Show Posts
1
Private parking tickets / Re: PCN for stall at roundabout at Bristol Airport, CCTV stills show 23 secs
« on: January 23, 2026, 12:35:35 am »
SORRY, I seem to have posted the whole thread rather than just the lat email!
Here it is. They will not let up will they?
From: pat moore <pat.moore@hotmail.com>
Sent: 16 January 2026 10:55
To: debtassist <debtassist@elmslegal.co.uk>
Subject: Ref: VCS22897672 – Second Non Compliant Letter Before Claim (09/01/2026)
FINAL RESPONSE & NOTICE OF CONTINUING NON‑COMPLIANCE
Dear ELMS Legal,
Re: Your Letter Before Claim dated 09 January 2026
I write in response to your second letter purporting to be a Letter Before Claim under the Pre‑Action Protocol for Debt Claims.
1. Acknowledgment
I acknowledge receipt of your letter dated 09 January 2026.
2. Repeated and Material Non‑Compliance with the Protocol
This second letter repeats the same fundamental defects as your first letter of 21 August 2025. It remains non‑compliant with the mandatory requirements of the Protocol:
Ignoring Pre-Action Correspondence: Your letter makes no reference to the extensive pre-action correspondence between us from September to December 2025 (enclosed in my comprehensive court bundle, prepared in anticipation of proceedings). In that correspondence, I:
Formally disputed the debt.
Provided detailed grounds for my defence (de minimis, no breach of contract, disproportionate charge, unfair term under the Consumer Rights Act 2015, inadequate signage).
Repeatedly requested key evidence (unredacted landowner contract, full CCTV, contemporaneous signage), which your client refused to provide.
Completed and returned the Reply Form on 19 September 2025.
Your client's failure to engage with these substantive points and its refusal to provide evidence are documented and demonstrate a failure to comply with the spirit and purpose of the Pre-Action Protocol.
3. Notice of Reliance on Existing Court Bundle
Should your client issue proceedings, I will rely on my fully prepared Court Bundle (indexed, paginated, and exceeding 90 pages). This bundle documents:
The factual circumstances of the 23‑second involuntary stall
The confusing and materially altered construction zone
Your client’s procedural and evidential failures
My complete appeal history
The legal basis of my defence, including persuasive authority such as VCS v Jones (March 2025)
4. Position on Liability
Liability is fully disputed. Your client has repeatedly failed to comply with its pre‑action obligations. I will not be making any payment.
5. Next Steps
If your client elects to issue a claim, I will:
File a robust Defence based on the bundle already in my possession
Apply for sanctions under CPR 3 and the Practice Direction on Pre‑Action Conduct due to your client’s persistent non‑compliance
Seek my costs as a Litigant in Person
6. Final Position
Given the above, I consider the pre‑action phase concluded. Any further correspondence that does not provide:
A full breakdown of the £170 sum, and
The key evidence repeatedly requested
will not receive a substantive response.
Yours faithfully,
Patrick Moore
debtassist<debtassist@elmslegal.co.uk>
You
Good morning,
Thank you for your email, the contents of which we note.
Please be advised that there is no requirement under the Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims for a Letter of Claim to refer to previous correspondence. The Protocol requires that a compliant Letter of Claim is served containing the prescribed information and enclosures, and we maintain that our Letter of Claim dated 09 January 2026 complies fully with those requirements.
For the avoidance of doubt, the outstanding balance is broken down as follows:
£100.00 – Original Charge
£70.00 – Debt Recovery Costs
Total: £170.00
We further confirm that the additional £70.00 debt recovery fee is lawful and recoverable. Part 9 of the Private Parking Sector Single Code of Practice (2024) expressly permits parking operators to add recovery fees of up to £70.00 once a charge becomes overdue.
This position has also been confirmed by the courts. In Vehicle Control Services Ltd v Percy, the court held that such fees are lawful where they form part of the contractual terms. The sum has not been misrepresented and forms part of the contractual debt arising from non-payment of the PCN.
Vehicle Control Services Limited (“our client”) maintains that the Charge was issued lawfully in accordance with the terms and conditions clearly displayed on site. The location is prominently signed with “No Stopping” signage enforced by our client. The terms are strict: stopping for any reason other than a genuine emergency constitutes a breach.
A contract is formed where a motorist uses private land subject to clear and visible terms, including signage setting out the applicable conditions. The “No Stopping” signage at Bristol Airport is prominent and forms part of the contractual terms governing use of the land.
In this case, the vehicle came to a standstill on a live roundabout where stopping is expressly prohibited. This falls squarely within the enforcement terms.
We reject your assertion that the terms are unfair or impossible under the Consumer Rights Act 2015. The restrictions are proportionate, commercially justified, and necessary to maintain safety and the efficient operation of the airport road network.
You are referred to the authority of Vehicle Control Services Ltd v Idle and Vehicle Control Services Ltd v Ward, in which the court confirmed that “No Stopping” signage can form a binding contract. The court held that by stopping, even briefly, a motorist accepts the contractual terms and becomes liable for the charge. The charge was held not to be a penalty.
The court further confirmed that a breach occurs at the moment the vehicle is brought to a standstill. The duration of the stop does not negate the breach. In Vehicle Control Services Ltd v Crutchley, liability arose from a stop of no more than 30 seconds. Accordingly, the moment the vehicle stopped, it was in breach of the advertised terms.
Your suggestion that a motorist may lawfully stop on a roundabout is not accepted. The Highway Code makes clear that drivers must keep moving once they have entered a roundabout unless traffic conditions require otherwise. Rule 185 requires drivers to keep moving if traffic allows, and Rule 184 emphasises that roundabouts are designed to maintain traffic flow. A voluntary stop on a live roundabout is contrary to these principles and presents an obvious safety risk. Our client’s restrictions are therefore entirely consistent with established highway safety guidance.
For completeness, please find attached the site information and CCTV footage as requested. These documents have previously been provided and are re-sent without admission that any further disclosure was required at this stage.
With reference to your comments regarding the Reply Form, an email was sent to you on 26/09/2025 confirming receipt of your document. A further email was sent on 02/10/2025 requesting clarification as to what further information you were seeking. In response to your email of 09/10/2025, a further reply was sent on 10/10/2025 addressing the points you had raised.
It is clear that the parties remain in dispute as to liability and enforceability. Please note that the matter has been placed on hold until 22 February 2026, after which our client reserves the right to commence legal proceedings without further notice, at which point the court will determine the issues you seek to raise.
Kind Regards
Emily Scriminger-Faulkner
Deputy Team Leader
ELMS Legal Limited
ELMS Legal Limited
Company Number: 9160334
Registered Office: 31 Handley Street, Sleaford, Lincolnshire, NG34 7TQ
Telephone Number: 01529 406097
Authorised by CILEx Regulation for Civil Litigation. Authorisation No: 2164466
Please be advised that we do not accept service of any court documents via email; please serve any court documents to the our registered office address above.
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE AND DISCLAIMER
This message is intended for the addressee only and may contain information that is privileged and confidential.
If you are not the intended recipient, any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication and its attachments is strictly prohibited. If you receive this communication in error, please notify us immediately by returning the original message and its attachments to us by e-mail and post. Finally please delete the message and any attachments from your system immediately.
Warning: Although the company has taken reasonable precautions to ensure no viruses are present in this email, the company cannot accept responsibility for any loss or damage arising from the use of this email or attachments.
Please note that our staff are entitled to a safe and respectful working environment. We have a zero-tolerance policy towards any form of harassment, including sexual harassment, from clients, debtors, advocates, service providers, members of the public and members of the press (please note that this list is not exhaustive). Any inappropriate conduct will be addressed seriously and will result in further action.
Thank you.
Here it is. They will not let up will they?
From: pat moore <pat.moore@hotmail.com>
Sent: 16 January 2026 10:55
To: debtassist <debtassist@elmslegal.co.uk>
Subject: Ref: VCS22897672 – Second Non Compliant Letter Before Claim (09/01/2026)
FINAL RESPONSE & NOTICE OF CONTINUING NON‑COMPLIANCE
Dear ELMS Legal,
Re: Your Letter Before Claim dated 09 January 2026
I write in response to your second letter purporting to be a Letter Before Claim under the Pre‑Action Protocol for Debt Claims.
1. Acknowledgment
I acknowledge receipt of your letter dated 09 January 2026.
2. Repeated and Material Non‑Compliance with the Protocol
This second letter repeats the same fundamental defects as your first letter of 21 August 2025. It remains non‑compliant with the mandatory requirements of the Protocol:
Ignoring Pre-Action Correspondence: Your letter makes no reference to the extensive pre-action correspondence between us from September to December 2025 (enclosed in my comprehensive court bundle, prepared in anticipation of proceedings). In that correspondence, I:
Formally disputed the debt.
Provided detailed grounds for my defence (de minimis, no breach of contract, disproportionate charge, unfair term under the Consumer Rights Act 2015, inadequate signage).
Repeatedly requested key evidence (unredacted landowner contract, full CCTV, contemporaneous signage), which your client refused to provide.
Completed and returned the Reply Form on 19 September 2025.
Your client's failure to engage with these substantive points and its refusal to provide evidence are documented and demonstrate a failure to comply with the spirit and purpose of the Pre-Action Protocol.
3. Notice of Reliance on Existing Court Bundle
Should your client issue proceedings, I will rely on my fully prepared Court Bundle (indexed, paginated, and exceeding 90 pages). This bundle documents:
The factual circumstances of the 23‑second involuntary stall
The confusing and materially altered construction zone
Your client’s procedural and evidential failures
My complete appeal history
The legal basis of my defence, including persuasive authority such as VCS v Jones (March 2025)
4. Position on Liability
Liability is fully disputed. Your client has repeatedly failed to comply with its pre‑action obligations. I will not be making any payment.
5. Next Steps
If your client elects to issue a claim, I will:
File a robust Defence based on the bundle already in my possession
Apply for sanctions under CPR 3 and the Practice Direction on Pre‑Action Conduct due to your client’s persistent non‑compliance
Seek my costs as a Litigant in Person
6. Final Position
Given the above, I consider the pre‑action phase concluded. Any further correspondence that does not provide:
A full breakdown of the £170 sum, and
The key evidence repeatedly requested
will not receive a substantive response.
Yours faithfully,
Patrick Moore
debtassist<debtassist@elmslegal.co.uk>
You
Good morning,
Thank you for your email, the contents of which we note.
Please be advised that there is no requirement under the Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims for a Letter of Claim to refer to previous correspondence. The Protocol requires that a compliant Letter of Claim is served containing the prescribed information and enclosures, and we maintain that our Letter of Claim dated 09 January 2026 complies fully with those requirements.
For the avoidance of doubt, the outstanding balance is broken down as follows:
£100.00 – Original Charge
£70.00 – Debt Recovery Costs
Total: £170.00
We further confirm that the additional £70.00 debt recovery fee is lawful and recoverable. Part 9 of the Private Parking Sector Single Code of Practice (2024) expressly permits parking operators to add recovery fees of up to £70.00 once a charge becomes overdue.
This position has also been confirmed by the courts. In Vehicle Control Services Ltd v Percy, the court held that such fees are lawful where they form part of the contractual terms. The sum has not been misrepresented and forms part of the contractual debt arising from non-payment of the PCN.
Vehicle Control Services Limited (“our client”) maintains that the Charge was issued lawfully in accordance with the terms and conditions clearly displayed on site. The location is prominently signed with “No Stopping” signage enforced by our client. The terms are strict: stopping for any reason other than a genuine emergency constitutes a breach.
A contract is formed where a motorist uses private land subject to clear and visible terms, including signage setting out the applicable conditions. The “No Stopping” signage at Bristol Airport is prominent and forms part of the contractual terms governing use of the land.
In this case, the vehicle came to a standstill on a live roundabout where stopping is expressly prohibited. This falls squarely within the enforcement terms.
We reject your assertion that the terms are unfair or impossible under the Consumer Rights Act 2015. The restrictions are proportionate, commercially justified, and necessary to maintain safety and the efficient operation of the airport road network.
You are referred to the authority of Vehicle Control Services Ltd v Idle and Vehicle Control Services Ltd v Ward, in which the court confirmed that “No Stopping” signage can form a binding contract. The court held that by stopping, even briefly, a motorist accepts the contractual terms and becomes liable for the charge. The charge was held not to be a penalty.
The court further confirmed that a breach occurs at the moment the vehicle is brought to a standstill. The duration of the stop does not negate the breach. In Vehicle Control Services Ltd v Crutchley, liability arose from a stop of no more than 30 seconds. Accordingly, the moment the vehicle stopped, it was in breach of the advertised terms.
Your suggestion that a motorist may lawfully stop on a roundabout is not accepted. The Highway Code makes clear that drivers must keep moving once they have entered a roundabout unless traffic conditions require otherwise. Rule 185 requires drivers to keep moving if traffic allows, and Rule 184 emphasises that roundabouts are designed to maintain traffic flow. A voluntary stop on a live roundabout is contrary to these principles and presents an obvious safety risk. Our client’s restrictions are therefore entirely consistent with established highway safety guidance.
For completeness, please find attached the site information and CCTV footage as requested. These documents have previously been provided and are re-sent without admission that any further disclosure was required at this stage.
With reference to your comments regarding the Reply Form, an email was sent to you on 26/09/2025 confirming receipt of your document. A further email was sent on 02/10/2025 requesting clarification as to what further information you were seeking. In response to your email of 09/10/2025, a further reply was sent on 10/10/2025 addressing the points you had raised.
It is clear that the parties remain in dispute as to liability and enforceability. Please note that the matter has been placed on hold until 22 February 2026, after which our client reserves the right to commence legal proceedings without further notice, at which point the court will determine the issues you seek to raise.
Kind Regards
Emily Scriminger-Faulkner
Deputy Team Leader
ELMS Legal Limited
ELMS Legal Limited
Company Number: 9160334
Registered Office: 31 Handley Street, Sleaford, Lincolnshire, NG34 7TQ
Telephone Number: 01529 406097
Authorised by CILEx Regulation for Civil Litigation. Authorisation No: 2164466
Please be advised that we do not accept service of any court documents via email; please serve any court documents to the our registered office address above.
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE AND DISCLAIMER
This message is intended for the addressee only and may contain information that is privileged and confidential.
If you are not the intended recipient, any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication and its attachments is strictly prohibited. If you receive this communication in error, please notify us immediately by returning the original message and its attachments to us by e-mail and post. Finally please delete the message and any attachments from your system immediately.
Warning: Although the company has taken reasonable precautions to ensure no viruses are present in this email, the company cannot accept responsibility for any loss or damage arising from the use of this email or attachments.
Please note that our staff are entitled to a safe and respectful working environment. We have a zero-tolerance policy towards any form of harassment, including sexual harassment, from clients, debtors, advocates, service providers, members of the public and members of the press (please note that this list is not exhaustive). Any inappropriate conduct will be addressed seriously and will result in further action.
Thank you.