Free Traffic Legal Advice

Dear Sirs,

Your response regarding VAT is inadequate and evasive. You have ignored the direct question posed in my Letter of Claim response and instead provided an irrelevant reference to the VAT treatment of parking charges.

To be clear, the question relates to the additional £70 sum you are seeking, which you refer to as a "Debt Recovery" fee. This is your fee, not the parking charge itself, and as a service provided by you, it is subject to VAT. The HMRC ‘VAT Supply and Consideration Manual’ (VATSC06140) you cited is irrelevant to this point, as it concerns the underlying parking charge, not your own recoverable costs.

I repeat the question:

• Is the £70 fee net of or inclusive of VAT?
• If VAT applies, why are you attempting to charge me the VAT element when HMRC guidance confirms that VAT on services provided to a business cannot be charged to the consumer?

I require a proper response addressing the specific VAT query, not a template reply avoiding the issue.

Yours faithfully,
[Your Name]

Subject: Re: Alleged Parking Charge – VAT Status of Added Fee

Dear Mr Kerrigan,

I refer to your email dated 25 March 2025.

Your repeated reference to the HMRC manual VATSC06140 is misplaced and unhelpful. As made abundantly clear in my previous correspondence, I am not questioning the VAT treatment of the parking charge itself. My query relates specifically to the £70 surcharge you or your client have applied for alleged “debt recovery” services.

This is a charge for services rendered by you or your client’s agent—i.e., a business-to-business service, where the VAT treatment is fundamentally different from the underlying parking tariff.

For the avoidance of doubt, I again require the following:

1. Is the £70 fee inclusive or exclusive of VAT?
2. If VAT applies, why is it being passed on to me—a consumer—when your firm (or the agent providing the service) is the VAT-registered business client that is liable to account for it?

Your continued refusal to address this specific and valid concern will be brought to the attention of the court, HMRC, and the Solicitors Regulation Authority as part of a complaint regarding unfair and misleading conduct under the guise of debt recovery. The transparency of the costs and your obligations under the Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims (paragraphs 3.1(a)-(e)) remain unmet.

Given that your correspondence has come from a “Litigation Support Associate” rather than a legally qualified professional, it is perhaps understandable that the questions I have raised—concerning VAT liability, recoverable costs, and HMRC compliance—have not yet been answered. If you are not qualified to address these matters, I suggest that you escalate this file to a solicitor or suitably qualified person within your organisation who can properly respond, particularly as you continue to assert an intention to litigate.

Unless and until you provide a full and substantive response to the questions posed, I do not consider this matter to be appropriately clarified or closed. I remain fully prepared to defend any claim and to seek costs for unreasonable conduct, should this matter proceed to litigation.

Yours faithfully,

[Your Full Name]
[Address for Service]

Subject: Re: Outstanding VAT Query – Debt Recovery Fee

Dear Sirs,

I acknowledge receipt of your email dated 23 April 2025.

Your latest response again fails to engage with the specific and legitimate query raised regarding the VAT treatment of the £70 “Debt Recovery” fee you or your client seek to add.

For absolute clarity:

• I have never disputed that parking charges are outside the scope of VAT.
• My question has consistently and solely related to the additional £70 fee imposed for alleged debt recovery work.
• Debt recovery services are a taxable supply under HMRC guidance, and VAT treatment applies independently of the original debt.

You have now confirmed that "no VAT has ever been applied to the outstanding balance." I therefore infer from your repeated refusal to answer the direct questions that the £70 fee is either unlawfully levied, or that you have absorbed any VAT liability without informing me.

Your failure to provide clear particulars in breach of the Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims (paragraphs 3.1(a)-(e)) and the ongoing evasion of simple, material questions will be relied upon in any Defence and Application to Strike Out should proceedings be issued.

Further, I reserve the right to:

• Report this matter to HMRC for potential tax irregularities regarding the VAT treatment of your services.
• Refer your conduct to the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) as an example of unreasonable and non-transparent pre-action behaviour.

Unless you provide a full and substantive response to the outstanding queries within 14 days, I shall consider this pre-action correspondence phase to have been exhausted due to your persistent failure to comply with your professional duties.

Yours faithfully,

[Your Full Name]
[Address for Service]

IN THE COUNTY COURT

Claim No: [Claim Number]

BETWEEN:

IPark Services Ltd
Claimant

- and -

[Defendant's Full Name]

Defendant

---

DEFENCE

1. The Defendant denies the claim in its entirety. The Defendant asserts that there is no liability to the Claimant and that no debt is owed. The claim is without merit and does not adequately disclose any comprehensible cause of action.

2. There is a lack of precise detail in the Particulars of Claim (PoC) in respect of the factual and legal allegations made against the Defendant such that the PoC do not comply with CPR 16.4.

3. The Defendant is unable to plead properly to the PoC because:

(a) The contract referred to is not detailed or attached to the PoC in accordance with CPR PD 16(7.5);

(b) The PoC do not state the exact wording of the clause (or clauses) of the terms and conditions of the contract (or contracts) which is/are relied on;

(c) The PoC do not adequately set out the reason (or reasons) why the claimant asserts the defendant has breached the contract (or contracts)

(d) The PoC do not state with sufficient particularity exactly where the breach occurred, the exact time when the breach occurred and how long it is alleged that the vehicle was parked before the parking charge was allegedly incurred;

(e) The PoC do not state precisely how the sum claimed is calculated, including the basis for any statutory interest, damages, or other charges;

(f) The PoC do not state what proportion of the claim is the parking charge and what proportion is damages;

(g) The PoC do not provide clarity on whether the Defendant is sued as the driver or the keeper of the vehicle, as the claimant cannot plead alternative causes of action without specificity.

4. The Defendant attaches to this defence a copy of a draft order approved by a district judge at another court. The court struck out the claim of its own initiative after determining that the Particulars of Claim failed to comply with CPR 16.4. The judge noted that the claimant had failed to:

(i) Set out the exact wording of the clause (or clauses) of the terms and conditions relied upon;

(ii) Adequately explain the reasons why the defendant was allegedly in breach of contract;

(iii) Provide separate, detailed Particulars of Claim as permitted under CPR PD 7C.5.2(2).

(iv) The court further observed that, given the modest sum claimed, requiring further case management steps would be disproportionate and contrary to the overriding objective. Accordingly, the judge struck out the claim outright rather than permitting an amendment.

5. The Defendant submits that the same reasoning applies in this case and invites the court to adopt a similar approach by striking out the claim for the Claimant’s failure to comply with CPR 16.4.

Statement of truth

I believe that the facts stated in this Defence are true. I understand that proceedings for contempt of court may be brought against anyone who makes, or causes to be made, a false statement in a document verified by a statement of truth without an honest belief in its truth.

Signed:


Date: