Subject: Final Demand for Compliance with Pre-Action Protocol
Dear Sirs,
Re: Letter of Claim dated 20th January 2025
Your latest response is yet another example of your failure to comply with the Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims (PAPDC). I am giving you this final opportunity to correct your conduct before I escalate matters further.
To be absolutely clear:
The £70 charge – You have still failed to confirm whether this amount is inclusive of VAT. I am not interested in your tired regurgitation of ATA Codes of Practice, which hold no legal weight. Answer the question: is this sum inclusive of VAT? If it is, explain why your client is passing its VAT liability onto an alleged debtor. If it is not, confirm whether VAT has been accounted for in accordance with HMRC guidelines.
The nature of the principal sum – Your vague response is entirely inadequate. I asked you a simple question: is the PCN being pursued as damages for breach of contract or as a core contractual charge? This is a fundamental distinction in law. Your deliberate refusal to provide a direct answer is noted and will be brought to the court’s attention should you be foolish enough to issue a claim.
Your repeated refusal to comply with PAPDC amounts to unreasonable conduct and will be met with an appropriate response should this matter proceed. This includes but is not limited to:
- A formal costs application under CPR 27.14(2)(g) for your client’s unreasonable pre-action conduct.
- A strike-out application should you persist in issuing a claim without first complying with the PAPDC.
- Further action regarding your clear failure to provide material information required under professional conduct rules.
You have seven days to provide proper answers. If you continue to ignore your obligations, I will highlight your embarrassing incompetence before the court and ensure your client is held to account for your failings.
No further warnings will be given.
Yours faithfully,
[Your Name]
Subject: Failure to Engage with Pre-Action Protocol Requirements
Dear Sirs,
Re: Letter of Claim dated 20th January 2025
I acknowledge receipt of your generic response, which fails to engage with my specific and reasonable requests for information under the Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims (PAPDC). Your failure to provide meaningful responses is both obstructive and unreasonable.
For the avoidance of doubt, I require you to respond to my questions in full and in writing. Directing me to generic FAQs or a payment portal does not discharge your obligations under the PAPDC. I will remind you that paragraph 3.1 of the PAPDC requires you to provide “a summary of the facts” and “an explanation of how the amount has been calculated.” Your failure to do so will result in a costs sanction should this proceed to litigation.
To be clear:
[indent[1. I require a direct answer regarding the additional £70 charge: Is it a debt recovery fee, and if so, does it include VAT?
2. I require clarity on whether the principal sum is being pursued as damages for breach of contract or as consideration for a parking contract.[/indent]
If you fail to respond adequately, I will raise this with the court as a clear example of unreasonable conduct, and I reserve the right to seek costs on this basis.
Yours faithfully,
[Your Name]
Any ideas what I can expect?
'we know what you've posted is a template from a forum, if you don't tell us what your defence is in your own words we will regard it as unreasonable behaviour and ask for our costs at court
Moorside Legal
Jade Building
Albion Mills
Albion Road
Greengates
BD10 9TQ
By email to: help@moorsidelegal.co.uk
[Date]
Dear Sirs,
Re: Letter of Claim dated 20th January 2025
I refer to your Letter of Claim.
I confirm that my address for service at this time is as follows, and I request that any outdated address be erased from your records to ensure compliance with data protection obligations:
[YOUR ADDRESS]
Please note that the alleged debt is disputed, and any court proceedings will be robustly defended.
I note that the sum claimed has been increased by an excessive and unjustifiable amount, which appears contrary to the principles established by the Government, who described such practices as “extorting money from motorists.” Please refrain from sending boilerplate responses or justifications regarding this issue.
Under the Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims, I require specific answers to the following questions:1. Does the additional £70 represent what you describe as a “Debt Recovery” fee? If so, is this figure net of or inclusive of VAT? If inclusive, I trust you will explain why I, as the alleged debtor, am being asked to cover your client’s VAT liability.
2. Regarding the principal sum of the alleged Parking Charge Notice (PCN): Is this being claimed as damages for breach of contract, or will it be pleaded as consideration for a purported parking contract?
I would caution you against simply dismissing these questions with vague or boilerplate responses, as I am fully aware of the implications. By claiming that PCNs are exempt from VAT while simultaneously inflating the debt recovery element, your client – with your assistance – appears to be evading VAT obligations due to HMRC. Such mendacious conduct raises serious questions about the legality and ethics of your practices.
I strongly advise your client to cease and desist. Should this matter proceed to court, you can be assured that these issues will be brought to the court’s attention, alongside a robust defence and potentially a counterclaim for unreasonable conduct.
Yours faithfully,
[YOUR NAME]
So I guess I just have to wait now. Do you have any idea how long it might take?It may never happen. However, it is more likely to happen sooner than later. Exactly how long? Who knows?