Should we advice users to reply to an LBC

ChirpyChicken

In my professional view unless there are issues to narrow there is no point advising people to reply to an LBC.  What does it actually achieve.  Unless you got issues to narrow , need to slow a claim down because of holiday or such like.  Or need to give a new address for service then taking time to reply is in my view pointless

We are not dealing with complicated claims here.  The only time (in relation to the claim itself should we be advising people to reply is on transferring liability which i am finding currently finding very effective in handling claims where D is not the driver.

Apart from any of the above how to people thinking replying to an LBC actually help.  

There is no point doing something if it doesn't actually achieve anything  (in my view) and would make the process easier. 

Browsing03

Isn’t this LOC response also to report them for VAT avoidance as well? Although I haven’t seen any action or changes in how HMRC deal with the debt recovery charges and the template has been in existence for long enough.

I responded to CEL’s LOC with the standard template, got a letter off them in response and then reported them to HMRC. Next thing I get is an LOC from DCB Legal which I didn’t respond to as I wanted them to proceed with the claim (As they usually discontinue single PCN cases) which they did. 

Did CEL categorise my PCN as one to hand over because I responded to the LOC or would this have likely happened anyway?

Kaizen2024

Yes

There is no VAT avoidance, this is an unfounded presumption.

ChirpyChicken

No

Kaizen2024 said:

There is no VAT avoidance, this is an unfounded presumption.

And what about the substantive point.

kryten3000

Yes

There's an easy way to deal with the question of VAT on recovery fees - ban them.  End of debate.

Kaizen2024

Yes

There will always be points to narrow, negating the need to include all the Soap Box content of the template that bears no relation to the claim in hand. 

h2g2

Yes

I would advocate some kind of response for two reasons:

First: confirm your address for service. If they've been sending mail to traced addresses as well as whatever they got from the DVLA, you want to be absolutely sure that any court action happens at your current address. We see a number of "I ignored the letters then suddenly got a CCJ", with parking companies saying "we didn't get any response at [address], so we reverted to the last known address we got from the DVLA".

Second: As I understand it you are more likely to win your costs if you do respond. If your response is something like "I am not liable. If you do sue my defense will be based on the extreme similarity to Pace v Mrs N, where the judge found in favour of the defendant" and then you successfully defend that way, my understanding is that highlighting "they were aware of an extremely similar case and should of known they would lose" makes it far easier to claim costs.

ChirpyChicken

No

h2g2 said:

I would advocate some kind of response for two reasons:

First: confirm your address for service. If they've been sending mail to traced addresses as well as whatever they got from the DVLA, you want to be absolutely sure that any court action happens at your current address. We see a number of "I ignored the letters then suddenly got a CCJ", with parking companies saying "we didn't get any response at [address], so we reverted to the last known address we got from the DVLA".

Second: As I understand it you are more likely to win your costs if you do respond. If your response is something like "I am not liable. If you do sue my defense will be based on the extreme similarity to Pace v Mrs N, where the judge found in favour of the defendant" and then you successfully defend that way, my understanding is that highlighting "they were aware of an extremely similar case and should of known they would lose" makes it far easier to claim costs.

Responding to an LBC makes no difference on costs in these cases it really doesn't.
However if its a non traced address then the point stands, what is the relevance of replying to a LOC?. there is in most cases no narrowing of the issues and it achieves nothing IMHO
It certainly doesn't stop a claim unless its along the lines of a liability transfer which then works well in court.

You should only really do something to achieve something, not just because its the "done" thing 

Car1980

Yes

I don't like the template response personally. Because it just results in a template being batted back. And the VAT thing has run its course. There is one particular scenario where the manual states when they should be pay VAT, but don't. But what can you do?

I understand the school of thought that you don't want all the information so that you can complain about the poor particulars and hopefully get a strike out. But let's be honest - very few do. And the judges that do strike them do so out of their own initiative rather than talk of Chan etc. They all know the score now.

Now, thinking of DCB Legal in particular, let's not forget they know nothing about their claims. They just receive a spreadsheet of cases with one line descriptors. What spooks them? Having to do work and go back to their client. What spooks their clients? Being bothered for evidence as if it was a Popla appeal when they have washed their hands of these cases. Some PPCs will just refuse as it wasn't part of the deal when they sold on the case or signed up to their deal.

It's always astounded me that a contract law claim based on (drum roll) a contract can almost go the distance with no sign of this contract. A contract case where the contract is omertà is rather baffling.

So, what happens when you respond to a DCB Legal letter with a demand to see the contract and a demand for them to specify the actual clause or clauses in the contract that they allege have been breached?

They either disappear and don't make a court claim (it's true!) or they make their claim and then the first paragraph of your defence is that you replied to their LoC asking for a copy of the contract they rely upon and what the specific breach is but they did not reply. Or they replied saying supplying the contract would be "disproportionate". Now that really does make them look like chancers.

Sometimes they do reply. Fine. You get a sneak peak of what their Witness Statement could look like if they weren't going to discontinue.

But hundreds of these letters going in to DCB every month would cause them real headaches IMO.

doubledotcom

Yes

I agree with @Car1980 above. On FTLA I advise everyone to respond to an LoC, not simply to buy time, as it is not necessary in most cases, but to add to the obvious procedural and evidential benefits, even in what may appear to be a simple or routine private parking case.

1. Preservation of arguments for appeal

If the defendant loses at trial and needs to appeal, the pre-action response forms part of the appeal record. It shows that the defendant raised legitimate procedural concerns early, requested key documents that were not provided, and acted reasonably by attempting to clarify the dispute. This strengthens the position on appeal, especially where the trial judge may have overlooked or dismissed pre-action failings.

2. Forcing the claimant to dig out evidence

Responding puts pressure on the claimant’s legal representative to go back to their client and request documents that they often do not have to hand—such as landowner contracts, contemporaneous photos of signs, and full copies of PoFA notices. Whilst this process may introduce delay, it increases the chance of mistakes or omissions, and frequently exposes that the claimant does not have the evidence needed to meet the burden of proof.

3. Many claimants fail to comply with the Protocol anyway

In most cases, even after a detailed pre-action response, claimants fail to provide all the information required by the Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims. Landowner contracts are particularly rare. This means they remain in breach of the Protocol, and the defendant can point this out to the court, either to request a stay or, in some cases, costs sanctions.

4. Tactical advantage even if judges are lenient

Whilst it is true that in the small claims track, judges do not always sanction protocol breaches. However, it is still helpful to have a written record showing the defendant acted reasonably. This can become important if the case is adjourned, stayed, or defended successfully and the defendant later argues for their costs on the basis of unreasonable behaviour. It can also help where a claimant tries to rely on evidence that was never disclosed.

5. Protection against ambush

By not replying to the Letter of Claim, a defendant allows the claimant to continue with vague pleadings and possibly withhold key details. A robust response puts the claimant on notice and makes it harder for them to spring surprises later. It also strengthens the defendant’s position if they later want to argue that evidence was withheld or that the claim should be struck out.

6. Sends a message

Parking companies and their bulk litigation solicitors rely on easy wins and default judgments. A strong pre-action reply shows that the defendant understands their rights and is prepared to defend the claim. This can sometimes result in the claim being dropped or settled on favourable terms.

7. Mild satisfaction and strategic disruption

There is some Schadenfreude in knowing that the bulk litigator is now forced to go back to their client, gather documents, and respond to detailed questions they would rather avoid. It disrupts the speculative model these firms rely on and reduces the profitability of such claims.

Conclusion

In my opinion, replying to a Letter of Claim is never a waste of time. Even if it doesn’t lead to immediate withdrawal of the claim, it preserves important rights, forces the claimant to show their hand, and can strengthen the defendant’s position if the case proceeds to court or even appeal. Ignoring it risks giving the claimant an easier route to court and undermines potential procedural arguments later.

This is the generic response to an LoC that I advise:

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 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,

Car1980

Yes

Yes, all those points are bang on the money.

My only concern is that too many requests and too many threats would make them play the disproportionate card.

I prefer to use the CPRs and the 'exchange of information' and 'key document' angle.

E.g

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 (clearly a key document as it is the ONLY document upon your client relies), 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 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. 

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.