RESPONSE TO LETTER BEFORE CLAIM
Dear Sirs,
I write in response to your Letter Before Claim dated 18th August 2026.
The alleged debt is disputed in full for the following reasons:
1. No Contract Formed (Forbidding Signage): The signage at the location states “ePermit Holders Only”. This signage is explicitly forbidding and prohibitive in nature. It offers no contractual permission or service to non-permit holders. Because no offer was extended, no contract was formed, and no breach of contract can occur (PCM-UK v Bull [2016]). At most, the alleged conduct constitutes trespass, for which your client lacks standing to claim damages, and for which no loss was suffered.
2. In the alternative - if the court determines a contract was capable of being formed - the driver was strictly within the mandatory consideration period prescribed by the Private Parking Single Code of Practice, to read the terms and elect to leave.
3. Unlawful "Debt Recovery" Fee: The addition of £70 in generic "debt collection charges" is denied in full. This represents double recovery, an abuse of process, and exceeds the maximum recoverable amount under Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012.
Your overall conduct — including ignoring consideration period obligations, and attempting to enforce inflated fees—directly conflicts with the principles set out in the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) Open Letter to the Private Parking Sector regarding fair consumer treatment and lawful practices. Please be advised that the full details of this case and your practices across all these points may be formally reported to the CMA.
Please take notice that if your client chooses to issue court proceedings despite these clear points, this letter will be brought to the court’s attention on the issue of costs under the Pre-Action Protocol.
Kindly confirm in writing that this matter is now closed.
Yours faithfully