Free Traffic Legal Advice

Typical rubbish from the incompetents. They claim that the terms and conditions were displayed on signage at the car park and that the vehicle was observed during restricted hours, from 22:01 to 22:25. They state that a £70 debt recovery fee is allowed under the BPA and IPC Codes of Practice and is considered fair because it is supposedly approved by the ATA. They assert that by entering the private land, a contract was formed and breached by staying during prohibited hours. They note that the matter has been placed on hold for 30 days due to an indication that debt advice is being sought but warn that a County Court claim may follow if payment is not made.

However, their response fails to address the key issues raised in your earlier reply. They have not provided the information and documents required under the Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims and the Practice Direction on Pre-Action Conduct. Specifically, they have not supplied a copy of the Notice to Keeper, photographs of the signage from the date of the incident, a copy of the contract terms they rely on, evidence of the landowner’s authority to issue charges, or a proper breakdown of the charges. All of this is required under paragraphs 3.1, 5.1, 5.2 and 6(a) to (c) of the Protocol and Practice Direction.

Their justification for the £70 fee relies on the ATA, which is not a regulator. Its guidance is not binding, and it does not have the authority to declare fees fair in law. Courts have repeatedly rejected this add-on, particularly in the case of Excel v Wilkinson (2020), where the judge ruled that the £70 was a false fee and not recoverable as part of the debt.

Their conduct still does not meet the expectations of pre-action engagement. They have avoided answering the points raised and continue to withhold basic documents that are necessary to assess the claim. Without these, there can be no meaningful discussion or opportunity to resolve the matter before court. This fails the requirement under paragraph 4 of the Pre-Action Protocol for both sides to exchange relevant information and try to settle the matter without proceedings.

Their letter refers to an "online portal" where documents have supposedly been uploaded for your review. It would be sensible to check exactly what has been provided, as this may reveal whether they've partially complied with the Pre-Action Protocol or are relying on generic or inadequate evidence.

Please log in to their portal and download everything they’ve uploaded, including:


Once downloaded, please redact any personal information (name, address, VRM, reference numbers), then upload the files here or preferably, host them on Google Drive and share a view-only link.

Once We’ve seen what they’re relying on, we can provide a detailed breakdown of:

Yes, you should ask for access. You’re entitled to see exactly what they claim to have as evidence. If they say documents have been uploaded to a portal but don’t give you access credentials or a way to log in, then they are still in breach of the Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims.

The Protocol requires them to provide sufficient detail of the claim and supply relevant documents either with the Letter of Claim or promptly upon request. Simply referring to an inaccessible online portal is not enough. Until they give you proper access or send the documents directly, the 30-day period to respond cannot properly begin.

You can email them, ask for access or direct provision of the documents, and request that the 30-day timeline be reset once that information is received. Use this to email them:

Subject: Failure to Provide Access to Portal – Breach of Pre-Action Protocol

Dear Sirs,

I refer to your recent correspondence asserting that documentation relevant to your client’s claim has been made available via an online portal. Despite this claim, I have not been provided with any login credentials or information to access said portal, nor is there any facility for me to register independently. This renders your purported disclosure entirely inaccessible.

This is not a trivial oversight. You remain in clear breach of the Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims, which requires the claimant to supply sufficient information and evidence to allow the alleged debtor to understand and respond meaningfully to the claim. A reference to an inaccessible portal does not meet that obligation.

Accordingly, I require you to either (a) provide working access credentials immediately, or (b) furnish the documents directly via email or post without further delay. Until this material is properly supplied, the 30-day period for a substantive response under the Protocol has not commenced, and you are put on notice that any attempt to issue proceedings without first complying with the Protocol will be considered premature and unreasonable.

The burden is on your client to comply. I remain willing to respond substantively upon receipt of the documents and information I am entitled to under paragraphs 3.1 and 6 of the Protocol. That includes, but is not limited to, a copy of the Notice to Keeper, contemporaneous signage photographs, the relevant contractual terms, landowner authority, and a clear breakdown of the sums claimed.

Yours faithfully,

[Your Name]