and County Court proceedings will be issued following expiry of this 30 day period, without any further reference to you.

We strongly recommend that you contact a member of our dispute resolution team on 0203 838 7038, as a matter of urgency so we may discuss this matter with you and avoid a Claim being issued against you.

If you are at all unsure of your legal position, you may wish to seek independent legal advice

Coupon-mad

Await the Claim form; it's what you want.

Rhysrobin

So I now have my court claim from DCB Legal.

Following the template defence, but tailoring it to my case, I'm thinking to use the text below. Does it look ok? Thanks in advance.

1. The Claimant’s sparse case lacks specificity and does not comply with CPR 16.4, 16PD3 or 16PD7, failing to 'state all facts necessary for the purpose of formulating a complete cause of action'. The added costs/damages are an attempt at double recovery of capped legal fees (already listed in the claim) and are not monies genuinely owed to, or incurred by, this Claimant. The claim also exceeds the Code of Practice (CoP) £100 parking charge ('PC') maximum. Exaggerated claims for impermissible sums are good reason for the court to intervene. Whilst the Defendant reserves the right to amend the defence if details of the contract are provided, the court is invited to strike out the claim using its powers under CPR 3.4.

2. The allegation(s) and heads of cost are vague and liability is denied for the sum claimed, or at all. At the very least, interest should be disallowed; the delay in bringing proceedings lies with the Claimant. This also makes retrieving material documents/evidence difficult, which is highly prejudicial. The Defendant seeks fixed costs (CPR 27.14) and a finding of unreasonable conduct and further costs (CPR 46.5). The Defendant has little recollection of events, save to admit that they were the registered keeper of the vehicle. The Defendant does not admit to being the driver, and the Claimant is put to strict proof of the driver’s identity and/or (if keeper liability is pursued) strict proof of full compliance with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 Schedule 4.

3. The Particulars of Claim state an allegation, which the Defendant responds to as follows. The Defendant understands that the claim relates to an allegation of parking not correctly within the markings of a bay at Valley Retail Park, Croydon on 29/05/2025. The Defendant has little recollection of the day. The Defendant does not admit to being the driver.

   3.1. The Claimant is put to strict proof of the alleged breach. The Claimant’s own photographs show the vehicle positioned on/at most marginally over a bay line, with the wheels on the line rather than wholly outside any bay. This is denied to amount to “not parked correctly within the markings” as pleaded, and in any event any alleged encroachment is trivial (de minimis) and incapable of justifying the exaggerated sum claimed.

   3.2. A separate point: the Defendant understands that the vehicle may have been positioned as it was because a bird was present close to/in the bay area and appeared injured, and a reasonable driver would have sought to avoid causing harm and/or would have repositioned once safe to do so. The Defendant notes that the Claimant’s own photo evidence shows the bird near the vehicle. Wild birds are legally protected in the UK; for example, under s.1 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 it is an offence to intentionally kill or injure a wild bird. The Defendant avers that avoiding harm to wildlife was a reasonable and responsible course of action, and it would be unfair to penalise a driver for taking care to avoid causing injury.

   3.3. The Claimant’s photographs appear to include signage. However, it is denied that the signage provided transparent and prominent notice of any onerous term and parking charge: the wording is in small typeface and is not readily legible from a driver’s position at or around the bay. The Claimant is put to strict proof of the font size, lighting/visibility, sign position relative to the bay, and that the terms (including the parking charge) were capable of being read and accepted before parking.

   3.4. Further, the driver was a genuine retail park customer.

4. It is neither admitted nor denied that a term was breached but to form a contract, there must be an offer, acceptance, and valuable consideration (absent in this case). The Consumer Rights Act 2015 (s71) mandates a 'test of fairness' duty on Courts and sets a high bar for prominence of terms and 'consumer notices'. Paying regard to Sch2 (examples 6, 10, 14 & 18), also s62 and the duties of fair, open dealing/good faith, the Defendant notes that this Claimant reportedly uses unclear (unfair) terms/notices. On the limited information given, this case looks no different. The Claimant is put to strict proof with contemporaneous photographs.

5. DVLA keeper data is only supplied on the basis of prior written landowner authority. The Claimant (an agent) is put to strict proof of their standing to sue and the terms, scope and dates of the landowner agreement, including the contract, updates, schedules and a map of the site boundary set by the landowner (not an unverified Google Maps aerial view).

6. To impose a PC, as well as a breach, there must be: (i) a strong 'legitimate interest' extending beyond compensation for loss, and (ii) 'adequate notice' (prominence) of the PC and any relevant obligation(s). None of which have been demonstrated. This PC is a penalty arising as a result of a 'concealed pitfall or trap', poor signs and covert surveillance, thus it is fully distinguished from ParkingEye v Beavis [2015] UKSC67.

7. Attention is drawn to (i) paras 98, 100, 193, 198 of Beavis (an £85 PC comfortably covered all letter chain costs and generated a profit shared with the landowner) and also to (ii) the binding judgment in ParkingEye v Somerfield Stores ChD [2011] EWHC 4023(QB) which remains unaffected by Beavis and stands as the only parking case law that deals with costs abuse. HHJ Hegarty held in paras 419-428 (High Court, later ratified by the CoA) that 'admin costs' inflating a £75 PC (already increased from £37.50) to £135 were disproportionate to the minor cost of an automated letter-chain and 'would appear to be penal'.

8. The Parking (Code of Practice) Act will curb rogue conduct by operators and their debt recovery agents (DRAs). The Government recently launched a Public Consultation considered likely to bring in a ban on DRA fees, which a 2022 Minister called ‘extorting money from motorists’. They have identified in July 2025: 'profit being made by DRAs is significantly higher than ... by parking operators' and 'the high profits may be indicative of these firms having too much control over the market, thereby indicating that there is a market failure'.

9. Pursuant to Sch4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 ('POFA') the claim exceeds the maximum sum and is unrecoverable: see Explanatory Note 221: 'The creditor may not make a claim against the keeper ... for more than the amount of the unpaid parking related charges as they stood when the notice to the driver was issued (para 4(5))'. Late fees (unknown to drivers, not specified on signs) are not 'unpaid parking related charges'. They are the invention of 'no win no fee' DRAs. Even in the (unlikely) event that the Claimant complied with the POFA and CoP, there is no keeper liability law for DRA fees.

10. This claim is an utter waste of court resources and it is an indication of systemic abuse that parking cases now make up a third of all small claims. False fees fuel bulk litigation that has overburdened HMCTS. The most common outcome of defended cases is late discontinuance, making Claimants liable for costs (r.38.6(1)). Whilst this does not 'normally' apply to the small claims track (r.38.6(3)) the White Book has this annotation: 'Note that the normal rule as to costs does not apply if a claimant in a case allocated to the small claims track serves a notice of discontinuance although it might be contended that costs should be awarded if a party has behaved unreasonably (r.27.14(2)(dg))'.

Gr1pr

Post the Issue date from the top right of the claim form below and also post a redacted picture of the POC from the lower left of the claim form below after hiding the VRM details first 

Did DC sign the claim form. ?  ( On behalf of DCB LEGAL on behalf of the claimant UKPC. )

Le_Kirk

Will that fit into the defence box on MCOL?

Rhysrobin

Issue date is 09 Dec 25 (I've already done the acknowledgement). 

It has DC's name printed but not his actual signature.