You are correct about Elms Legal being CILEx members, and aren't regulated by the SRA. Simply change any reference to the SRA to CILEx. Here is the revised email you can send to CILEx:
I am reporting Elms Legal Ltd (CILEx Regulation Entity ID 2164466) for serious and deliberate abuse of process in connection with legal proceedings issued on behalf of their client, Excel Parking Services Ltd.
Elms Legal has issued two separate County Court claims against me for a single alleged parking contravention that occurred on 28 December 2024 at Crown Street 24Hr Pay Car Park. Only one Parking Charge Notice (PCN) was ever issued, but I have now received two claims with different claim numbers, each based on the same facts, the same date, and the same vehicle. Neither claim form includes the PCN number, and both sets of particulars are nearly identical.
This is a textbook case of cause of action splitting and constitutes an abuse of process under CPR 3.4. It is procedurally oppressive and professionally unacceptable.
I responded to Elms Legal’s Letter of Claim, dated 1 May 2025, on 29 May 2025 with a formal request for information under the Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims. On 4 June 2025, Elms Legal confirmed in writing that the matter was on hold until 4 July 2025 to allow time to provide information. Despite that assurance, both County Court claims had already been issued by that date. This was a deliberate misrepresentation of the status of the matter, likely intended to suppress my legal rights and deny me a fair opportunity to respond.
Their Letter of Claim also included an inflated and unjustified interest figure of £13.60 at 8% without any proper basis or calculation. That figure was dropped entirely from both court claims, showing it was inserted purely to pressurise pre-action settlement.
This conduct has caused me distress, wasted time, and unnecessary legal work. I believe it amounts to serious breaches of CILEx Regulation’s Code of Conduct and the expectations placed on authorised litigation firms, including:
• Failing to act with integrity and independence
• Misusing litigation procedures
• Misleading correspondence to a consumer
• Failure to uphold proper administration of justice
• Engaging in conduct likely to bring the profession into disrepute
I request that CILEx Regulation investigate this misconduct and take appropriate regulatory action. I have attached the relevant documents to support this report, including both claim forms, the Letter of Claim, my response, and the email sent by Elms Legal while the claims had already been filed.
Regarding the 'confidentiality statement', a standard email confidentiality footer (like the one in Elms Legal’s emails) does not prevent you from publishing an anonymised version of their communication, especially for the purposes of:
• Seeking advice
• Raising awareness
• Documenting your experience in the public interest
As long as:
• You anonymise personal data (names, case numbers, claim numbers, email addresses),
• You do not publish unredacted sensitive or privileged information, and
• You do not misrepresent the content or make defamatory statements,
• ...then you are not legally bound by their standard confidentiality notice.
These footers are not contracts, nor do they override fair dealing rights, public interest, or your ability to defend yourself or seek help. So, yes—you can safely publish an anonymised version of their email or letter for discussion or support. You’re acting reasonably and legally.
Under NO circumstances seek with them by phone. You are entirely within your rights to refuse phone contact and insist on all communication being in writing—email or post—for transparency and accountability. This is especially prudent when you're dealing with a formal complaint involving legal process abuse. You're also correct to avoid phone discussions that could put you at a disadvantage or allow Elms to sidestep scrutiny.
You could respond to Elms with the following:
Subject: Response to Your Email – Complaint Reference [Insert if given]
Dear Elms Legal,
Thank you for your email confirming that both court claims have been retracted. However, I note that you have not addressed the other serious concerns raised in my complaint, including:
• The issuing of duplicate claims for a single parking event
• The misleading nature of your 4 June email, sent after the claims had already been issued
• The omission of the PCN number from both claims
• The clearly inflated and unsupported pre-action interest figure
• The failure to respond meaningfully to my 29 May PAP-compliant request
In light of the seriousness of these issues and your firm's prior conduct, I do not consent to telephone calls and require all future communications to be in writing, either by email or post. This is to ensure that a full written record is maintained.
I understand from your complaint procedure that your Practice Manager will issue a detailed written response within 21 days. I expect that to include a full explanation of how these claims were issued in breach of the Pre-Action Protocol and CPR 3.4, and what steps your firm will take to prevent further abuse of the court process in similar cases.
Yours sincerely,
[Your Name]
Yes, you absolutely still have solid grounds — both for your formal complaint to Elms Legal and your regulatory complaint to the SRA — even with the updated date of 4 June 2025 for their reply.
Here’s why:
1. Issuing a Claim the Day After Stating the Case Is "On Hold" Is Still a Breach
If Elms Legal’s reply was sent on 4 June and the claim was issued on 5 June, then:
• The claim was prepared and submitted before or at the time of their 4 June response;
• Their statement that the matter was “on hold until 4 July” was made knowing that the claim had either already been submitted to the court or was about to be;
• That is still a deliberate misrepresentation or at best, reckless disregard for the truth.
This means:
• They misled you as to the procedural status of the dispute,
• They withheld knowledge of imminent litigation, which the Pre-Action Protocol expressly aims to avoid.
PAPDC paragraph 7.1 requires both parties to provide full and honest information to avoid litigation where possible. Saying “the matter is on hold” while already triggering litigation is the very opposite.
2. The Pre-Action Protocol Does Not Require a Delay After Response, But It Does Require Fairness and Transparency
Even though the PAPDC does not set a fixed waiting period after a reply is received, it requires:
• Reasonable time to exchange information,
• Good faith efforts to resolve or clarify issues before court action,
• No ambush tactics or misleading behaviour.
Elms Legal’s assurance that the matter was on hold created a legitimate expectation that no court proceedings would be issued before 4 July. That expectation was violated.
3. The Formal Complaint to Elms Is Still Entirely Justified
The fact that their “on hold” response was issued the day before the claim date does not help them. Instead, it reinforces that:
• They likely already knew the claim was about to be issued,
• They had full control over when to submit or hold the claim,
• They issued the response in a calculated attempt to give a false sense of delay.
This still amounts to:
• Procedural misconduct,
• Misuse of the pre-action process, and
• Abuse of the Defendant’s trust and legal position.
So, yes, you still have strong and legitimate grounds for:
• A formal complaint to Elms Legal,
• A regulatory complaint to the SRA,
• A strike-out or costs application under CPR 3.4(2)(d) and 27.14(2)(g).
The date change does not weaken your position. It actually confirms how tight the sequence was and how the misleading nature of their conduct cannot be dismissed as oversight.
As long as you have adjusted everything to reflect the correct 4 June date, it's good to go.
Submit the SRA complaint, which you email to redalert@sra.org.uk and you also CC in yourself:
Subject: Urgent Regulatory Report – Elms Legal Ltd – Duplicate County Court Claims and Abuse of Process
Firm name: Elms Legal Limited
SRA number: 633880
Firm address: 3 Osborne Street, Colchester, CO2 7DP
I am reporting Elms Legal Ltd for serious and deliberate abuse of process in connection with legal proceedings issued on behalf of their client, Excel Parking Services Ltd.
Elms Legal has issued two separate County Court claims against me for a single alleged parking contravention that occurred on 28 December 2024 at Crown Street 24Hr Pay Car Park (with no other address reference such as a town or city. Only one Parking Charge Notice (PCN) was ever issued, but I have now received two claims with different claim numbers, each based on the same facts, the same date, and the same vehicle. Neither claim form includes the PCN number, and both sets of particulars are identical and breach CPR 16.4.
This is a textbook case of cause of action splitting and constitutes an abuse of process under CPR 3.4. It is procedurally oppressive and professionally unacceptable.
I responded to Elms Legal’s Letter of Claim, dated 1 May 2025, on 29 May 2025 with a formal request for information under the Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims. On 10 June 2025, Elms Legal confirmed in writing that the matter was on hold until 4 July 2025 to allow time to provide information. Despite that assurance, they had already issued the claims at the time they sent that email. This was a deliberate misrepresentation of the status of the matter, likely intended to suppress my legal rights and deny me an opportunity to respond meaningfully.
Their Letter of Claim also included a clearly inflated and unjustified interest figure of £13.60 at 8% without any proper calculation or legal basis. That figure was dropped from the claims themselves, proving it was used only to pressure settlement pre-litigation.
This conduct has caused me distress, wasted time, and unnecessary legal work. I believe it amounts to serious breaches of the SRA Principles and Code of Conduct, specifically:
– Principle 1: failing to uphold the rule of law and proper administration of justice
– Principle 2: failing to act with integrity
– Principle 5: causing harm to the public and undermining confidence in legal services
– Code of Conduct for Solicitors: including Rules 1.1, 1.2, 2.1(d), 7.1 and 8.1
I request that the SRA investigate this misconduct and take appropriate regulatory action. I have attached the relevant documents to support this report.
Yours faithfully,
[your name]
[your contact details]
Make sure you attach copies of the LoC, your response, their holding response, the complaint letter you sent to Elms and the two N1SDT Claim Forms (just the page with the claim number and the PoC).
As soon as you have submitted the AoS for both claims, I suggest you send the following email to Elms Legal at info@elmslegal.co.uk and CC in Excel Parking at info@excelparking.co.uk and also CC in yourself:
To: Elms Legal Ltd
CC: Excel Parking Services Ltd
Subject: Formal complaint and notice of SRA referral – Claim Numbers [insert both claim numbers]
Dear Sirs,
I write to raise a formal complaint concerning your firm’s professionally unacceptable conduct and abuse of process in issuing two separate County Court claims for a single parking event which allegedly occurred on 28 December 2024 at Crown Street 24Hr Pay Car Park. Both claims relate to the same single alleged breach, for which only one Parking Charge Notice was ever issued.
To clarify the sequence of events:
• A single Letter of Claim was sent by your firm dated 1 May 2025, referencing one alleged contravention and claiming £170;
• I responded properly to that LoC on [insert date of response], invoking my rights under the Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims and requesting the documents required by paragraphs 3.1(a), 5.1 and 6;
• Your firm replied on 10 June 2025, stating clearly:
“This matter has been placed on hold until 4 July 2025 to allow time for information to be provided and you to consider how you wish to proceed.”
• However, I have now received two separate claims, each with different claim numbers, but with identical Particulars of Claim, citing the same parking date, same location, same vehicle, and no PCN reference whatsoever.
This sequence confirms that the claims were issued before your 10 June response — while the matter was already in dispute and within the PAPDC timeline — and that your 10 June response was a deliberate misrepresentation designed to suppress my legal rights while you had already issued court proceedings. This is a serious breach of the Pre-Action Protocol, an abuse of process, and an egregious violation of your duties as regulated legal professionals.
Issuing two claims for the same cause of action is not a clerical error. It is a textbook example of cause of action splitting, a recognised form of abuse of process under CPR 3.4(2)(d). The applicable legal authorities include:
• Henderson v Henderson (1843) 3 Hare 100
• Aldi Stores Ltd v WSP Group plc [2007] EWCA Civ 1260
• Securum Finance Ltd v Ashton [20001] Ch 291
You have also breached the overriding objective (CPR 1.1), the Pre-Action Protocol, and your professional obligations under the SRA Principles and Code of Conduct, including Principles 1, 2, and 5 and Rules 1.1, 1.2, 2.1(d), 7.1 and 8.1.
I am therefore:
• Reporting your firm immediately to the Solicitors Regulation Authority,
• Holding your client, Excel Parking Services Ltd, fully liable for your conduct under agency law. Your firm acts on their instruction, and they are vicariously liable for all procedural misconduct committed within the scope of that instruction.
Accordingly, I now demand the following:
1. That you file Notices of Discontinuance (Form N279) for both claims within 7 days;
2. That you confirm in writing that no further proceedings will be issued in relation to this matter;
3. That you provide a written explanation and apology;
4. That your firm ceases all use of multiple claims for single causes of action.
If you fail to comply, I will:
• File an immediate application for strike-out under CPR 3.4(2)(b) and (d);
• Seek a costs order under CPR 27.14(2)(g) due to your firm’s unreasonable and abusive behaviour;
• Provide full evidence to the court and the regulators, including your misleading correspondence and duplicate claim forms.
This is no longer a question of a disputed parking charge. It is now a matter of legal misconduct.
You have 7 days to comply in full.
Yours faithfully,
[Your Name]
[Your Address]
These errors with their payment machines are a well known phenomenon and one they just love because it generates so much revenue for them.
Just to correct you on a few points... the Notice to Keeper (NtK) was not for £60 yarn going up to £100. It was always for £100 but with 'mugs discount' of £40 if you pay early and don't given them any hassle.
As the NtK was PoFA compliant, it made no difference whether you identified the driver or not, as they can simply hold the Keeper liable whether they were the driver or not.
As for the Letter of Claim (LoC), Elms Legal will only be involved until after the claim is issued, then Excel will bring the case in house. Doesn't matter really but you should respond to the LoC 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]