Respond with:
Subject: PCN [reference] – Your latest email dated [insert date]
To: Enforcement Team, Car Parking Partnership (CPP)
Dear Sirs,
I acknowledge your latest email. The debt is denied.
Your latest email again fails to engage with the Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims (PAPDC). It neither addresses the Consumer Rights Act 2015 points already raised (ss.50, 62, 68 and 69) nor provides the basic documents requested to narrow the issues. Simply asserting that you “maintain your position” is not PAPDC compliance.
For the second time: please pass this to a responsible adult within your organisation with a working knowledge of the PAPDC and the consequences of unreasonable conduct. If this correspondence is later placed before the court, I am content for it to evidence your repeated failure to respond meaningfully at the pre-action stage.
Why your stance is untenable at PAPDC stage
• Protocol engagement: PAPDC requires early, proportionate exchange of information. You have ignored my core requests and threatened proceedings instead.
• Substantive law (CRA 2015): Your signage and payment journey represented payment as a compliant option; your terminal accepted the VRM and took the fee for the exact period. You cannot then penalise the same conduct: this is contrary to s.62 (fairness), s.68 (transparency), s.69 (contra proferentem) and s.50 (pre-contract statements binding).
• Estoppel: Having represented (via the terminal workflow) that payment secured the right to park, you are estopped from alleging breach.
• Costs threats: Your suggestion of “further costs” mischaracterises small-claims costs. Beyond the fixed issue fee and limited fixed legal costs, add-ons (including “debt recovery”) will be opposed as unrecoverable double recovery. See CPR 27.14; unreasonable conduct will be addressed on costs (incl. the approach reflected in the White Book).
Documents required (re-stated)
Provide within 30 days:
1. Full-size images of all signage in place on the material date and a site plan for the Disabled Blue Badge car park.
2. The terminal audit trail for the VRM for the date (accept/reject logic, timestamps, tariff applied, reconciliation confirming the payment taken).
3. ANPR entry/exit images and camera locations tied specifically to the Disabled Blue Badge car park.
4. The landowner contract conferring authority to offer terms to motorists and to litigate in your own name.
You say the matter has been “passed to our Privacy Team.” I take this as confirmation that my data-rights request is being processed. In line with good practice, you must place the matter on hold until that request is fulfilled and I have had a reasonable opportunity (no less than 30 days) to review the disclosure and respond.
Your threat to add further sums is misconceived. On the small-claims track only fixed issue fees and fixed, limited legal costs are generally recoverable. Any additional “debt recovery” or duplicative legal fees will be opposed as unrecoverable double-recovery.
If you issue without supplying the above documents and without awaiting the Privacy Team’s response, I will draw your conduct to the court’s attention as unreasonable non-compliance with the PAPDC and seek my costs.
Please confirm by return that you have put the matter on hold and that you will supply the documents requested within 30 days. Alternatively, cancel the charge and confirm closure. That remains the only outcome consistent with your signage, your terminal’s acceptance of payment, and the CRA.
Please confirm within 7 days that this has been escalated internally to someone competent to deal with PAPDC compliance, and within 30 days that you will provide the documents listed above.
Yours faithfully,
[Name of Keeper]
[Address]
[Email]
Can you show us the Letter of Claim (LoC). Is the LoC from CPP or DCB Legal or any other bulk litigation company? Once you do that, we can provide a suitable response. This will never get as far as a hearing, and even if it did, you only need cite the CRA 2015 at them.
So the car park is for blue badge holders only. You had a valid blue badge. If you want free parking, you must call the number and provide the VRM. However, if you are happy to pay for the parking, and you did, and the system let you, and there is nothing in the sign that says you cannot park there, even if you are a BB holder if you pay for the parking session.
Just goes to show you how this is simply a scam with huge profits for these unregulated private parking firms. Have you made a complaint to PALS? They could have probably had these PCNs cancelled at the time. I suggest you make a formal complaint to the CEO of the NHS Trust that operates the hospital and show how ridiculous their contracted agents are behaving.
Respond to the LoC with the following:
Re: PCN [ref] – Disabled Blue Badge Car Park, [site], [date]
I deny any debt.
1) Unfair/unclear terms – Consumer Rights Act 2015 (CRA)
• s62 & Sch.2(6)/(10): Any term said to impose a Ł100 charge for Blue Badge users who pay rather than register for free is unfair. It causes a significant imbalance, contrary to good faith, because the signage and payment terminal jointly present payment as a compliant option and then seek a penalty for using it.
•
s68 (transparency & prominence): The sign (your own wording) states:
“Blue Badge holders – to obtain free parking ... please provide [details] by calling the helpline...”
It does not state that Blue Badge holders
MUST register, nor that paid parking is prohibited in that car park. Your terminal accepted the VRM and payment for the precise period used. Any prohibition on paid parking (if that is your case) was not transparent or prominent.
•
s69 (contra proferentem): Where terms are ambiguous, the consumer-friendly interpretation prevails. The natural reading is that free parking is available if desired (by registering), not that paying is a breach.
2) Acceptance of payment – estoppel by representation
Your own system invited entry of the registration number, displayed the correct vehicle image, and accepted full payment for the stay. Having represented that payment secured the right to park for that period, you are estopped from alleging breach for doing exactly that. If paid parking were impermissible, your system should have rejected the VRM/payment.
3) No legitimate interest in a penalty on these facts
Even if ParkingEye v Beavis were engaged, it does not assist where the trader’s own signage and machine workflow induce payment as a compliant route. There is no legitimate interest in penalising a motorist for following the process you provided and profited from.
4) POPLA’s factual error
POPLA stated that paid parking was “not possible” in this car park. That is demonstrably wrong: your signage invites payment for parking generally and your terminal processed the transaction for this vehicle and period. You cannot found a claim on an adjudication that proceeds from a mistaken fact.
5) Pre-Action Protocol – disclosure requested
To narrow the issues, please supply within 30 days:
1. The full-size, legible signage images in place on the material date, and the full site plan showing sign locations for the Blue Badge car park.
2. The machine/terminal audit trail for the relevant VRM covering the entire day (authorisations, accept/reject logic, tariff applied, timestamps, and reconciliation showing my payment).
3. The ANPR entry/exit images and lane/camera location for the Disabled Blue Badge-only area, evidencing CPP’s knowledge of the exact car park used.
4. The operative contract with the landholder demonstrating standing to offer parking terms and to litigate.
5. Copies of all letters and evidence relied upon.
Pending receipt, the claim is premature and not properly particularised.
6) Proposed resolution
On any fair application of the CRA and basic estoppel principles, this claim is untenable. Please cancel the PCN and confirm the matter closed. If you proceed, I will rely on the above and seek my costs for unreasonable conduct.
Yours faithfully,
[Name of Keeper]
[Address]
[Email]