Subject: Response to your email and purported “Evidence Pack” – Ref: 104477.5699 / PCN 1028712
Dear Sirs,
I acknowledge receipt of your recent email from “Bethany, Legal Assistant” and the accompanying documents described as an “Evidence Pack”.
I refer to my earlier response to your client’s Letter Before Claim, in which I requested, pursuant to the Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims (“PAPDC”) and the Practice Direction on Pre-Action Conduct and Protocols, that you provide the key documents and information upon which your client intends to rely. Those requests were made to enable me to understand the basis of the alleged claim, to narrow the issues in dispute and, if appropriate, to explore resolution without the need for proceedings.
Having reviewed what you have now provided, it is apparent that your “Evidence Pack” does not address those requests and does not constitute compliance with the PAPDC. The material consists almost entirely of documents already in my possession, namely your client’s previous notices and correspondence and my original appeal. It contains no underlying contractual or evidential documents which would allow any meaningful analysis of your client’s asserted cause of action.
For the avoidance of doubt, you have still failed to provide the following fundamental items:
1. A copy of the written agreement between Euro Parking Services Limited and the landowner in respect of the site described as “MSGL Fashions, 403 Coventry Road, Birmingham B10 0SP”, expressly conferring authority upon your client to manage parking at that location and, critically, to issue and pursue parking charges and to litigate in its own name. In the absence of such a document, your client’s locus standi is not established.
2. Dated, contemporaneous photographs of all signage as it was actually installed at the site on 16 June 2024, together with a site plan or layout identifying the positioning of those signs and the route which a motorist would take upon entering, stopping and exiting the area. Without that material it is impossible to determine what terms, if any, were adequately brought to the attention of the driver.
3. A clear explanation of the contractual terms allegedly accepted by the driver, identifying the precise provision said to have been breached and how a brief period of approximately four minutes (15:40:41 to 15:44:49) is said to amount to a contravention of “parking for patrons whilst on the premises only”. You have adduced no evidence whatsoever that the driver left the premises or “went elsewhere” during that short interval, and the bare assertion in your client’s rejection letter is not evidence.
4. A breakdown of the sum claimed, including (a) the legal basis upon which the original £100 parking charge is said to be recoverable, and (b) the legal basis upon which the additional £60 “debt recovery” or similar add-on is claimed, given the strict limitations on recoverable costs in the small claims track. In the absence of such explanation, the global figure of £160 appears arbitrary and inflated.
These documents are plainly “key documents” within the meaning of paragraph 6 of the Practice Direction on Pre-Action Conduct and Protocols and paragraphs 3.1 and 5.1–5.2 of the PAPDC. They go directly to the questions of (i) standing, (ii) formation and terms of any alleged contract, (iii) breach, and (iv) quantum. Your failure to disclose them, whilst at the same time asserting that the case “should proceed” and demanding payment by 16 December 2025, is inconsistent with both the letter and the spirit of the pre-action regime and the overriding objective in CPR 1.1.
For the avoidance of doubt:
1. I do not accept that the case has been properly particularised or evidenced at the pre-action stage.
2. I will not be making any payment by 16 December 2025.
3. My position remains that, unless and until you provide the documents and information identified above, I am not in a position to provide a full, informed response to any alleged claim or to consider settlement.
If, notwithstanding your continuing non-compliance with the PAPDC and the Practice Direction, your client elects to issue proceedings, I will defend the claim in full. I will also invite the court to:
a. stay the proceedings pending provision of the missing documents and information;
b. make appropriate case management directions compelling disclosure of those key documents; and
c. take your client’s pre-action conduct into account when exercising its powers in relation to costs and case management.
I again invite you to remedy the present non-compliance by providing:
1. The landowner authority agreement as described at point 1 above;
2. Dated site photographs and a signage plan as described at point 2 above;
3. A clear statement of the contractual term(s) allegedly breached with an explanation of how the brief four-minute period relied upon is said to amount to that breach, given the absence of any evidence that the driver left the premises; and
4. A reasoned breakdown of the £160 claimed, including the legal basis for the £60 add-on.
Please either supply the requested material within 14 days of the date of this letter or confirm expressly that your client is unable or unwilling to do so. In either event, this correspondence will be produced to the court in due course.
For the avoidance of doubt, I will not engage with any online portals. I will correspond only by email or post.
Yours faithfully,
[Name]
[Address]