Dear Sirs,
Re: Your purported Letter of Claim – [Client/PCN ref], Sea View Car Park, Polzeath – alleged event 20/10/2020
Your latest missive is yet another template non-response. It recycles stock phrases, misstates the law, and ignores the specific defects I identified. It is, frankly, legally embarrassing.
1. Protocol failure (again)
You still have not served a compliant Letter of Claim under the PAPDC and PD-PAC (PAPDC 3.1(a)–(d), 5.1–5.2; PD-PAC 6(a)–(c)). You even admit “a full site map of the car park and signage are not available”. That concession is fatal to any allegation that terms were properly communicated or incorporated on 20/10/2020.
2. Keeper liability – bare assertion is not evidence
Your one-line claim that Schedule 4 PoFA entitles recovery from the keeper is denied. Keeper liability is strict and only arises if every statutory condition is met. The NtK you rely on failed PoFA 9(2)(e)(i) (no compliant “invitation to keeper”), and you have produced neither that contemporaneous NtK nor proof of service under 9(4)–(6). Your curious suggestion that your “right has now expired as recovery action has commenced” is nonsense: commencing “recovery” does not transmute a non-compliant NtK into a compliant one. There is no presumption that the keeper was the driver: see VCS v Edward (2023) [H0KF6C9C]. I will not identify the driver.
3. The £70 add-on – unrecoverable double recovery
Your reliance on a trade association code to tack on £70 is misconceived. A private code does not override statute, the fixed small-claims costs regime, or the court’s duty to prevent double recovery. The add-on is routinely struck out as an abuse and any pleaded sum must be confined to the (denied) principal PCN. You have also been inconsistent (£60 in earlier material; £70 now) so please explain why the difference.
4. Standing/landowner authority – your position is hopeless
Your statement that “the agreement between our client and the landowner is not relevant” is risible and betrays a basic misunderstanding of locus standi. Only a party with authority from the landowner can (a) offer parking contracts to motorists, and (b) sue in its own name for alleged breach. This is not optional “background” – it goes to the very heart of the cause of action. The Supreme Court in ParkingEye v Beavis proceeded on the explicit premise that the operator held landowner authority; absent that authority the claim would have failed at the first hurdle. Your client is put to strict proof.
Produce now:• The contemporaneous, unredacted landowner agreement in force on 20/10/2020 (redactions limited to commercially sensitive rates only), expressly granting your client authority to: manage/operate the site; erect and maintain signage; offer parking contracts; issue PCNs; and commence legal proceedings in its own name.
• A landowner (or superior titleholder) witness statement exhibiting that agreement and confirming its scope and duration.
• The site boundary plan and the schedule of signs cross-referenced in that agreement.
Your refusal to provide this is not merely non-compliance with the PPSCoP requirement for written authority on reasonable request; it is an admission that you cannot prove standing. Issue on that footing and the claim will be met with an application to stay/strike for want of standing and for unreasonable conduct costs.
5. Signage and incorporation
You concede you cannot provide a site map or signage set. That is the evidence by which you would hope to prove offer, terms, prominence, and incorporation. Without it, you have no contract case. Strict proof remains required of wording, positioning, dimensions, illumination, and the terms in force on the material date.
6. “Debt advice” fiction
Nowhere did I request a 30-day hold for debt advice. Your file note to that effect is false. Rectify your records immediately. This is a data accuracy issue (UK GDPR, Art. 5(1)(d) and Art. 16).
7. Service & communications – no web portal
I will not use your web portal. Do not direct me to it again. All future correspondence must be by email to: [your email] or by post to: [your postal address]. You may choose either channel. For the avoidance of doubt, “service” via a portal will not be accepted and portal notifications will be ignored. Update your records accordingly and confirm.
8. What you must provide (or discontinue)
To progress this pre-action exchange properly, serve a compliant PAPDC pack within 14 days, comprising:(i) the items in §4 above (standing/authority);
(ii) the full ANPR data and stills; machine audit/VRM logs (entry, payment, whitelist/permit look-ups) for the relevant period;
(iii) the contemporaneous NtK and proof of service relied upon for PoFA;
(iv) the complete signage set and site plan applicable on 20/10/2020;
(v) a breakdown of the principal sum and a confirmation that the £70 add-on will not be pursued.
Failing that, confirm the matter is closed.
If you nevertheless issue a County Court claim without first curing these defects, I will apply to stay/strike under PD-PAC 15(b) and seek costs under CPR 27.14 for unreasonable conduct. Your client has been on clear notice for months. Proceeding on template bluster while disavowing the relevance of standing would merely compound the embarrassment.
Yours faithfully,
[Name of defendant]
[Postal address]
[Email]
[Your ref/Our ref]
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.
I am the registered keeper of the vehicle. I am not obliged to identify the driver and I decline to do so. As there is no legal presumption that the keeper of a vehicle was its driver on any particular occasion, your client cannot pursue me as driver as per VCS v Edward (2023) [H0KF6C9C] (https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/yvxek3kfwtb3qent3lj6y/VCS-Limited-v-Ian-Mark-Edward-H0KF6C9C.pdf?rlkey=niecohfdtj1n1ysh5prbsp52p&e=1&dl=0).
If your client is seeking to rely on Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA) in order to hold me liable as keeper, they are unable to do so. The Notice to Keeper (NtK) failed to comply with PoFA 9(2)(e)(i) and, therefore as such, no PoFA-compliant NtK was served. Even if your client were to issue or re-send a copy now, it would be well outside the statutory period and would not remedy the defect. Your client is therefore unable to rely on PoFA to establish keeper liability.
As your client cannot pursue me as driver or keeper, it would be an abuse of the court’s process for your client to issue a claim against me and I will defend any such claim vigorously and seek costs in relation to your client’s unreasonable and vexatious conduct under Part 27.14(2)(g)
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 £60 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]
Thank you!Hi, sorry to jump on this one, but I have received the same. Unfortunately I appealed before reading any threads, so the NtK was in my wife's name and I appealed in my name as the driver!
I have since ignored the final notice letter which was sent in Oct 2024. (I received a few NtK for alledged overstays) I have recently received a letter from Trace saying I owe a lot more and giving me 14 days to pay or their client may apply for a County Court Judgment. It also states their client (Alliance parking UK Ltd) has instructed Trace Debt Recovery to handle all correspondence and that any communication with Alliance will be referred back to Trace Debt Recovery.
Do I just ignore?? - Reading other threads it appears so!
Many thanks
@Longboat1, please start your own thread if you want advice otherwise it becomes too confusing when reading back through a thread. Responding to a Notice to Keeper (NtK) that is not in your name, whether or not you were the driver, does not solve anything. Until an invoice is sent to you in your name, anything you write and say is a complete waste of time and effort.
Ignore Trace and any other debt collector. They are powerless to do anything.
The only people who think that a CCJ can just be “applied for” are low-hanging fruit on the gullible tree, ripe for the picking out of ignorance and fear. Have a read of the following to put your mind at ease:QuoteWhat CCJ? Do you have any understanding of how someone gets a CCJ? Nothing we advise on here will make anyone get a CCJ.QuoteA County Court Judgment (CCJ) does not just happen—it follows a clear legal process. If someone gets a Parking Charge Notice (PCN) from a private parking company, here's what happens step by step:1. Parking Charge Notice (PCN) Issued• The parking company sends a letter (Notice to Keeper) demanding money.
• This is not a fine—it’s an invoice for an alleged breach of contract.
2. Opportunity to Appeal• The recipient can appeal to the parking company.
•If rejected, they may be able to appeal to POPLA (if BPA member) or IAS (if IPC member).
• If an appeal is lost or ignored, the parking company demands payment.
3. Debt Collection Letters• The parking company might send scary letters or pass the case to a debt collector.
• Debt collectors have no power—they just send letters and can be ignored.
• No CCJ happens at this stage.
4. Letter Before Claim (LBC)• If ignored for long enough, the parking company (or their solicitor) sends a Letter Before Claim (LBC).
• This is a warning that they may start a court case.
• The recipient has 30 days to reply before a claim is filed.
• No CCJ happens at this stage.
5. County Court Claim Issued• If ignored or unpaid, the parking company may file a claim with the County Court.
• The court sends a Claim Form with details of the claim and how to respond.
• The recipient has 14 days to respond (or 28 days if they acknowledge it).
• No CCJ happens at this stage.
6. Court Process• If the recipient defends the claim, a judge decides if they owe money.
• If the recipient ignores the claim, the parking company wins by default.
• No CCJ happens yet unless the recipient loses and ignores the court.
7. Judgment & Payment• If the court rules that money is owed, the recipient has 30 days to pay in full.
• If they pay within 30 days, no CCJ goes on their credit file.
• If they don’t pay within 30 days, the CCJ stays on their credit file for 6 years.
Conclusion
CCJs do not appear out of thin air. They only happen if:• A parking company takes the case to court.
• The person loses or ignores the case.
• The person fails to pay within 30 days.
If you engage with the process (appeal, defend, or pay on time), no CCJ happens.
Hi, sorry to jump on this one, but I have received the same. Unfortunately I appealed before reading any threads, so the NtK was in my wife's name and I appealed in my name as the driver!
I have since ignored the final notice letter which was sent in Oct 2024. (I received a few NtK for alledged overstays) I have recently received a letter from Trace saying I owe a lot more and giving me 14 days to pay or their client may apply for a County Court Judgment. It also states their client (Alliance parking UK Ltd) has instructed Trace Debt Recovery to handle all correspondence and that any communication with Alliance will be referred back to Trace Debt Recovery.
Do I just ignore?? - Reading other threads it appears so!
Many thanks
What CCJ? Do you have any understanding of how someone gets a CCJ? Nothing we advise on here will make anyone get a CCJ.QuoteA County Court Judgment (CCJ) does not just happen—it follows a clear legal process. If someone gets a Parking Charge Notice (PCN) from a private parking company, here's what happens step by step:1. Parking Charge Notice (PCN) Issued• The parking company sends a letter (Notice to Keeper) demanding money.
• This is not a fine—it’s an invoice for an alleged breach of contract.
2. Opportunity to Appeal• The recipient can appeal to the parking company.
•If rejected, they may be able to appeal to POPLA (if BPA member) or IAS (if IPC member).
• If an appeal is lost or ignored, the parking company demands payment.
3. Debt Collection Letters• The parking company might send scary letters or pass the case to a debt collector.
• Debt collectors have no power—they just send letters and can be ignored.
• No CCJ happens at this stage.
4. Letter Before Claim (LBC)• If ignored for long enough, the parking company (or their solicitor) sends a Letter Before Claim (LBC).
• This is a warning that they may start a court case.
• The recipient has 30 days to reply before a claim is filed.
• No CCJ happens at this stage.
5. County Court Claim Issued• If ignored or unpaid, the parking company may file a claim with the County Court.
• The court sends a Claim Form with details of the claim and how to respond.
• The recipient has 14 days to respond (or 28 days if they acknowledge it).
• No CCJ happens at this stage.
6. Court Process• If the recipient defends the claim, a judge decides if they owe money.
• If the recipient ignores the claim, the parking company wins by default.
• No CCJ happens yet unless the recipient loses and ignores the court.
7. Judgment & Payment• If the court rules that money is owed, the recipient has 30 days to pay in full.
• If they pay within 30 days, no CCJ goes on their credit file.
• If they don’t pay within 30 days, the CCJ stays on their credit file for 6 years.
Conclusion
CCJs do not appear out of thin air. They only happen if:• A parking company takes the case to court.
• The person loses or ignores the case.
• The person fails to pay within 30 days.
If you engage with the process (appeal, defend, or pay on time), no CCJ happens.
Hi, sorry to jump on this one, but I have received the same. Unfortunately I appealed before reading any threads, so the NtK was in my wife's name and I appealed in my name as the driver!
I have since ignored the final notice letter which was sent in Oct 2024. (I received a few NtK for alledged overstays) I have recently received a letter from Trace saying I owe a lot more and giving me 14 days to pay or their client may apply for a County Court Judgment. It also states their client (Alliance parking UK Ltd) has instructed Trace Debt Recovery to handle all correspondence and that any communication with Alliance will be referred back to Trace Debt Recovery.
Do I just ignore?? - Reading other threads it appears so!
Many thanks