Free Traffic Legal Advice

So just edit that one point. I am flying more or less blind here. Use common sense to edit it if necessary.

The location is a very well known entrapment area. The invoice has been issued because the driver is alleged to have breached a contractual sign. Keep in mind that any contract requires three elements:

1. An offer
2. Acceptance
3. Consideration

On what planet is a sign that says: "NO STOPPING"; "£100 charge if you stop on this road" a contract capable of offering anything capable of being considered?

1. Offer
That is not an offer. It prohibits stopping entirely; there is no permission being granted on any terms. You cannot "accept" a prohibition — the only logical meaning is “do not stop”. If a driver does stop, they have breached a prohibition, not accepted an offer. The only possible legal basis would be trespass, not contract.

2. Acceptance
Even if one were to argue that the act of stopping constitutes acceptance, it would be a perverse interpretation: a motorist cannot accept terms they are forbidden from engaging with. The moment the sign tells you “No stopping”, any alleged contract collapses because there is nothing to accept — only a warning not to act.

3. Consideration
For consideration to exist, the parking company must confer some benefit (e.g. permission to park or stop). Here, they confer none — they expressly withhold permission. The driver gains nothing they are permitted to do, and the operator provides no benefit or licence in exchange. Without consideration, the supposed contract is void.

Legal analysis
Courts have repeatedly found that prohibitive signs cannot create contracts. Relevant reasoning can be seen in:

Conclusion
This sign is purely prohibitive, not contractual.

Do you need any more convincing that they are on very shaky ground and they know it because they have hired the utter incompetents at Moorside Legal to act for them. I can guarantee that any claim they eventually issue will not even comply with CPR 16.4(1)(a) and can be easily argued on technicality failures alone.

That's boxed Moorside into a corner: they’ve now expressly admitted (a) they can’t supply a site plan, (b) they won’t supply landowner authority, and (c) they intend to stop corresponding—each point being fatal under the PAPDC.

The breakdown of the contractual elements and the prohibitive-sign issue is exactly what will unravel any claim. A “no stopping” or “park only within marked bays” notice doesn’t convey any offer or consideration; it’s a prohibition, so the only conceivable cause of action would be trespass (and only the landowner could bring that). Once you add that the claim would arise on land likely not “relevant land” for PoFA, they’re left with no lawful basis to pursue the keeper at all.

I suggest you send a final response to the utter incompetents at Moorside as follows:

Dear Sirs,

Your latest message confirms that your firm cannot produce the site plan or the landowner contract—both being core documents under the PAPDC and PD-PACP. You have therefore failed to comply with pre-action requirements.

For the avoidance of doubt, the signage you rely upon is purely prohibitive. A sign that forbids stopping or parking outside marked bays cannot constitute an offer, provides no consideration, and cannot create a binding contract. Your client’s only conceivable cause of action would be in trespass, which they are not entitled to pursue.

If you issue proceedings before curing your non-compliance, I will apply for an immediate stay under PD-PACP ¶15(b) and seek costs on the basis of unreasonable conduct. Any such claim will also be opposed on the merits: the signage is forbidding and incapable of contractual effect.

Do not contact me again unless you are serving a compliant Letter of Claim accompanied by the required documents. Further repetitive or non-compliant correspondence will be placed before the court and the SRA.

Yours faithfully,

[Name]

This closes the loop as it shows you’ve allowed every opportunity for compliance, demonstrates understanding of the legal deficiencies, and leaves a clear paper trail of their failures for later use in court or an SRA complaint.

Regarding your request for a site plan or the landowner contract, we are unclear as to why you would need to review any agreement between our client and the landowner, as you are not a party to that agreement and it would not assist with your dispute or any potential defence.

Errr… because it proves standing to bring a claim in the first place!

It’s exactly the same as me sticking a sign up on some waste ground saying that anyone who steps on this ground will be charged £50. If someone refuses to pay and I try to take them to court over it, I first have to prove my “standing” to be able to sue that person in the first place.

I wouldn’t bother responding again. It is clear you are dealing with a firm of intellectually malnourished wannabe legals that operate at the very edge of lawfulness. Bottom-dwellers, equivalent to the brown smelly stuff you don’t want to tread in.

Just wait for the claim to arrive.