Free Traffic Legal Advice

Dear Sirs,

Your Letter Before Claim dated 17 April 2025 is vague, non-compliant with the Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims, and fails to include the mandatory documents your client is required to provide.

I am the registered keeper of the vehicle. I was not the driver on the material date and have never identified the driver to your client. Crucially, I am legally incapable of being the driver because I do not have a driving licence. Therefore, any presumption or assertion by your client or their representatives that I was driving is manifestly false and negligent.

Your client is attempting to rely on Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA) to transfer liability to me as keeper. However, their Notice to Keeper dated 08/08/2024 is non-compliant with PoFA and fails to meet the statutory requirements, in particular:

• It does not specify any period of parking, as required by paragraph 9(2)(a);
• It fails to include a valid invitation for the Keeper to pay in accordance with paragraph 9(2)(e)(i);
• The contravention is based solely on an observation by a patrol officer, with no supporting photographic or video evidence, rendering any alleged breach unproven.

Since the driver has not been identified and PoFA conditions have not been met, your client has no lawful basis to pursue me, either as the driver (which I cannot be) or as the keeper. Any proceedings would constitute an abuse of process and a waste of court time. I will robustly defend any such claim and will seek strike-out and costs under CPR 27.14(2)(g) for unreasonable conduct.

Moreover, your Letter Before Claim fails to meet the requirements of the Pre-Action Protocol (paragraphs 3.1(a)-(d), 5.1 and 5.2), and the Practice Direction on Pre-Action Conduct (paragraphs 6(a)–(c)). I now require, as per those protocols, the following information and documentation before I can consider my position:

• A clear explanation of the cause of action;
• Clarification on whether your client is pursuing me as driver or keeper;
• A copy of the Notice to Keeper served on 08/08/2024 and an explanation of how it is alleged to comply with PoFA;
• A copy of the alleged contract and signage terms in place on the material date;
• Photographs of the signage, showing font size, placement and visibility;
• A site plan showing where signs were located relative to the vehicle;
• Photographs or video showing the alleged contravention;
• A copy of the contract with the landowner, including confirmation that your client has standing to pursue charges and litigation;
• A breakdown of the amount claimed and the basis of the £70 add-on;
• Clarification as to whether the principal sum is claimed as damages or consideration;
• Whether the additional £70 represents what is dressed up as a 'Debt Recovery' fee, and if so, is this nett or inclusive of VAT? If the latter, would you kindly explain why I am being asked to pay the operator’s VAT and if so, the VAT registration number?

Unless your client provides the above and complies with the Protocol, I will seek an immediate stay of any proceedings and apply for costs under established case law including:

Webb Resolutions Ltd v Waller Needham & Green [2012] EWHC 3529 (Ch)
Charles Church Developments Ltd v Stent Foundations Ltd [2007] EWHC 855

Pending receipt of the required information and a compliant Letter Before Claim, I am unable to respond substantively. Should your client issue a premature claim, this letter will be relied upon as evidence of unreasonable conduct.

Yours faithfully,

The NTK states:

'..Registered Keeper you are invited to:

(i) Pay the charge..

Seems a clear invitation and therefore compliant. In any event, OP post the back of the NTK.

As regards giving the 'period of parking..' IMO this goes as much to the keeper's defence as to any lack of compliance with PoFA and therefore wouldn't be grounds for having any claim struck out.

As regards the detail of the alleged breach, this is given in the NTK as:

'Vehicle parked in a customer only car park/site and driver observed leaving premises'.

If the creditor's claim is correct then as the photos are timed at 10.33 and the time of contravention is given as 10.35 then it must follow that on parking the driver was immediately identified by the PO and immediately left the site ..before even reading the Ts and Cs of use. Therefore unless they knew the site and if the creditor's claim is correct this would have been foolish.

OP, you can send cage-rattling correspondence to the creditor if you wish, but do be aware of what actually bears upon the arguments regarding the defence and what's there to try and bluff the creditor out of taking further action.

How long would it have taken the old lady in question to get to the site boundary from where the car was parked being an example, I wonder?