Free Traffic Legal Advice

Subject: PCN [reference] – Your latest email dated [insert date]

To: Enforcement Team, Car Parking Partnership (CPP)

Dear Sirs,

I acknowledge your latest email. The debt is denied.

Your latest email again fails to engage with the Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims (PAPDC). It neither addresses the Consumer Rights Act 2015 points already raised (ss.50, 62, 68 and 69) nor provides the basic documents requested to narrow the issues. Simply asserting that you “maintain your position” is not PAPDC compliance.

For the second time: please pass this to a responsible adult within your organisation with a working knowledge of the PAPDC and the consequences of unreasonable conduct. If this correspondence is later placed before the court, I am content for it to evidence your repeated failure to respond meaningfully at the pre-action stage.

Why your stance is untenable at PAPDC stage

• Protocol engagement: PAPDC requires early, proportionate exchange of information. You have ignored my core requests and threatened proceedings instead.
• Substantive law (CRA 2015): Your signage and payment journey represented payment as a compliant option; your terminal accepted the VRM and took the fee for the exact period. You cannot then penalise the same conduct: this is contrary to s.62 (fairness), s.68 (transparency), s.69 (contra proferentem) and s.50 (pre-contract statements binding).
• Estoppel: Having represented (via the terminal workflow) that payment secured the right to park, you are estopped from alleging breach.
• Costs threats: Your suggestion of “further costs” mischaracterises small-claims costs. Beyond the fixed issue fee and limited fixed legal costs, add-ons (including “debt recovery”) will be opposed as unrecoverable double recovery. See CPR 27.14; unreasonable conduct will be addressed on costs (incl. the approach reflected in the White Book).

Documents required (re-stated)

Provide within 30 days:

1. Full-size images of all signage in place on the material date and a site plan for the Disabled Blue Badge car park.
2. The terminal audit trail for the VRM for the date (accept/reject logic, timestamps, tariff applied, reconciliation confirming the payment taken).
3. ANPR entry/exit images and camera locations tied specifically to the Disabled Blue Badge car park.
4. The landowner contract conferring authority to offer terms to motorists and to litigate in your own name.

You say the matter has been “passed to our Privacy Team.” I take this as confirmation that my data-rights request is being processed. In line with good practice, you must place the matter on hold until that request is fulfilled and I have had a reasonable opportunity (no less than 30 days) to review the disclosure and respond.

Your threat to add further sums is misconceived. On the small-claims track only fixed issue fees and fixed, limited legal costs are generally recoverable. Any additional “debt recovery” or duplicative legal fees will be opposed as unrecoverable double-recovery.

If you issue without supplying the above documents and without awaiting the Privacy Team’s response, I will draw your conduct to the court’s attention as unreasonable non-compliance with the PAPDC and seek my costs.

Please confirm by return that you have put the matter on hold and that you will supply the documents requested within 30 days. Alternatively, cancel the charge and confirm closure. That remains the only outcome consistent with your signage, your terminal’s acceptance of payment, and the CRA.

Please confirm within 7 days that this has been escalated internally to someone competent to deal with PAPDC compliance, and within 30 days that you will provide the documents listed above.

Yours faithfully,

[Name of Keeper]
[Address]
[Email]