Just email them back at help@moorsidelegal.co.uk and CC yourself with the following:
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.
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,
[Your name]
You have what is considered to be a "golden ticket" as long as the driver is not identified. Padstow Harbour is land under statutory control. I.e. Harbour Bylaws. Because of this, Alliance Parking cannot issue a Notice to Keeper (NtK) relying on the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA) in order to transfer liability from the unknown driver to the known keeper.
You, the known keeper are under no legal obligation to identify the unknown (to Alliance) drivers identity and they are not allowed to assume or infer that the known keeper must also be the unknown driver. Do you see their dilemma?
Irrespective of the background story or mitigating circumstances, all you, the known keeper needs to put in an appeal is the following:
I am the registered keeper. Your NtK does not and cannot rely on PoFA 2012. As a matter of fact and law, Alliance Parking will be well aware that they cannot use the PoFA provisions to hold the keeper liable because Padstow Harbour is not 'relevant land'.
If Padstow Harbours landowners wanted to hold owners or keepers liable under harbour byelaws, that would be within the landowner's gift and another matter entirely. Not only is that not pleaded, it is also not legally possible because Alliance Parking is not the harbour owner and your 'parking charge' is not and never attempts to be a penalty. It is created for Alliance Parking's own profit (as opposed to a byelaws penalty that goes to the public purse) and Alliance Parking has relied on contract law allegations of breach against the driver only. The registered keeper cannot be presumed to have been, nor inferred, nor pursued as the driver under some twisted interpretation of the law of agency.
Alliance Parking have no hope at IAS, so you are urged to save us both a complete waste of time and cancel the PCN.
However, you are dealing with a bunch of ex-clamper thugs who are intellectually malnourished and if they don't accept your appeal, you actually have little hope that the IAS will uphold it either as they are incestuously partners with their paymaster operator members.
Not to worry. If this ever made it all the way to a county court claim, they would receive a spanking from a truly independent arbiter, a judge. Alliance Parking are possibly knuckle-dragging enough to carry on with debt collector threats in the vain hope you are low-hanging fruit on the gullible tree and will capitulate in fear when idle threats of legal action is threatened. As you're now here seeking advice, I think we can safely assume that you are not gullible and will heed the advice based on many years of experience in dealing with these cowboy scammers.