You can respond to them as follows:
Subject: Response to your email dated 12 November 2025 – Ref: [reference number]
Dear Sirs,
I note your email and attachments. Your response is deficient in several respects:
1. You have provided documents only in relation to the PCN dated 23/07/2022. The other claim referenced in your Letter of Claim has not been addressed at all.
2. You have failed to provide contemporaneous photographs of the signage in situ on the material date, instead relying on assertions without evidence.
3. You have refused to disclose the written agreement or chain of authority between your client and the landowner. This is not “commercially sensitive” but a core requirement under the Practice Direction and will be required in any proceedings.
4. You have not evidenced service of the Notice to Keeper, which is essential if your client seeks to rely on Schedule 4 of PoFA 2012.
5. Your claim includes a £60 “debt recovery” add‑on which is not recoverable in law and will be challenged as an abuse of process.
6. Your staff attempted to respond to my Letter of Claim via your portal chat tool. For the avoidance of doubt, I do not accept chat tool communications as a valid method of correspondence. My position remains as stated: all correspondence must be by email or post. The Pre‑Action Protocol requires clear and reliable exchange of information. A chat tool is not an appropriate medium for service of documents or substantive responses, and I will challenge any attempt to rely on such communications as non‑compliant.
Until you provide the missing information for *both* claims, and do so by email or post only, I remain unable to respond substantively. Should you issue proceedings prematurely, I will seek a stay under paragraph 15(b) of the Practice Direction and invite the Court to impose sanctions for non‑compliance.
Yours faithfully,
Have you identified as the driver? Their email response suggests you have. They say:
"By your action of entering the Car Park..." and "It is our Client's position, therefore, that you did enter into a contract..."
As the Keeper, you are only supposed to refer to the driver in the third person. So, has the driver been identified?
This is a Letter of Claim under the Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims. It is deficient because it does not identify the vehicle, the site, exact dates and times, copies of the PCNs, the alleged terms breached, or whether they rely on PoFA. The £260 “principal debt” appears to include unrecoverable additions above the £70 face value per PCN. As you are overseas you should immediately nominate a reliable UK address for service to prevent default judgment.
Send this response to enquiries@bwlegal.co.uk and CC yourself:
Subject: Response to your Letter of Claim – Ref: [reference number]
Dear Sirs,
Your Letter of Claim contains insufficient detail of the claim and fails to provide copies of evidence your client relies upon. It is therefore in breach of the Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims.
As a firm of solicitors, one would expect compliance 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 – Pre-Action Conduct and Protocols. These provisions exist to facilitate informed discussion and proportionate resolution.
The Civil Procedure Rules 1998, Pre-Action Conduct and Protocols (Part 3), require that before proceedings the parties exchange sufficient information to understand each other’s position. Part 6 further requires disclosure of key documents relevant to the issues.
Your template letter refers to a “contract” yet provides none. That omission undermines the only purported foundation for your client’s claim.
I confirm that upon receipt of a Letter of Claim that complies with para 3.1(a) of the Protocol, I will seek advice and provide a formal response within 30 days as required. To that end, require your client to provide:
1. A copy of the original Notice to Keeper for each PCN and particulars of any reliance on Schedule 4 PoFA 2012.
2. A copy of the contract alleged between your client and the driver, evidenced by contemporaneous photographs of the signage in situ on the material date(s), not generic stock images.
3. The exact wording of the clause(s) allegedly breached.
4. The written agreement (or chain of authority) between your client and the landowner authorising enforcement and litigation in your client’s name.
5. A full breakdown of the sum claimed, stating whether the principal is claimed as consideration or damages, and whether any £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 comply with paragraph 6(b).
If your client does not provide the above, I will rely on Webb Resolutions Ltd v Waller Needham & Green [2012] EWHC 3529 (Ch), Daejan Investments Ltd v The Park West Club Ltd (Part 20) Buxton Associates [2003] EWHC 2872, and Charles Church Developments Ltd v Stent Foundations Ltd & Peter Dann Ltd [2007] EWHC 855 in asking the Court to impose sanctions and order a stay under paragraphs 13, 15(b)–(c) and 16 of the Practice Direction, as referred to in paragraph 7.2 of the Protocol.
Until your client complies and provides the above, I am unable to respond substantively or consider my position, and it would be premature and a waste of costs and court time to issue proceedings. Should you do so, I will seek an immediate stay under paragraph 15(b) and directions for provision of the missing information.
All correspondence must be by email or post, your choice. I will not use your portal and I will not discuss the matter by telephone.
Yours faithfully,
[Name]
[Email]