Free Traffic Legal Advice

I'm another newbie poster, and am in a very similar position to Snohball in this thread: https://www.ftla.uk/private-parking-tickets/excel-parking-pcn-keying-error-crown-street-car-park-leeds-ls2-7de/

The machine would only permit the first two characters of the reg no. I still have the ticket.

Offence date 9/2/25
NtK dated 14/02/25

I foolishly appealed 20/2/25, which was obviously denied.
I didn't bother appealing to IAS.

LBC received about 10 days ago, dated 3 June, so just getting my act together to respond.


I'll upload images of the letters & ticket when I get an opportunity later.

Thanks, will do.

SO, let's just unpack this...

3 June 2025
Elms Legal dated their original Letter of Claim (LoC) 3 June but stated a deadline of 30 July 2025. This is an error, as 30 July is far more than the 30 days required under the Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims (PAPDC).

10 June 2025
You received the original LoC on this date. Under the PAPDC, they should have given you 30 days from the date of the letter, so the correct deadline would have been 3 July 2025 – if the LoC was otherwise compliant.

17 June 2025
You responded with a detailed letter pointing out that their LoC was non-compliant with the PAPDC and requested key documents and information under paragraph 6(b). This places an obligation on them to respond properly and not proceed to court prematurely.

25 June 2025
They issued an amended LoC. This time they said the deadline was 3 July 2025, which they stated was 30 days from 3 June. However, that makes no sense because they are reissuing the LoC, yet not restarting the 30-day clock. Instead, they are still relying on the original expiry date.

The amended LoC also contains contradictions. It says: “our Letter Before Claim expires on 03/07/2025,” but then later says, “should the outstanding balance of £170.00 not be settled by [blank], we will commence legal proceedings.” This is unclear and confusing.

They have also failed to respond at all to your 17 June letter or provide the documents you requested. This is a breach of the Pre-Action Protocol and of the Practice Direction – Pre-Action Conduct.

In summary:


You do not need to respond to the amended LoC. You have done everything required by the PAPDC. If they issue a claim without replying to your 17 June letter, you will be in a strong position to seek a stay of proceedings and argue that they acted unreasonably.

Then report them to CILEx. I suggest you use the following and create a PDF then upload it to CILEx using their "contact us" webform: https://cilexregulation.org.uk/contact-us/ and just say "see attached complaint" for the message:

[Your Name]
[Your Address (optional)]
[Your Email Address]

[Date]

CILEx Regulation Ltd
Room 301,
Endeavour House Chivers Way,
Histon Cambridge,
CB24 9ZR

Subject: Formal Complaint Regarding Elms Legal – Procedural Misconduct and Breach of Professional Standards

Dear Sir or Madam,
I am writing to submit a formal complaint against Elms Legal, a firm regulated by CILEx, concerning their conduct in relation to a purported debt recovery claim on behalf of Excel Parking Services Limited. I believe their actions constitute multiple breaches of the Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims (PAPDC), the Practice Direction – Pre-Action Conduct, and the CILEx Code of Conduct.

Chronology of Events

3 June 2025: Elms Legal issued an original Letter of Claim (LoC), stating a deadline for payment of 30 July 2025, which is inconsistent with their own assertion that the letter expired “30 days from the date provided.”
10 June 2025: I received the original LoC. Under the PAPDC, the 30-day period would have expired on 3 July 2025 if otherwise compliant.
17 June 2025: I issued a detailed response under paragraph 6(b) of the PAPDC, pointing out procedural deficiencies and requesting documentation and information that they are obliged to provide prior to commencing proceedings.
25 June 2025: Elms Legal issued an “Amended LBC” that:

• Retrospectively shortened the response deadline from 30 July to 3 July 2025.
• Failed to restart the 30-day response clock, despite reissuing the LoC.
• Contained an internally contradictory statement: it first asserted the expiry date was 3 July 2025, and then stated that proceedings would commence if payment was not made by [blank]—leaving the due date completely unspecified.
• Ignored my 17 June response entirely and failed to provide any of the requested documents.

Summary of Breaches

1. Failure to Respond to Protocol-Compliant Requests Elms Legal has disregarded their obligations under paragraph 6(b) of the PAPDC by failing to respond to my legitimate request for documentation before proceeding to court.
2. Procedural Inconsistencies and Ambiguity Their amended letter introduced confusion by attempting to retroactively alter deadlines and omitting key information (e.g. the due date for payment). This contradicts the expectation of clarity and transparency demanded of regulated legal professionals.
3. Breach of the CILEx Code of Conduct The conduct of Elms Legal likely breaches the following CILEx Principles:

• Principle 2 – Uphold the rule of law and proper administration of justice.
• Principle 4 – Maintain trust and confidence in legal services.
• Principle 5 – Deliver a competent and diligent service.
• Principle 6 – Deal with regulators openly and cooperatively.

Request for Investigation

I respectfully request that CILEx Regulation investigate Elms Legal’s conduct, as the pattern of behaviour described above suggests a systemic disregard for procedural fairness, legal clarity, and professional standards. I am prepared to supply copies of both Letters of Claim and my 17 June correspondence upon request.

Yours faithfully,

[Your Full Name]

Morning :-)

Finally had an email back this morning from debtassist@elmslegal acknowledging my email of 17 June
It just says:

Good morning,

Thank you for your email.

A request for documentation has been sent to our client.

Still no mention of resetting the response clock.

Is it worth responding, or should I wait, either for the deadline to expire, or to hear about the CILEx investigation?

Splendid. I shall do just that :-)

Second part of the doc pack

[ Guests cannot view attachments ]

Without seeing the form, it's hard to give you advice on completing it