You can respond to that LBC (LoC) as follows:
Subject: Response to your Letter Before Claim Ref: [reference number]
Dear Sirs,
Your Letter Before Claim contains insufficient detail of the claim and fails to provide copies of the evidence you place reliance upon, putting it in clear breach of the Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims.
As a serial litigator, 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 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 you 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 you 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. 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 you comply and provide 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]
Welcome. Why would you want to pay anything to an unregulated private parking firm? Are you tempted by the "mugs discount"?
That sign does not form a valid parking contract for someone parking between 7am and 6pm on a weekday. In the small print, it says that the area is for "permit holders only" during those hours. It also says that public parking using Phone and Pay is only allowed from 6pm to 7am Monday to Friday, and all day on weekends.
This means that during 7am to 6pm on weekdays, public parking is not offered at all. The sign does not invite the public to pay and park during that time. There is no price shown for that time period, and no clear offer is made. Because of this, no contract can be formed for a non-permit holder parking there during those hours. A driver in that situation would not know if they are allowed to park or what rules apply.
The main restriction—"permit holders only" between 7am and 6pm—is hidden in small print. A key requirement of the Consumer Rights Act 2015 (CRA) is that contract terms must be fair and transparent. Section 68 of the Act says that terms must be brought to the consumer’s attention clearly and prominently. Here, the restriction is not visible enough to meet that standard. The average driver could easily miss it.
Also, under Section 62 of the CRA, any term that causes a significant imbalance to the consumer’s disadvantage is unfair and therefore not binding. It is unfair to bury the main restriction in fine print, then issue a £100 charge when the driver had no proper opportunity to read or understand it.
If the operator issues a £100 parking charge for being on-site without a permit during those restricted hours, that also falls under the CRA’s list of potentially unfair terms. Schedule 2 includes terms that require a consumer to pay a disproportionately high sum in compensation. Where no clear contract is formed and the driver was not properly informed, the £100 charge is likely to be considered excessive and unfair.
In summary, no contract can be formed for public parking between 7am and 6pm on a weekday. The sign fails to clearly explain the restriction, the relevant terms are buried in small print, and any charge issued is likely to breach the Consumer Rights Act 2015. The operator’s signage does not meet the legal standard of fairness, transparency, or enforceability.
So, with that knowledge, you should appeal to POPLA. The following points should be raised:
1. No contract was formed
There was no clear offer of parking during 7am to 6pm on a weekday. The sign gives the impression that parking is allowed for payment, but then restricts it to permit holders in small print. A driver cannot accept terms that are not clearly offered, so no contract could be formed.
2. Signage is misleading and unfair
The key restriction is hidden in fine print, which fails the legal requirement for clear and prominent terms. The sign does not make it obvious that daytime parking is banned for non-permit holders. That goes against what most people would understand from looking at it quickly. POPLA assessors have previously cancelled charges where signage is unclear.
3. Consumer Rights Act 2015 applies
The hidden restriction breaches the Consumer Rights Act. Section 62 requires fairness. Section 68 requires transparency. Schedule 2 says a term may be unfair if it causes a significant imbalance, or makes someone pay an excessive penalty. In this case, the sign hides key terms, and the £100 charge is out of proportion if the person did not know parking was restricted.
4. App showed zero charge
You tried to pay using the app, and it showed £0 and didn’t allow payment. That confirms there was no option to pay. If the system doesn’t let the driver pay, there’s no contract. You’ve provided a screenshot from the same location and time of day that shows this behaviour.
5. Driver was not identified
While the keeper can be held liable under PoFA, this doesn’t affect the rest of the appeal. POPLA will still cancel if they find the signage and terms are unclear or unfair. POPLA decisions are based on evidence and contract law, not just PoFA.
6. Require Proof of Posting date of the NtK
You claim that the NtK was not received by post until 23rd May. The operator is required to be able to evidence the date the notice entered the postal system. Put them to strict proof.
7. Put the operator to strict proof of a valid contract flowing from the landowner
Put CE to strict proof that they hold a valid contract flowing from the landowner. If they only provide a statement, it must still evidence the following points as required under the PPSCoP section 14:
Where controlled land is being managed on behalf of a landowner(s), before a parking charge can be issued written confirmation must be obtained by the parking operator from the landowner(s) covering:
a) the identity of the landowner(s)
b) a boundary map of the land to be managed;
c) such byelaws as may apply to the land relating to the management of parking;
d) the permission granted to the parking operator by the landowner(s) and the duration of that permission
e) the parking terms and conditions that are to be applied by the parking operator, including as appropriate the duration of free parking permitted, parking tariffs, and specific permissions and exemptions, e.g. for staff, residents or those stopping for short periods such as taxi and minicab drivers, delivery drivers and couriers;
f) the means by which parking charges will be issued;
NOTE 1: For example, to the windscreen or through the post.
g) responsibility for obtaining relevant consents e.g. planning or advertising consents relating to signs
h) the obligations under which the parking operator is working, in compliance with this Code and as a member of an ATA;
i) notification of the documentation that the parking operator may be required to supply on request to authorised bodies detailing the relationship with the landowner; and
j) the parking operator’s approach to the handling of appeals against parking charges.
Conclusion: You have good grounds to appeal to POPLA. The core issue is that the sign did not clearly explain that daytime parking was banned for non-permit holders. A hidden restriction cannot create a valid contract. Add the failed app and CRA issues, and your appeal has a real chance of success. Even if it doesn't succeed, this is almost certainly never going to get to a hearing if they try to litigate it.