Free Traffic Legal Advice

How is this? AI helped 

Subject: Response to Letter of Claim – Ref: X0932074 / PCN 6981720

Dear Sir/Madam,

I write in response to your Letter of Claim dated 23 March 2026.

1. Position on the claim
I do not accept your client’s claim.

2. Basis of dispute
The claim is denied in its entirety. My position is as follows:

(a) No keeper liability established
I am the registered keeper of the vehicle. I was not the driver at the time of the alleged contravention, and the driver has not been identified.
As a matter of law, liability for a private parking charge rests with the driver unless the strict provisions of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (“PoFA”) are fully complied with. (Lawble - Law Makes Sense)

Your client is put to strict proof that:
* A fully compliant Notice to Keeper was served; and
* All mandatory requirements of PoFA Schedule 4 were strictly adhered to.
It is well established that failure to comply with PoFA prevents any transfer of liability to the keeper. (knowyourparkingrights.org)
In the absence of such compliance, only the driver can be pursued. You have provided no evidence as to the identity of the driver, and I am under no legal obligation to name the driver. (ftla.uk)
Accordingly, your client has no lawful basis to pursue me as keeper.

(b) Strict proof required
Your Letter of Claim fails to provide sufficient detail as required under the Practice Direction – Pre-Action Conduct and Protocols. In particular, you have failed to provide:
* Evidence of the alleged contractual agreement
* Evidence of signage forming the alleged contract
* Evidence of PoFA compliance (including dates of issue/service of notices)
* Evidence of the driver’s identity (if alleged)
* A breakdown and legal basis for the additional sums added
Until such documents are produced, I am unable to properly understand or respond to your client’s claim.

(c) Failure to follow Pre-Action Protocol
Your correspondence appears to be a standard template and does not comply with the spirit or requirements of the Pre-Action Protocol, which requires parties to exchange sufficient information to understand each other's position and attempt to resolve matters without litigation.

3. Required action
In accordance with the Practice Direction, I require that you:
1. Provide all documents and evidence relied upon (as outlined above);
2. Confirm whether your client is relying on PoFA 2012 and, if so, demonstrate full compliance;
3. Confirm the cause of action (breach of contract, contractual charge, or trespass);
4. Provide a detailed breakdown of the sum claimed and justification for any additional costs.

4. Conduct warning
Should you proceed with litigation without addressing the deficiencies outlined above, I will draw your conduct and your client’s conduct to the attention of the Court, including your failure to comply with the Pre-Action Protocol.
I will also seek to rely on this correspondence when the Court considers the issue of costs.

5. Conclusion
For the avoidance of doubt, I deny any liability to your client and will robustly defend any proceedings issued.
I look forward to your substantive response.
Yours faithfully,


Thanks,

here it is: https://ibb.co/k693xLpq

Hello guys, just joined this forum as I have also received a letter of claim from BW Legal. Last year i overstayed parking by 1hr. This is completely my fault, and got a fine of 60GBP. However, as i was abroad at the time of the fine issuance, i was not aware of it. As a result, when I opened the letter from the post, the penalty had risen to 100GBP. I disputed this and it was still denied. BW Legal has now sent a letter of claim threatening CC action. Do i pay the fine or try to dispute based on the below email example (" insufficient detail of the claim and fails to provide copies of evidence your client places reliance upon and thus is in complete contravention of the Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims...")?

I am in England, and the "driver" has not been named.

Thanks