Free Traffic Legal Advice

Good morning,
 
Thank you for your email. Please see below our responses to your points.
 
1. VAT and the £70 uplift
We have confirmed that the £70.00 fee added to the balance of £100.00 does not include VAT. It is approved by The Private Parking Sector Single Code of Practice. We are under no obligation to provide invoices to substantiate this claim, as they are not required.
 
2. Statutory Cap and Mischaracterisation
The Notice to Keeper (attached) reads in part:
Failure to make payment within 28 days of the Issue Date of this Notice will result in the full charge of 000.000 being applied plus additional costs incurred through debt recovery and/or court action. Where debt recovery action is taken, further charges may be incurred that will be added to the value of the PCN up to the value of an additional £70.00.
We maintain, therefore, that the full balance remains recoverable.
 
3. Misuse of Criminal Authorities
Elliott v Loake:
This case shows courts can draw common-sense conclusions about who was driving when the facts point that way. If the keeper does not say who was driving and gives no evidence to the contrary, the court can decide it was the keeper on the balance of probabilities. It is not about criminal rules. It is about everyday civil inference when someone stays silent on something they should know.
CPS v AJH Films:
This case confirms that someone can be held responsible when they allow another person to use their vehicle and then refuse to identify them. Even though the case involved a company, the basic point stands: if you let someone use your car and later refuse to say who it was, the court can treat you as responsible.
 
4. Standing and Authority
You have been previously provided with the contract (attached again), and confirmation that the site remains active. We note your comments that you feel this is insufficient and advise again that further commercially sensitive documentation such as renewals would be provided if our client was ordered to do so by the court.
 
5. Conduct of Litigation
I can confirm neither myself nor Angie are conducting litigation. Any court pleadings, statements of truth, or witness evidence will be signed and submitted by an authorised person.
 
The matter remains on hold until 29 November 2025, after which date it may be issued upon without further notice.
 
Kind Regards
 
Emily Scriminger-Faulkner
 
Deputy Team Leader
 
ELMS Legal Limited

Thank you for your patience whilst we received our clients response.


Our client maintains that the Contract is valid and that the signage on site meets BPA approval. Our client further advises that the information requested would be provided if required by the Court.
 
The £70 recovery fee applicable to this matter does not contain VAT. The statement “charges may include VAT” is correct, they may. The operative word being “may”.

Liability Cap under PoFA - We note your reference to Schedule 4, Paragraph 4(5) of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA), which states that the registered keeper’s liability is limited to the amount specified in the Notice to Keeper (NtK). However, this statutory cap relates specifically to keeper liability, not to charges pursued against a driver or contractually liable party outside PoFA. The £70 is pursued as a contractual charge and/or a consequential loss resulting from non-payment, not as a PoFA recovery.

Parking Code of Practice (PPSCoP – February 2025)  - You cite the Private Parking Code of Practice (17 February 2025) as prohibiting such uplifts. Please note that this Code sets the current cap at £70.00 for Debt Recovery Fees.

Consumer Rights Act 2015 (CRA) - With respect to the CRA 2015, we maintain that the £70 charge is both transparent and proportionate in the context of the contractual arrangement. The charge is outlined in the terms and conditions communicated at the point of contract (i.e. signage), and it reflects the legitimate costs of debt recovery action. Case law has recognised the principle that such costs may be recoverable where properly incorporated into the contract.

County Court Authority - While we acknowledge that some County Court decisions have disallowed similar charges, others have upheld them depending on case-specific facts. As you will appreciate, County Court judgments are not binding precedents. We are satisfied that our position is supported by existing contractual documentation and legal principles, and we are prepared to present our case should this matter proceed further.

I can confirm that, with regard to your comments regarding conduct of litigation,  we are assisting our client with litigation, not conducting. Edmund Shoreman-Lawson (SRA number – 537827 ) is the Principle of ELMS Legal Ltd, being a Solicitor (SRA number – 537827 ) with a current practising certificate is an authorised person for this purpose.

This matter remains on hold until 20/11/2025.

Kind Regards
 
Angie Bailey
 
ELMS Legal Limited

Having reviewed the contract, I note it provides for automatic continuation beyond 30/08/2016 absent termination.

1. You are therefore put to strict proof that the agreement subsisted continuously to 16/04/2025 and that the contracting entity (RMG) held and still holds authority from the landowner to confer enforcement and litigation rights on VCS. Please provide copies of any renewals, addenda, or confirmations post-2016, evidence of ongoing consideration (annual signage/maintenance invoices), and the current site plan and signage audit. In the absence of such proof, your client lacks standing.
2. The document grants Vehicle Control Services Ltd only a non-exclusive licence to occupy, not proprietary rights or standing to litigate.
3. The signature is by a property manager, not the freeholder or superior landlord.
4. The signage you rely upon is purely prohibitive (“Valid Permit Holders Only”) and cannot form a contractual offer to unauthorised drivers. Any alleged contravention would, at most, constitute trespass—an action available only to the landowner.
5. The sign states “charges may include VAT”, whereas you have now confirmed that the £70 “does not contain VAT”. That inconsistency will be relied upon as evidence that no third-party cost was incurred and that the £70 uplift is an unrecoverable fabrication.

In view of the above, please confirm within seven days whether you still intend to pursue this matter despite lacking (a) subsisting landowner authority, (b) any enforceable contract, and (c) a recoverable £70 uplift. If you proceed regardless, I will invite the Court to strike out the claim and will seek costs for unreasonable conduct.