Free Traffic Legal Advice

Dear Sirs,

I acknowledge receipt of your letter dated [DATE]. However, your response fails to properly address the key points raised in my previous correspondence. Specifically, you have failed to answer two fundamental questions under the Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims.

In my previous letter, I asked the following questions:

1. Does the additional £70 represent what you describe as a “Debt Recovery” fee? If so, is this figure net of or inclusive of VAT? If inclusive, I trust you will explain why I, as the alleged debtor, am being asked to cover your client’s VAT liability.

2. Regarding the principal sum of the alleged Parking Charge Notice (PCN): Is this being claimed as damages for breach of contract, or will it be pleaded as consideration for a purported parking contract?

Your failure to answer these questions is a clear breach of the Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims. I require full and clear responses to these questions within 14 days. If you fail to engage properly, this will be brought to the attention of the court, and I will seek costs for unreasonable conduct.

You continue to claim an additional £70, yet the Supreme Court in ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67 made it clear that the parking charge itself covers all operational and enforcement costs. Paragraph 98 of Beavis states that the parking charge is set at a level to cover the costs of managing the scheme and to make a profit. Paragraph 100 further confirms that the charge was set at a level to ensure financial viability and enforcement. This confirms that the parking charge itself already includes the costs of running the scheme, including debt recovery. Adding a further £70 is an attempt at double recovery and is unlawful.

You have also referenced the BPA Code of Practice but not referenced which version applies. Nowhere in any of the versions of the BPA CoP or the new Single Code of Practice does it say that the £70 charge is automatically justified. The Code does not override case law, and it does not exempt you from having to prove that the £70 reflects an actual and reasonable cost incurred. If this charge represents a genuine cost, I require a full breakdown of what it covers.

County Court rulings have consistently struck out this additional charge as an abuse of process. In Britannia Parking v Semark-Jullien (Southampton, 11/11/19, F0HM9E9Z), the court ruled that it was an abuse of process to add an additional sum to the parking charge. In Excel Parking Services Ltd v Wilkinson (Bradford, 02/07/20, G4QZ465V), the court again ruled that the claim was tainted by an additional charge that should not have been added. If you proceed with a claim including this charge, I will apply for a strike-out and costs under CPR 27.14(2)(g).

The £70 charge also breaches the Consumer Rights Act 2015. Schedule 2, Part 1, Paragraph 6 of the Act states that any term requiring a consumer to pay a disproportionately high sum in compensation is unfair and unenforceable. You have failed to provide any cost breakdown to justify this sum. A blanket £70 charge is neither a genuine pre-estimate of loss nor a proportionate expense.

The Civil Procedure Rules also do not allow recovery of debt collection costs in the Small Claims Track. CPR 27.14(2) makes it clear that these costs are not recoverable. Any attempt to claim them as part of the principal sum is unlawful.

Furthermore, the Government’s Impact Assessment for the Private Parking (Code of Practice) Act 2019 found that the average cost of debt recovery per claim (not per PCN) was less than £9. This considers that most debt recovery firms operate on a no-win, no-fee basis. Your client’s claim that £70 is a reasonable cost is therefore false.

Within 14 days, I require clear answers to my original two questions regarding the nature of the £70 charge and the legal basis of the PCN. I also require a full breakdown of the £70 charge, including whether it includes VAT, and if so, why I am being charged your client’s VAT liability. Additionally, you must provide evidence that the £70 charge was clearly stated in the contractual signage at the location.

Failure to provide this information will be considered a lack of transparency and may be used in my defence should this matter proceed to court. If you commence proceedings without addressing these issues, I will apply for a strike-out under CPR 3.4(2)(a) and (b) on the grounds that you have failed to comply with the Pre-Action Protocol and that the claim is tainted by an abuse of process.

I suggest you review Beavis, the various versions of the BPA CoP and the BPA/IPC Private Parking Single Code of Practice, and recent County Court rulings before issuing any claim.

Yours faithfully,

[Your Name]
[Your Address]