Free Traffic Legal Advice

Dear Sirs,

Your Letter Before Claim contains 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.

As a firm of supposed solicitors, one would expect you to be capable of crafting a letter that aligns with paragraphs 3.1(a)–(d), 5.1 and 5.2 of the Protocol, and paragraphs 6(a) and 6(c) of the Practice Direction. These provisions do not exist for decoration—they exist to facilitate informed discussion and proportionate resolution. You might wish to reacquaint yourselves with them.

The Civil Procedure Rules 1998, Pre-Action Conduct and Protocols (Part 3), stipulate that prior to proceedings, parties should have exchanged sufficient information to understand each other’s position. Part 6 helpfully clarifies that this includes disclosure of key documents relevant to the issues in dispute.

Your template letter mentions a “contract”, yet fails to provide one. This would appear to undermine the only foundation upon which your client’s claim allegedly rests. It’s difficult to engage in meaningful pre-litigation dialogue when your side declines to furnish the very document it purports to enforce.

I confirm that, once I am in receipt of a Letter Before Claim that complies with the requirements of para 3.1 (a) of the Pre-Action Protocol, I shall then seek advice and submit a formal response within 30 days, as required by the Protocol. Thus, I require your client to comply with its obligations by sending me the following information/documents:

1. A copy of the original Notice to Keeper (NtK) that confirms any PoFA 2012 liability
2. A copy of the contract (or contracts) you allege exists between your client and the driver, in the form of an actual photograph of the sign you contend was at the location on the material date, not a generic stock image
3. The exact wording of the clause (or clauses) of the terms and conditions of the contract(s) which is (are) relied upon that you allege to have been breached
4. The written agreement between your client and the landowner, establishing authority to enforce
5. A breakdown of the charges claimed, identifying whether the principal sum is claimed as consideration or damages, and whether the £70 “debt recovery” fee includes VAT

I am clearly entitled to this information under paragraphs 6(a) and 6(c) of the Practice Direction. I also need it in order to comply with my own obligations under paragraph 6(b).

If your client does not provide me with this information then I put you on notice that I will be relying on the cases of Webb Resolutions Ltd v Waller Needham & Green [2012] EWHC 3529 (Ch), Daejan Investments Limited v The Park West Club Limited (Part 20) Buxton Associates [2003] EWHC 2872, Charles Church Developments Ltd v Stent Foundations Limited & Peter Dann Limited [2007] EWHC 855 in asking the court to impose sanctions on your client and to order a stay of the proceedings, pursuant to paragraphs 13, 15(b) and (c) and 16 of the Practice Direction, as referred to in paragraph 7.2 of the Protocol.

Until your client has complied with its obligations and provided this information, I am unable to respond properly to the alleged claim and to consider my position in relation to it, and it is entirely premature (and a waste of costs and court time) for your client to issue proceedings. Should your client do so, then I will seek an immediate stay pursuant to paragraph 15(b) of the Practice Direction and an order that this information is provided.

Yours faithfully,

[Your name]

Subject: Your allegation “Non Customer / Unauthorised Parking” – UKPS Ltd – PCN 1491911

Dear Sirs,

Your client’s stated reasons are “Non Customer Parked in a Customer Only Car Park / Unauthorised Parking.” The only “evidence” you rely on is a handful of stills showing entry, the vehicle parked, and exit. That material proves nothing beyond presence on site. It does not and cannot establish the status of any occupant as “non-customer” or “unauthorised”. The burden of proof is yours. Please explain how a static image of a car demonstrates the occupiers’ retail status.

If you maintain this allegation, put your client to strict proof of the following within 30 days:

1. The exact term allegedly breached, in full, and a legible photograph of the sign in situ on the material date showing that term prominently at the entrance and throughout the site.
2. The operational scheme by which “customer” status is defined, verified, and communicated to motorists (for example, VRM validation, receipt scanning, or tablet entry), together with contemporaneous logs showing this VRM was not validated during the relevant window.
3. Evidence capable of proving the negative you assert (that no occupant was a customer of any on-site business during the stay). If you intend to rely on store till data or internal CCTV, identify the lawful basis for processing and cross-matching such data and provide the DPIA or other justification relied upon.
4. Clarification of whether your case is (a) a contractual charge for breach of terms or (b) a claim for trespass. If it is trespass, only the landowner may claim and only for actual loss; if it is a contractual charge, please explain how a prohibitive “Customer Only / Unauthorised” notice constitutes a contractual offer to non-customers.
5. A site plan marking each sign and the route a driver would take, showing that the “customer only” condition was both unavoidable and unambiguous on approach.

As things stand, the allegation is hopelessly vague and internally inconsistent. “Non customer” presupposes a working, fair, and transparent verification mechanism and records showing a failure. You have provided none. “Unauthorised parking” is a prohibition, not a contractual offer to pay a charge, and if pleaded as trespass you have not shown the landowner’s title or any loss. The stills you provided are incapable of discharging your evidential burden on either footing.

Further, as solicitors you are expected to comply with the Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims. Persisting with payment demands while withholding the key documents that would allow the defendant to form a defence (including the Notice to Keeper, contemporaneous signage, the precise term and alleged breach, the landowner authority, and a proper breakdown of the sum claimed) is incompatible with your duties as officers of the court. If you persist in failing to comply with the Protocol and to provide those documents, I will not hesitate to report your conduct to the Solicitors Regulation Authority and will draw this correspondence to the court’s attention on costs.

Unless you can produce the above key documents and evidence, you should withdraw this allegation. Any claim founded on “non customer/unauthorised” accompanied only by entry/exit photographs will be defended and an application made for appropriate sanctions for proceeding without a proper evidential basis.

Yours faithfully,

[Your name]