Thanks. That case involved Parking Eye, whereas this one is ECP. Compliance with Sch. 4 is notice-specific and without sight of the PE NTK, it's not possible to compare.
Yes, I agree that failure to comply with Sch. 4 should deny a creditor the right to pursue a keeper, but whether such a failure has occurred does seem to stray into the realms of subjectivity.
But as regards this case, as I understand it the solicitors' track record of withdrawing claims at the 11th hour should be sufficient.