Letter Before Claim - ELMS Legal - Elephant Park

On 20/3/2026, the driver parked at Elephant Park, London SE17 1FY for 36 minutes. The Contravention alleged is "Parked for longer than the maximum period permitted" (code 80).

NtK posted on 26/3/2026, Do Not Ignore notice followed, issued on 24/04/2026 (attached)

Have now received Letter Before Claim from ELMS Legal Ltd, dated 1/9/26 (attached)

No appeal was made to the original PCN. Advice would be much appreciated.

signage: https://ibb.co/svcFvKjd
notice: https://ibb.co/YBY1nSwJ
lbc: https://ibb.co/cSN0K1H5

If you can post the rear of the PCN as I cannot see if they have named the creditor. The general advice  is not to ignore but to appeal in order to show that you have engaged with the process. Was the driver a customer of any premises in order to have it cancelled at source. You will have to respond to L BC denying the debt and the reason(s) for doing so.

The OP has only posted a reminder notice and not the original PCN.

This is ntk from the exact same location and contravention just with different PCN number, but everything else should be the same.

front: https://ibb.co/jkwDqzhd
back: https://ibb.co/MxRNkYTb

What would the strongest grounds for denying the debt be?

The strongest arguments would be;

1. The NtK does not contain the statutory wording required by POFA Schedule 4 Paragraph 9(2)(b) so liability cannot be transferred from the unknown driver to the keeper - marginal argument.

2. That the notice relies on a 'time on site' argument and does not show or prove any 'period of parking' - this is the stronger argument - that the Defendant could reasonable say, "That is took the vehicle driver around 10 minutes to locate the exact address and that no parking actually occurred before that point in time - it also took a few minutes to leave the site after the parking event - with all this considered the actually period of parking was within the terms of the alleged contract."