Free Traffic Legal Advice

Debt Recovery Plus are still sending me letters.
On the last letter they said I had until 25/10/25 or they will escalate.
This one dated 4/11/25 is pretty much the same, give them £170 by 18/11/2025 to avoid it going up to £280, plus court action and CCJ

Not that it matters but in the previous letter they say they've contacted me 7 times.
This letter says it's 5   

Still no LoC so I will continue to ignore

The letter does have a link though
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2012/9/schedule/4/enacted
I assume that's more scare tactics?

I've just received another debt recovery letter telling me the parking charge is legally enforceable and will rise to £280 if I lose in court.

I've been told to ignore all debt recovery letters and I will, so I'm not expecting a reply back from the experts.
Only reason for this update is for others who find themselves in a similar situation and what to expect, which is as predicted a series of these type of letters.

I'm still waiting for the LoC

Hello, back again.

Just to say I've received another letter from Debt Recovery Plus.
It says I owe £170 and if legal action is taken against me it will rise £280

Reason for issue is 'VRM not registered on the E-permit system ANPR'

I assume nothing has changed, I ignore the letter and continue not to correspond with them?

Although it’s been said I can ignore the letter from Debt Recovery Plus, I’d feel more at ease replying to them and tell them a reason why I will not be paying.
It may be a waste of time but I just feel better in myself if I don’t ignore people.

Could someone help me with that please?

What about
Dear Sirs
This is to inform you that I will not be paying as I dispute this charge in its entirety and require full evidence of compliance with the law, industry codes of practice, and basic contractual principles.

It might not be relevant to this debt recovery company but at least it’s something and I can’t be accused of ignoring the letter

Hello again

I received this letter today. Please could you tell me the next step

Many thanks

Good job I asked and made sure then!
I will cut and paste exactly as written.
Thank you for continued support 

Edit
It seems I can't cut and paste, so I will have to type in it manually.
They must do that on purpose. Still that won't stop me!

Hi. I got this back today

Operator's Prima Facie Case
The operator made their Prima Facie Case on 25/06/2025 11:47:39.

The operator reported that...
The appellant was the keeper.
The operator is seeking keeper liability in accordance with PoFA..
ANPR/CCTV was used.
The Notice to Keeper was sent on 02/06/2025.
A response was received from the Notice to Keeper.
The ticket was issued on 28/05/2025.
The Notice to Keeper (ANPR) was sent in accordance with PoFA.
The charge is based in Contract.

The operator made the following comments...
The appellant has been captured by ANPR entering and leaving the car park.



The vehicle was at the car park for 10 minutes and 16 seconds, evidence of this can be seen in the 'PCN Information'.



The appellant has parked within the car park and did not register their vehicle.



Signage clearly states, “ALL VEHICLES MUST HOLD A VALID UK CPM E-PERMIT. VEHICLES HOLDING A VALID E-PERMIT FOR AN ALLOCATED BAY OR AREA MUST PARK WITHIN THE CORRESPONDING BAY OR AREA".


Our records indicate that vehicle registration LX59XHA was not registered on the E-Permit system, however other vehicles are registered on the E-Permit system on the date of contravention. This can be seen in the 'PCN INFO'.


The signage is clear within the area and states the terms and conditions for parking. It is the driver's responsibility to ensure they register their vehicle. This is the only way we can determine which vehicles are authorised to be parked within the restricted area.

Signage and Site Plan

Clear and prominent signage is installed throughout the site in accordance with the IPC Code of Practice.

Signage clearly displays the terms and conditions of parking, including the consequences of non-compliance.

A site plan and photographs of signage in situ are available and can be provided to the Independent Appeals Service (IAS) upon escalation.

Authority to Operate and Issue PCNs

We operate under a valid, current agreement with the landowner that grants authority to manage parking and issue PCNs in our name.

This agreement complies with Section 14 of the IPC Code of Practice (formerly PPSCoP), including confirmation of the land boundary, signage, terms, and enforcement rights.

A copy of this agreement, with necessary redactions for confidentiality, is available for review by the IAS.

Enforcement System (ANPR or Patrol)

The site uses [ANPR/manual patrol] systems that are regularly tested, calibrated, and maintained to ensure accuracy and reliability.

Time-stamped images or evidence show the exact entry and exit times of the vehicle on the date in question.

The vehicle was on-site beyond any grace period allowed under the IPC Code of Practice.

A Grace Period has been given to allow motorists sufficient time to leave the restricted area once the permitted parking period has expired. As the appellant's vehicle remained within the area after this time, it was parked in breach of the parking restrictions within the area, and subsequently they were issued a parking charge notice.

Notice to Keeper & PoFA Compliance

The Notice to Keeper issued complies fully with the requirements of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012.

It includes all mandatory information, was sent within the statutory timeframe, and meets the conditions necessary to pursue the registered keeper for the charge.

Appeals Process and IAS Concerns

The IAS is an accredited independent appeals service, and we follow their decision-making process in full.

While you are entitled to raise concerns about transparency, all assessors are qualified professionals and decisions are based on evidence and compliance with legal and contractual standards.

Case Law Cited

We are aware of VCS v HMRC and ParkingEye v Beavis. Our signage and enforcement procedures are consistent with the principles outlined in those rulings.

Contractual terms are clearly displayed, and the charge issued is proportionate and legally enforceable.

By the appellant parking at the restricted area, they have contractually agreed to pay the parking charge notice.

They are now asking to respond

Response to Operator
The Operator has provided the evidence above which he says proves that you are, on the face of it, responsible for the parking charge in question.

You now have TWO options:

1) SUBMIT YOUR RESPONSE - You can respond to the evidence by making any representations that you consider to be relevant as to the lawfulness of the charge any by uploading any extra photographs or other evidence that you may have. After you submit your response, and the operator doesn't provide any more information you will not have the ability to add to or amend your submission. If the operator provides more information or evidence you will then have another chance to respond. You have until 02/07/2025 23:59 to submit your response if this is the route you wish to take.

- OR -

2) REFER THE CASE STRAIGHT TO ARBITRATION - If you think you do not need to add any more information or evidence, for example if you consider that the information provided is not capable of showing that you are, on the face of it, responsible for the parking charge, then you may choose this option. Neither party will have the opportunity of making more representations and the Adjudicator will decide, on the balance of probabilities, whether you are liable for the parking charge.

Response to Operator:
1000 words left



Submit response
or
Refer The Case Straight To Arbitration

What do I do now?
Thanks in advance 

What gets me is they have no photos of the car parked, only it entering and leaving the area. So they could apply this racket to any delivery, taxi or other service.