Quote:“I request confirmation whether any byelaws have been made under the Medway Water (Bewl Bridge Reservoir) Act 1968 or any other enabling legislation in relation to Bewl Water, Bewlbridge Lane, Lamberhurst, TN3 8JH.
If so, please provide a complete copy of all byelaws currently in force.
Please confirm the geographic extent of any such byelaws, specifically whether they apply to the leisure estate, access roads and car parks (not limited to the water body itself).
Please confirm whether any such byelaws regulate, control, restrict or govern the bringing, driving, stopping, standing, leaving or parking of motor vehicles on the land forming part of the Bewl Water estate.”

1. The original Notice to Keeper (both sides). Not a reminder. The very first NtK.
   
2. All images they have supplied so far (ANPR entry/exit etc).
   
3. Any wording on the NtK that mentions PoFA or keeper liability.
   

• Do not contact DCBL.
  
• Do not pay.
  
• Submit the EIR request.
  
• Upload the NtK and evidence here.
  

(02-13-2026, 11:51 AM)b789 Wrote: Hi @JoeBloggs90. Welcome to the forum.

First, I need to correct something. I initially proceeded on the basis that Bewl Water being a statutory reservoir undertaking meant the land was under statutory control for PoFA purposes. That was maybe a bit too broad. Reservoir legislation on its own does not automatically establish that parking or control of vehicles on the leisure estate is subject to statutory control.

For PoFA Schedule 4 to be disapplied, the parking or control of vehicles must itself be subject to statutory control. I have not yet seen any confirmed byelaws or statutory instrument that regulate vehicles on the car parks or access roads where First Parking operate. I cannot find the Act itself anywhere online.

So before we go any further with that argument, we need clarification.

You now need to submit a formal Environmental Information Regulations (EIR) request to Southern Water Services Ltd (they are the statutory undertaker for Bewl Reservoir).
Use this link:

https://www.southernwater.co.uk/about-us/environmental-performance/can-i-request-environmental-information/

Submit the request through their EIR route. In the request box, put the following:

Quote:“I request confirmation whether any byelaws have been made under the Medway Water (Bewl Bridge Reservoir) Act 1968 or any other enabling legislation in relation to Bewl Water, Bewlbridge Lane, Lamberhurst, TN3 8JH.
If so, please provide a complete copy of all byelaws currently in force.
Please confirm the geographic extent of any such byelaws, specifically whether they apply to the leisure estate, access roads and car parks (not limited to the water body itself).
Please confirm whether any such byelaws regulate, control, restrict or govern the bringing, driving, stopping, standing, leaving or parking of motor vehicles on the land forming part of the Bewl Water estate.”

Submit that and keep a copy. They normally have 20 working days to respond.

Now, separately, we need to tighten up the actual parking charge case.

Please upload:

1. The original Notice to Keeper (both sides). Not a reminder. The very first NtK.
   
2. All images they have supplied so far (ANPR entry/exit etc).
   
3. Any wording on the NtK that mentions PoFA or keeper liability.
   

Also, can you obtain clear photographs of the signage at the location? In particular:

– Any entrance signage.
– Any tariff boards.
– Any signage that states parking charges apply before 08:00.
– Any signage that clearly states that time on site before 08:00 is chargeable.

The FAQ states parking is charged from 08:00. If signage does not clearly state that pre-08:00 presence forms part of a paid contractual period, that becomes highly relevant.

We will deal with:

– Consideration period on entry.
– Mandatory grace period at the end.
– The mismatch between website representation and alleged contractual terms.
– Whether ANPR time on site can lawfully be equated with parking time.

For now:

• Do not contact DCBL.
  
• Do not pay.
  
• Submit the EIR request.
  
• Upload the NtK and evidence here.
  

Once we see the byelaw position and the NtK wording, we will know exactly which direction this goes.

The only other factor that is relevant is that this is being handled by DCBL which means that off they do move to a claim, it will most likely be by their sister company, DCB Legal. I can assure you with greater than 99% certainty, that any claim issued by DCB Legal, as long as it is defended, no matter how poorly, it will be discontinued before they have to pay the £27 trial fee. 

(02-17-2026, 11:45 PM)b789 Wrote: Keep Screenshots of everything that shows the opening times of the car park at 8am. 

Quote:Dear Sirs,

I refer to your Letter of Claim.

The alleged debt is denied.

Your claim is fundamentally misconceived. The location is Bewl Bridge Reservoir. The enclosed byelaws, made under section 22(6) of the Countryside Act 1968, expressly apply to the reservoir and adjacent land held by the Authority, and regulate the driving, leaving and parking of vehicles. That land is therefore subject to statutory control and is not “relevant land” for the purposes of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. Keeper liability is unavailable. Any assertion to the contrary is incorrect.

If your client disputes this, it is put to strict proof of the exact legal status of the land, the precise boundaries relied upon, and any lawful revocation or disapplication of those byelaws. A lease, licence or commercial arrangement does not extinguish statutory control.

Your Letter of Claim proceeds on a false premise by asserting liability as “keeper or driver”. No admission is made as to the identity of the driver, and your client is not entitled to infer it.

Further, your Letter of Claim is deficient and non-compliant with the Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims. You have failed to provide the documents required to understand or properly respond to the claim. Provide the following:

1. All notices relied upon, including the Notice to Keeper.
2. All ANPR images and data.
3. Contemporaneous photographs of all signage relied upon.
4. A site plan showing signage locations and the land boundary.
5. The unredacted landowner contract or chain of authority.
6. Documentary proof that the land is not subject to the enclosed byelaws.
7. A full breakdown and justification of the additional £70.

The matter must now be placed on hold for not less than 30 days pending full compliance.

If proceedings are issued without addressing the statutory control issue and without providing the requested documents, this will be drawn to the court’s attention as unreasonable conduct.

Yours faithfully,

[Name]

(03-30-2026, 02:50 PM)b789 Wrote: The critical point is that the byelaws apply to Bewl Bridge Reservoir and to all lands adjacent to the reservoir which are “vested in, or held by” the Authority, excluding only land over which a public right of way is exercisable. They also expressly regulate the leaving and parking of conveyances on that Authority Property.

So the starting position is not that the Keeper must prove the byelaws somehow survived a later lease or commercial arrangement. The starting position is that the byelaws were validly made, confirmed by the Secretary of State, and came into operation on 27 February 1979. Once in force, they remain in force unless lawfully revoked, replaced, or disapplied.

A mere lease, licence, management agreement or even sale of part of the estate to a third party does not, by itself, extinguish statutory byelaws. That would require proper legal analysis of the land transfer and, if relied upon, evidence that the land ceased to be within the byelaw area or that the byelaws were revoked or otherwise ceased to apply.

That is why the burden shifts.

If First Parking want to rely on PoFA keeper liability, and the Keeper now has a confirmed set of byelaws which on their face regulate parking and vehicle use at Bewl Bridge Reservoir, then it is for First Parking to prove that the precise parcel of land where they operate falls outside the land to which those byelaws apply, or that the byelaws were revoked or otherwise ceased to have effect there.

Absent such proof, the sensible and legally coherent position is that parking on that land is subject to statutory control and therefore the land is not “relevant land” for the purposes of Schedule 4 PoFA.

The key wording is byelaw 15, which expressly regulates where conveyances may be left, where motor vehicles may be left, and compliance with traffic signs and speed limits on the Authority Property. That is squarely statutory control of vehicles on the land.

The existence of a commercial third-party operation on part of a wider statutory estate does not of itself strip away byelaws. Unless and until the operator can show a statutory revocation or that the land is genuinely outside the byelaw footprint, you, the Keeper, have a strong basis to say the site is not relevant land.

For now, respond to the LoC with the following and attach a copy of the byelaws. Send it by email to info@dcblegal.co.uk and cc yourself.

Quote:Dear Sirs,

I refer to your Letter of Claim.

The alleged debt is denied.

Your claim is fundamentally misconceived. The location is Bewl Bridge Reservoir. The enclosed byelaws, made under section 22(6) of the Countryside Act 1968, expressly apply to the reservoir and adjacent land held by the Authority, and regulate the driving, leaving and parking of vehicles. That land is therefore subject to statutory control and is not “relevant land” for the purposes of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. Keeper liability is unavailable. Any assertion to the contrary is incorrect.

If your client disputes this, it is put to strict proof of the exact legal status of the land, the precise boundaries relied upon, and any lawful revocation or disapplication of those byelaws. A lease, licence or commercial arrangement does not extinguish statutory control.

Your Letter of Claim proceeds on a false premise by asserting liability as “keeper or driver”. No admission is made as to the identity of the driver, and your client is not entitled to infer it.

Further, your Letter of Claim is deficient and non-compliant with the Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims. You have failed to provide the documents required to understand or properly respond to the claim. Provide the following:

1. All notices relied upon, including the Notice to Keeper.
2. All ANPR images and data.
3. Contemporaneous photographs of all signage relied upon.
4. A site plan showing signage locations and the land boundary.
5. The unredacted landowner contract or chain of authority.
6. Documentary proof that the land is not subject to the enclosed byelaws.
7. A full breakdown and justification of the additional £70.

The matter must now be placed on hold for not less than 30 days pending full compliance.

If proceedings are issued without addressing the statutory control issue and without providing the requested documents, this will be drawn to the court’s attention as unreasonable conduct.

Yours faithfully,

[Name]

Thank you, I have emaile them as you suggested. At no point have I even brought up the obvious and easier win which si the 8am parking start on the website. Is it worth brining this up now or just leave it as a secondary defence if it gets to it?

(03-31-2026, 06:19 AM)b789 Wrote: They are going to issue a claim,  no matter what argument you put forward. For now, there is no need to go into more detail. Wait for the claim.

Whilst you have all these points in your favour should this ever reach a hearing, this will never reach that stage. I can state with greater than 99% certainty that DCB Legal will discontinue the claim just before they are required to pay the £27 Trial fee, around a month before the hearing date, once it has been allocated. You are still months away from that.

They will push this along in the hope you are low-hanging fruit on the gullible tree who can be intimidated into paying out of ignorance and fear. Once they realise that you are not, they will try and offer a reduced settlement, which if you follow the advice and ignore them, they will give up and discontinue.

Their M.O. is well known. In the meantime, come back when they issue the claim for advice on how to defend it.

(03-31-2026, 06:37 AM)JoeBloggs90 Wrote:

(03-31-2026, 06:19 AM)b789 Wrote: They are going to issue a claim,  no matter what argument you put forward. For now, there is no need to go into more detail. Wait for the claim.

Whilst you have all these points in your favour should this ever reach a hearing, this will never reach that stage. I can state with greater than 99% certainty that DCB Legal will discontinue the claim just before they are required to pay the £27 Trial fee, around a month before the hearing date, once it has been allocated. You are still months away from that.

They will push this along in the hope you are low-hanging fruit on the gullible tree who can be intimidated into paying out of ignorance and fear. Once they realise that you are not, they will try and offer a reduced settlement, which if you follow the advice and ignore them, they will give up and discontinue.

Their M.O. is well known. In the meantime, come back when they issue the claim for advice on how to defend it.

Thanks B789, will do.