Neil Wilby Media

A County Court dispute pitting claimants, UK Parking Control Limited (UKPC), against defendant Neil Wilby, journalist and author of this article, could be fairly described as bitterly contested. 

The case revolves around a Parking Charge Notice (PCN) claimed to have been issued in September, 2022, by UKPC, allegedly in connection with a vehicle parked at McDonald’s diner on Dewsbury Road in Wakefield.

Neither the subject PCN, which initially claimed a sum of £100, later increased to £170, has been produced to the court nor has any proof that the vehicle entered the car park or left that location at the material date and times.

However, what began as a formulaic civil claim issued by bulk litigation solicitors, DCB Legal Limited, on behalf of UKPC, after the car park giant and their Runcorn-based lawyers had repeatedly breached court rules under what is known as ‘Pre-Action Protocol’, soon spiralled into a complex legal saga. Marked by multiple and prima facie breaches of Civil Procedure Rules (CPR), allegations of solicitor misconduct, and fundamental disputes over the validity of the claim itself and the complete absence of evidence in support.

An Amended Defence filed by the journalist, with the court’s permission, also raises significant concerns regarding the procedural integrity of the claim brought by UKPC. Amongst the key issues highlighted is the alleged failure of the claimant’s Amended Particulars of Claim to comply with the court’s Practice Directions, in terms of producing evidence of their contractual right to take court proceedings against McDonald’s car park users – and what now very much appears to be the absence of a valid legal representative’s signature.

The defective claim, in its original format, had been struck out by a district judge in February, 2024 with leave given to UKPC to file amended particulars that complied with the applicable law and set out more clearly on what factual basis the claim was made.

Several days before the deadline for complying with the court’s Directions, DCB Legal Ltd contacted Neil Wilby to say that they were prepared to discontinue the parking charge claim if the latter’s claim for costs was also dropped. An offer politely, but firmly, declined.

It is true to say that those Amended Particulars, when eventually filed and served, were another formulaic effort that did little to assist the court, or the defendant, in terms of narrowing issues or bringing the matter to a conclusion. Quite the opposite, in fact. 

Neil Wilby’s Amended Defence firstly challenges the legitimacy of a junior employee of DCB Legal who purported to sign the Statement of Truth on behalf of the claimant as ‘a legal representative’ of UKPC.

Investigations, and indeed admissions, in email by her employer, reveal that the subject employee is not a qualified legal practitioner, raising serious doubts about her authority to represent UK Parking Control Ltd or DCB Legal Ltd in civil court proceedings.

She has had various roles in the law firm which include ‘data assistant’, ‘litigation assistant’ and now, they say, ‘case manager’.  Albeit, not being amongst the multitude of individuals that have dealt with this vexed ‘letter chain’ matter, either employed by DCB Legal, their parent operation, Direct Collection Bailiffs Limited or UKPC. 

Neil Wilby alleges a history of contempt towards the court by the claimant’s legal representatives, citing manifest breaches of Civil Procedure Rules and Practice Directions both during the pre-action phase, in issuing both the original claim and the amended version, and in correspondence since the first claim was issued by UKPC.

Furthermore, he accuses the car park operators of pursuing a claim that should never have been brought before the court and failing to engage either a competent litigation solicitor or counsel. The presence of whom, it is said, would swiftly have brought the matter to a compromised conclusion.

The crux of the defence challenges the existence and/or validity of the parking charge notice and the claimant’s authority to enforce it.

Neil Wilby contests the alleged forming of a contractual agreement between him and UK Parking Control Ltd, which, they say, exists based on virtually illegible small type on badly sited signs in the car park. He also submits to the court that, even if it was found that a contract was formed, its conditions would engage Section 5 of the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999 in terms of being ‘hidden’ and ‘unfair’.

It is also contended that those car parks signs, in any event, do not comply with the guidelines set out in the British Parking Association (BPA) or the Independent Parking Committee (IPC) Codes of Practice.

UKPC has also failed to explain to the court why no contract-forming signs are displayed within McDonald’s premises or, similarly, why McDonald’s staff do not remind diners, via their tannoy system, of these alleged contractual obligations and severe penalties for non-compliance.

As the Amended Defence sets out, the notion of UKPC’s attempts at entrapment, within that McDonald’s car park, is inescapable. Not least as it sits in a small corner of a large Morrisons supermarket complex with around 400 car parking spaces, completely free and with no contractual obligations (Neil Wilby helpfully asserts that the food in their cafeteria is also much better quality and excellent value, too).

The court’s attention has also been drawn to the fact that at McDonald’s other, much busier, outlet in the city, parking is free and unencumbered by alleged contracts and fines. UKPC formerly operated their cameras and charges at that site but were withdrawn, locals say, after substantial controversy over their activities.

The Amended Defence also highlights other deficiencies in the claimant’s evidence and a signal failure to prove essential elements of the alleged contract.

For example, UKPC has failed to disclose either the name of the owner of the land upon which the McDonalds car park sits or the actual contract between them that transfers powers to levy charges and, ultimately, to pursue court claims.

That failure has also opened  up a civil claim by Neil Wilby against UKPC over what appears to be unlawfully accessing the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency records for keeper details of his vehicle. Without such a contract, and attendant transfer of powers, in place it is a breach of the Data Protection Act, 2018 to obtain such information. UKPC and DCB Legal have been served with a Pre-Action Protocol Letter before Claim as a result.

The Amended Defence was filed at court and served on DCB Legal Ltd on 15th April, 2024 and, in light of the procedural irregularities and substantive grounds outlined within it, the court was urged, of its own motion to either dismiss the claim, stay proceedings, or strike it out as an abuse of process.

Additionally, costs were sought from UKPC on an indemnity basis, citing the claimant’s and their lawyers’ conduct throughout the proceedings as ‘reprehensible’.

The solicitors acting for UKPC, again hiding behind a young, junior employee, wrote to Neil Wilby on 23rd April, 2024 saying “I can confirm that our file is now closed and there will be no further action.”

That drew a robust response, on the same day, which effectively said that any move by the claimant to discontinue the claim, without first settling the matter of the defendant’s costs, would be strongly opposed by way of an Application to the court, if necessary. It also put DCB Legal on notice of potential contempt of court proceedings and regulatory complaints against two of their qualified solicitors.

Both courses of action grounded in alleged flagrant and persistent disregard of the court’s Rules, Directions and Protocol.

A response to that email is still awaited. Yet another breach of Civil Procedure Rules.

Neil Wilby says: “One of the principal public interest concerns arising from this case is the appearance of lawyers being too closely attached to an unscrupulous debt collection firm (Debt Collection Bailiffs Ltd) whom, habitually, issue repeated, aggressive but palpably false threats of county court judgements and bailiff visits to the homes of alleged car parking offenders, even before any form of legal action has commenced.

“‘Bailiffs’ is the only client of ‘Legal’ according to the latter’s website. Yasmin Mia was formerly the in-house solicitor for ‘Bailiffs’ before setting up ‘Legal’ in 2017.

“In a lengthy publishing career spanning over 40 years, I’ve dealt with hundreds of law firms; good. bad and indifferent. Whilst nationally-known Weightmans lie firmly at the bottom of that pile (read more here), DCB Legal Ltd would be the second worst.

“Lazy, inept and ineffective lawyers, whom have no regard for their first duty as officers of the court and use junior employees of their firm as ‘human shields’, potentially bring the entire profession into disrepute and, as such, it is right that the statutory regulator should consider whether the continued position on the solicitors’ roll is appropriate.

“Moreover, the use of poorly drafted, boilerplate script when formulating claims, particulars and correspondence, completely absent of probative evidence, are also harmful to the effective administration of civil justice and particularly vexing, and costly, to those embroiled in actions with, or against, such law firms.”

Both UKPC and DCB Legal have been offered right of reply. McDonald’s have been contacted, via their UK press office, for comment.

Follow Neil Wilby on Twitter (here) and Neil Wilby Media on Facebook (here) for signposts to any updates.

Page last updated: Monday 13th May, 2024 at 0745 hours

Thank you for reading and a polite request: If you feel this article is of value and in the public interest, and wish to make a contribution to the running costs of this website, it would be very much appreciated. Donations can made securely (and anonymously if required), via Buy Me A Coffee at this link or via PayPal at this link.

Corrections: Please let me know if there is a mistake in this article. I will endeavour to correct it as soon as possible.

Picture credit: 

Right of reply: If you are mentioned in this article and disagree with it, please let me have your comments. Provided your response is not defamatory it will be added to the article.

© Neil Wilby 2015-2024. Unauthorised use, or reproduction, of the material contained in this article, without permission from the author, is strictly prohibited. Extracts from, and links to, the article (or blog) may be used, provided that credit is given to Neil Wilby Media, with appropriate and specific direction to the original content.