Free Traffic Legal Advice

Live cases legal advice => Private parking tickets => Topic started by: Glitch on February 16, 2025, 09:56:51 am

Title: Re: Parking Control Management - Robert Dashwood Way - SE17
Post by: b789 on September 26, 2025, 12:24:48 pm
You respond to the LoC by email to help@moorsidelegal.co.uk and CC yoruself with the following:

Quote
Subject: Response to your Letter of Claim Ref: [reference number]

Dear Sirs,

Your Letter Before Claim contains insufficient detail of the claim and fails to provide copies of the evidence your client places reliance upon, putting it in clear breach of the Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims.

As a supposed firm of solicitors, one would expect you to comply with paragraphs 3.1(a)–(d), 5.1 and 5.2 of the Protocol, and paragraphs 6(a) and 6(c) of the Practice Direction. These provisions exist to facilitate informed discussion and proportionate resolution. You may wish to reacquaint yourselves with them.

The Civil Procedure Rules 1998, Pre-Action Conduct and Protocols (Part 3), require the exchange of sufficient information to understand each other’s position. Part 6 clarifies that this includes disclosure of key documents relevant to the issues in dispute.

Your template letter refers to a “contract” yet encloses none. That omission undermines the only foundation upon which your client’s claim allegedly rests. It is not possible to engage in meaningful pre-litigation dialogue while you decline to furnish the very document you purport to enforce.

I confirm that, once I am in receipt of a Letter Before Claim that complies with para 3.1(a), I shall seek advice and submit a formal response within 30 days, as required. Accordingly, please provide:

1. A copy of the original Notice to Keeper (NtK) and any notice chain relied upon to assert PoFA 2012 liability.

2. A copy of the contract you allege exists between your client and the driver, being an actual photograph of the sign(s) in place on the material date (not a stock image), together with a site plan showing the sign locations.

3. The precise wording of the clause(s) allegedly breached.

4. The written agreement between your client and the landowner evidencing standing/authority to enforce and to litigate.

5. A breakdown of the sums claimed, identifying whether the principal sum is claimed as consideration or damages, and whether the £70 “debt recovery” add-on includes VAT.


I am entitled to this information under paragraphs 6(a) and 6(c) of the Practice Direction, and I require it to meet my own obligation under paragraph 6(b).

If you fail to provide the above, I will treat that as non-compliance with the PAPDC and Pre-Action Conduct and will raise a formal complaint to the SRA regarding your conduct. I reserve the right to place this correspondence before the Court and to seek appropriate sanctions and costs (including, where appropriate, a stay and/or other case management orders).

Until your client complies and provides the requested material, I am unable to respond properly to the alleged claim or to consider my position. It would be premature and a waste of costs and court time to issue proceedings. Should you do so, I will seek immediate case management relief pursuant to paragraph 15(b) of the Practice Direction and an order compelling provision of the above.

Please note, I will not engage with any web portal; I will only respond by email or post.

Yours faithfully,

[Your name]
Title: Re: Parking Control Management - Robert Dashwood Way - SE17
Post by: Glitch on September 26, 2025, 12:35:44 am
Apologies, I didn't realise the significance of the LBA/LOC, or that they are the same thing.

It is from Moorside Legal.
It contains no details of the claim, just mentions PCM as their client, the VRM and refers to an unpaid invoice.

(https://i.ibb.co/hRzB9cBx/d6269809-ec05-42cf-99db-6e740dac20ba.jpg) (https://ibb.co/nsJ7mB7q)
Title: Re: Parking Control Management - Robert Dashwood Way - SE17
Post by: b789 on September 25, 2025, 12:38:45 pm
It would be a bit more useful if you gave us a bit more detail, such as which bulk litigation firm have they used to send the LoC?

Assume you know nothing about this matter and the LoC is the very first thing you receive. Is there enough information in that LoC to inform you about the particular contractual term allegedly breached by the driver? Does it include a copy of any Notice to Keeper/Driver/Hirer that was sent? Would you know from this LoC, the date, time, exact location and contractual term allegedly breached by the driver? Does the LoC explain why the original charge of (£100?) has now increased by another £60-£70? Does it explain whether any addition sum added to the alleged contractual amount charged includes VAT? Is any added amount costs or damages? Does it state what standing their client has to operate and issue PCNs in their own name at the location (assuming it is stated)?

The list goes on.

An LoC and any subsequent Particulars of Claim (PoC) must provide enough information for you to be able to understand the claim (assume you know nothing else about it) and to respond to any allegations being made.
Title: Re: Parking Control Management - Robert Dashwood Way - SE17
Post by: Glitch on September 24, 2025, 10:38:38 pm
Letter Before Claim has been received. Dated 18th September.
Title: Re: Parking Control Management - Robert Dashwood Way - SE17
Post by: b789 on June 26, 2025, 06:08:39 pm
Please... we really don't need to know about any debt recovery letters. Simply shred them and use them as hamster bedding or kindling.
Title: Re: Parking Control Management - Robert Dashwood Way - SE17
Post by: Glitch on June 26, 2025, 03:31:34 pm
Another letter ramping up the pressure. ::)

(https://i.ibb.co/7tBVFsvh/Trace-chaser.jpg) (https://ibb.co/9HB2jQnP)
Title: Re: Parking Control Management - Robert Dashwood Way - SE17
Post by: Glitch on May 08, 2025, 10:39:11 am
Again for completeness, the first comms from the debt recovery firm.

(https://i.ibb.co/dsK2G9x5/2025-05-08-102232.jpg) (https://ibb.co/HLgznv3H)
Title: Re: Parking Control Management - Robert Dashwood Way - SE17
Post by: b789 on April 15, 2025, 09:48:47 am
Still waiting for an LoC. Ignore everything else.
Title: Re: Parking Control Management - Robert Dashwood Way - SE17
Post by: Glitch on April 14, 2025, 06:07:19 pm
Just adding this for completeness.
Dated 2nd April Must have come via snail mail.

(https://i.ibb.co/bMTSC63p/IMG-3334.jpg)
Title: Re: Parking Control Management - Robert Dashwood Way - SE17
Post by: b789 on April 02, 2025, 11:54:25 am
Correct. Nothing else to do now except to weather the useless debt recovery letters and wait for a Letter of Claim (LoC).

Remind your friend that the debt collectors are powerless to actually do anything except to try and scare the low-hanging fruit on the gullible tree into paying out of ignorance and fear. Tell them that they must never, ever enter in communication with a powerless debt collector and that they can safely shred those letters into hamster bedding.

AN LoC should be responded to but it is not compulsory. AN N1SDT Claim Form from the CNBC must be responded to and we would need to see it in order to provide the correct defence.
Title: Re: Parking Control Management - Robert Dashwood Way - SE17
Post by: Glitch on April 02, 2025, 10:50:57 am
The anticipated rejection has arrived. My mate is still prepared to see this through. I've warned him to expect debt collectors letters and court action.

Is there any need to do anything until receiving a letter before action, or court papers?

(https://i.ibb.co/20LgR7vS/Document-2025-04-02-100022.jpg)
Title: Re: Parking Control Management - Robert Dashwood Way - SE17
Post by: Glitch on February 24, 2025, 07:51:13 pm
I've got time to waste. Too much according to the wife.
I'm happy to give them some work.

When it gets to the serious bit we will certainly be following your advice to the letter.
Title: Re: Parking Control Management - Robert Dashwood Way - SE17
Post by: b789 on February 24, 2025, 05:31:45 pm
You can waste your time and effort appealing to them but don't be surprised when it is rejected. You can also then appeal to the IAS and, again, don't be surprised when that is rejected.

The points that you mention are all valid. However, I can tell you from experience that they will not make a difference until this is challenged in court. They will, eventually issue a claim and that is good, because you will be able to put the points before the only truly independent arbiter, a judge. But then again, as long as a claim is defined with our advice, it will never get as far as a hearing as it is more likely than not going to either be struck out or discontinued.

So, fire away with an appeal if you want. It's your time and effort.
Title: Re: Parking Control Management - Robert Dashwood Way - SE17
Post by: Glitch on February 24, 2025, 05:21:01 pm
I know these initial appeals are usually ignored but here's a first draft.

The driver of this vehicle has parked many times here in the past with no problems or PCNs.
This road is poorly lit and, on this occasion, it was dark and raining, as can be seen in your own photographic evidence.
There are none of your signs on the stretch of road bordered by the metal railings where the van was parked. Without the appropriate signs the driver believed there was no parking restriction and with no signs there could be no acceptance of your terms and conditions and therefore this PCN is issued in error.
Additionally, this PCN was not received in the post until Friday 14th February. I will therefore be seeking from you your evidence of actual posting on the date claimed. Also, the Notice to Keeper fails to state the “period of parking”. It is required to state the "period of parking and not simply a moment in time. Brennan v Premier Parking Solutions (2023) applies.
I request that you avoid further waste of both our time and cancel the PCN.


Title: Re: Parking Control Management - Robert Dashwood Way - SE17
Post by: Glitch on February 22, 2025, 05:46:04 pm
Should I submit an appeal, or just wait for court proceedings?
Title: Re: Parking Control Management - Robert Dashwood Way - SE17
Post by: Glitch on February 19, 2025, 07:59:47 pm
Sounds good, thanks.
A cases of holding your nerve and resisting the threats.
Title: Re: Parking Control Management - Robert Dashwood Way - SE17
Post by: b789 on February 19, 2025, 06:59:08 pm
Don't worry too much. The initial appeal is going to be rejected, as will any IAS secondary appeal, if you even bother with that kangaroo court.

Eventually, you will receive s count claim from PCM through a bulk litigation company. There claim will be defended and eventually, it will either be struck-out or discontinued. Less than 1% of defended claims ever get as far as a hearing if our advice is followed.

Having evidential photos that can be used to enhance an argument are useful to have in your back pocket. It is extremely unlikely you would need to use them in a Witness Statement. However, it is better have them and not need to use them than not. It is unlikely to affect how this case would go.
Title: Re: Parking Control Management - Robert Dashwood Way - SE17
Post by: Glitch on February 19, 2025, 04:35:41 pm
We're not going to get the same conditions for the time the PCN was issued. It was raining/drizzling as can be seen on their evidence photos.

Are we aiming for 'balance of probability' in front of a judge?

Is either the date of posting or parking duration a clincher?

Or in short, what is the strategy for this one?

Title: Re: Parking Control Management - Robert Dashwood Way - SE17
Post by: b789 on February 18, 2025, 07:04:21 pm
That's the problem with modern smartphone cameras. They enhance the shot automatically. It would have been better if you'd been able to switch off all the automatic enhancement.
Title: Re: Parking Control Management - Robert Dashwood Way - SE17
Post by: Glitch on February 18, 2025, 06:37:21 pm
This is a more up to date GSV. He was parked by the railings. There is a new sign on the left hand wall. None on the railings.

Another GSV (https://www.google.com/maps/@51.4916837,-0.0989729,3a,47.8y,180.39h,84.9t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sS363YF91KkYcnr1GUwsx0Q!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fcb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile%26w%3D900%26h%3D600%26pitch%3D5.099558949589564%26panoid%3DS363YF91KkYcnr1GUwsx0Q%26yaw%3D180.38715521205842!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu&g_ep=EgoyMDI1MDIxMi4wIKXMDSoJLDEwMjExNDU1SAFQAw%3D%3D)
Title: Re: Parking Control Management - Robert Dashwood Way - SE17
Post by: Glitch on February 18, 2025, 05:33:46 pm
So he took these last night. He assures me no flash. The signs are along the arches with a large building on the other side of the narrow road. He said there were lights but I believe it's light from the building.  Edit: there's clearly some lights amongst the arches.

As far as I can make out there are no signs on the building, only on the walls at the end of the building.

Visibility on the day he got the ticket seemed a lot worse. Weather and maybe less lights on in the building. Edit: Arch lights off?

(https://i.ibb.co/DDyDJZJQ/5424542e-37fd-46ef-8435-beccdd9ea7fd.jpg) (https://ibb.co/wNXNkfk4)
(https://i.ibb.co/VYF2QsrF/db1e1314-62fe-41a7-8966-e01e30eae6ab.jpg) (https://ibb.co/PG2w9d32)
(https://i.ibb.co/nqHzBzWv/19411f12-c10e-4574-bf14-60be3c7d4f1c.jpg) (https://ibb.co/hxPDcDqj)
(https://i.ibb.co/NdT1d38W/3d074c76-e566-4733-99de-cd03328a41a4.jpg) (https://ibb.co/MxB8xhYP)
(https://i.ibb.co/5hN2jTk1/293f99bd-499f-4a1d-a5bf-666c7f246d65.jpg) (https://ibb.co/m5LSyJ0R)
(https://i.ibb.co/HpPLHG8J/a565bd33-413a-431b-8876-70139059a5dc.jpg) (https://ibb.co/WpzN2BJT)
(https://i.ibb.co/Ng1dSv0S/be3fd3bc-9726-405b-b0c5-e554029c2743.jpg) (https://ibb.co/35f9z3xz)
(https://i.ibb.co/gLwzthr2/f44c26db-145f-4cce-b849-4599002abb63.jpg) (https://ibb.co/G4kcCNd6)
(https://i.ibb.co/CKS150VL/c464e0c8-6425-4c54-ae8f-e4e13cc944c3.jpg) (https://ibb.co/tp1mMCYR)
(https://i.ibb.co/F9gdsdd/f971f0b9-e42f-490a-836c-38cae0b90ad0.jpg) (https://ibb.co/7H20g00)
(https://i.ibb.co/VcXtG0VD/d5093ab2-fcaf-4a86-897e-4b08a7aa61ea.jpg) (https://ibb.co/q3bd8LB9)
Title: Re: Parking Control Management - Robert Dashwood Way - SE17
Post by: b789 on February 17, 2025, 03:37:08 pm
It would be even better if you could get photos of the signs after dark, without any flash or headlights illuminating them. Also, they need to appear as you would see them from several feet away.

The point is to show that the signs are not prominent at the time that the alleged contravention took place. There is a requirement for the signs to "adequately" bring the charge to the notice of the driver. If it was dark and the signs are unlit, how does the sign "adequately" bring the charge to the notice of the driver?
Title: Re: Parking Control Management - Robert Dashwood Way - SE17
Post by: Glitch on February 17, 2025, 02:42:25 pm
Photos as requested.
Obviously these were taken in daylight.
There doesn't appear to be any illumination of the signs.

(https://i.ibb.co/j9pjGtWG/a28724a3-e777-4808-a2c9-813abce6ba99.jpg)
(https://i.ibb.co/bjHn88kj/f24bd258-4360-4c4d-b944-85832551e2fa.jpg)
(https://i.ibb.co/dwrCwRY4/ca9703c1-7fcb-4bdf-b2ba-f166c788b7d5.jpg)
(https://i.ibb.co/bR6ZqDsQ/6687df7c-1a59-43ec-b588-29f1c7ff2503.jpg)
(https://i.ibb.co/TDdHVfST/988f8e38-f77f-4ac7-8068-293455f458c4.jpg)
(https://i.ibb.co/JjfMV1HM/72f2aa8a-8ecb-4061-a003-29970369b7e0.jpg)
(https://i.ibb.co/JRc2NPwk/0bc0cb74-4d2e-4946-a7c8-bb3daea1bc5d.jpg)
(https://i.ibb.co/ycstX3Wd/7a40f1fc-4819-4678-b5f1-5b4f2e044422.jpg)
Title: Re: Parking Control Management - Robert Dashwood Way - SE17
Post by: b789 on February 17, 2025, 01:51:04 pm
The PPSCoP states that the discount period is from the issue date of the PCN. If the operator wants to extend that to 14 days from the date the notice is "given", that is their prerogative. It cannot be any less than 14 days from the issue date.

The PPSCoP states in section 8.1.2(e) Note 2: "A notice sent by post is to be presumed, unless the contrary is proved, to have been delivered on the second working day after the day on which it is posted; and for this purpose, “working day” means any day other than a Saturday, Sunday or a public holiday in England and Wales. Therefore, parking operators must retain a record of the date of posting of a notice, not simply of that notice having been generated (e.g. the date that any third-party Mail Consolidator actually put it in the postal system.)" (My emphasis)

So, the operator is required under the PPSCoP to retain an evidential record of the date the notice was physically put into the postal system. Whilst most will not have this evidence and instead try to rely on a "certificate of posting" generated by their own internal system that links to the third-party Mail Consolidator which will only show the date and time that the notice was sent through hybrid mail system to the consolidator. It is not a "proof of posting certificate" or evidence of any sort tat is acceptable.
Title: Re: Parking Control Management - Robert Dashwood Way - SE17
Post by: Glitch on February 17, 2025, 10:23:31 am
The PCN says discount period starts from date postal notification is given, 7th Feb. Same in previous private PCN he got.

Sounds like they probably can't prove date of posting. Might be useful later I guess.

As an aside the OCRphosphor printing on the envelope contains date and time the sorting office first read it (still not date of posting), but they don't publish how to decode it.
Title: Re: Parking Control Management - Robert Dashwood Way - SE17
Post by: b789 on February 17, 2025, 03:14:58 am
The mugs discount period is 14 days from the date the PCN is issued. The appeal and debt recovery deadlines are 28 days from the deemed date of receipt which is normally 2 working days after the issue date.

The NtK shown is compliant with regards to PoFA 9(4)(b).

If there is doubt that the PoFA deadline was compliant such that the actual date of posting (the date the notice was physically entered into the postal system) is disputed, the operator is obliged to evidence a proof of posting certificate or other acceptable evidence from a mail consolidator of the actual date.

Simply proving that the notice was generated on a particular date is not enough. Also, a certificate of posting through a hybrid mail system is not proof of the date the notice entered the postal system.
Title: Re: Parking Control Management - Robert Dashwood Way - SE17
Post by: Glitch on February 16, 2025, 09:35:23 pm
Just interested to know the milestones.

Wasn't sure if it was 20th/21st/22nd. Notice given 7th.

He didn't actually receive it in the post until 14th.

Wondering if he needs a deadline to get the photos, which might conclude the signage is fine (although it does look high up and not lit)

I'm not familiar with the Private PCN process so the assistance on here is always appreciated.

Council PCNs sometimes have no hope of success at Tribunal so the advice might be to pay up.

If Private PCNs are still viewed as speculative invoices then I guess it's a case of being prepared to go to small claims court which we were, on a previous case.



Title: Re: Parking Control Management - Robert Dashwood Way - SE17
Post by: b789 on February 16, 2025, 07:09:10 pm
If you're only interested in the "mugs discount" I won't be wasting any more of my time. You either believe that the PCN has been issued unfairly and you are prepared to fight it with our assistance or save us the waste of time if you are only interested in being scammed into paying a speculative invoice because it offers a 40% "mugs discount".

The discount period expired 14 days after the NtK was issued, two days ago on Valentines day.
Title: Re: Parking Control Management - Robert Dashwood Way - SE17
Post by: Glitch on February 16, 2025, 06:43:35 pm
Thanks.
He's going to try to get photos.

What's the deadline before losing the 'discount'?
Title: Re: Parking Control Management - Robert Dashwood Way - SE17
Post by: b789 on February 16, 2025, 11:32:34 am
Is there an entrance sign to the location warning drivers that it is private land and that parking is controlled and that terms and conditions apply?

Can you get photos of the sign without using flash as the operator has done in their evidential photos? It would appear that their signs could not form a contract if they are unlit or high up on the wall at the time of night.

The NtK does appear to be PoFA compliant except for the "period of parking" which is not stated, even though their evidential photos show the vehicle in situ for 8 minutes and 30 seconds. The NtK is required to state the "period of parking and not simply a moment in time. Brennan v Premier Parking Solutions (2023) (https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/1b9rpna57dutsetdgwi60/Brennan-v-Premier-Parking-Plymouth-CC-Judgment-20230821-V-Final_-14.pdf?rlkey=203u1fav6fve811lz8cm8wpwx&st=ip9gdo9l&dl=0) applies.
Title: Parking Control Management - Robert Dashwood Way - SE17
Post by: Glitch on February 16, 2025, 09:56:51 am
Another PCN picked up by my friend.  ::)
Says he's parked there in the past with no problems  :o  ::)
The perils of running a business in London.

GSV (https://www.google.com/maps/@51.4905329,-0.0990476,3a,90y,160.23h,95.08t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1s-A4BfPMvazdyyxQKj-MQgw!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fcb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile%26w%3D900%26h%3D600%26pitch%3D-5.0844030502044575%26panoid%3D-A4BfPMvazdyyxQKj-MQgw%26yaw%3D160.22570513029402!7i13312!8i6656?entry=ttu&g_ep=EgoyMDI1MDIxMi4wIKXMDSoJLDEwMjExNDU1SAFQAw%3D%3D)  Buts it's way of date (2016)

(https://i.ibb.co/bg6N9Mjs/Document-2025-02-16-093011.jpg)
(https://i.ibb.co/WWTjkkqc/Document-2025-02-16-093146.jpg)

(https://i.ibb.co/8nGPbdxJ/Robert-Dashwood-Way.jpg)