Free Traffic Legal Advice

Dear Sirs,

I refer to your correspondence dated [insert date], which — while lengthy — fails to supply even the most rudimentary evidence required under both the Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims and the Practice Direction – Pre-Action Conduct.

1. Failure to Provide the Core Document: Notice to Keeper

Your letter makes repeated reference to a Notice to Keeper (NtK), which you claim was issued and served. And yet, you have failed to disclose a copy of this notice. Given that your client’s case either depends on or is materially shaped by this document, your continued refusal to supply it is procedurally improper.

Moreover, pursuant to Section 8.1.2(e), Note 2 of the Private Parking Code of Practice – Single Code of Practice (PPSCoP), your client must retain and disclose evidence of the actual date of posting — not merely the date a notice was generated or handed off to a mail consolidator:

"A notice sent by post is to be presumed, unless the contrary is proved, to have been delivered on the second working day after the day on which it is posted... Therefore, parking operators must retain a record of the date of posting of a notice, not simply of that notice having been generated."

You have failed to produce either the NtK or the required evidence of dispatch. Until you do, your claim cannot proceed in good faith. You are now formally required to disclose both the NtK and the postage log compliant with PPSCoP guidelines.

2. Legally Illiterate Assertions Regarding Keeper Liability

Your letter states:

"On the balance of probabilities, if you were not the driver, you would have nominated."

This statement is legally embarrassing.

There is no statutory obligation to nominate a driver, and silence from the registered keeper is not an admission of liability. The “balance of probabilities” is a judicial standard, not a substitute for evidentiary burden. If your client seeks to rely on Schedule 4 of POFA 2012, then it must demonstrate full compliance — including timely service of a compliant NtK and all other statutory conditions. You have not done so.

Your assertion is not only incorrect, but it signals a worrying level of intellectual malnourishment within your client’s litigation strategy.

3. Ongoing Non-Disclosure and Evasion

Your response fails to provide:

• A copy of the contract with the landowner
• Evidence of the ANPR timestamped logs
• A site plan showing signage positions
• Photographs of the signage present at the material time
• A transparent breakdown of the claimed sum
• Clarification as to whether the principal sum is damages or consideration

Each of these items is expressly required under paragraphs 3.1(a)-(d), 5.1, and 5.2 of the Protocol. Your failure to supply them, coupled with a claim that the request was "disproportionate," is nonsensical — especially when your client is threatening legal action without foundational evidence.

4. Procedural Sanctions and Costs

You continue to assert compliance with the Pre-Action Protocol while refusing to disclose the very documents required to substantiate your claim. This ongoing evasion is not proportionate — it is obstruction.

Accordingly, I put you on notice that should proceedings be issued without full and proper disclosure:

• I will seek a stay under paragraph 15(b) of the Practice Direction – Pre-Action Conduct
• I will apply for sanctions under paragraphs 13 and 16
• I will pursue costs under CPR 27.14(2)(g) for unreasonable conduct

5. VAT Liability and Your Client’s Position

Your attempt to dismiss VAT applicability to the £70 debt recovery fee by quoting HMRC’s VATSC06140 guidance — without any analysis — is either a deliberate attempt to mislead HMRC or a demonstration of fundamental incompetence.

Your client cannot claim this sum arises from contractual damages and simultaneously declare the charge to be outside the scope of VAT. You are reminded that if this fee reflects consideration under a contract, it is subject to VAT — and your client must issue a VAT invoice or absorb the tax.

Your failure to address this contradiction reinforces the view that your client's position is legally incoherent, procedurally defective, and fiscally questionable. Should the matter proceed to litigation, I reserve the right to raise this before the court and, if necessary, HMRC.

6. Professional Conduct Warning

Your persistent failure to comply with the Pre-Action Protocol — coupled with evasive language and refusal to provide basic evidence — gives rise to serious concerns regarding professional standards. If this non-compliance continues, I will lodge a formal complaint with the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) citing either procedural incompetence or deliberate obfuscation. Solicitors acting in the name of litigation are expected to uphold both the law and its spirit; your client's conduct — and your complicity in it — falls short on both fronts.

Yours faithfully,

[Your Name]

Subject: Re: Without Prejudice Settlement Offer – Ref XXXX.XXXXX

Dear Sirs,

I write in response to your latest correspondence dated [insert date].

This response is with prejudice and may be relied upon in any future proceedings.

Despite repeated requests, your client continues to withhold core documents required under the Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims and the Practice Direction – Pre-Action Conduct. These include, but are not limited to:

• A copy of the Notice to Keeper (NtK)
• Evidence of the date of posting of the NtK, as required under PPSCoP 8.1.2(e)
• A copy of the contract with the landowner authorising enforcement
• Timestamped ANPR logs showing entry and exit
• A site plan showing signage locations
• Photographs of signage present at the material time
• A breakdown of the claimed sum, including clarification of whether the principal sum is damages or consideration

Your continued refusal to disclose these documents — while simultaneously threatening court action — is procedurally improper and undermines the credibility of your client’s position.

Furthermore, your reliance on VATSC06140 to dismiss VAT applicability to the £70 debt recovery fee remains legally incoherent. You have not clarified whether this sum is pleaded as damages or consideration. If it is the latter, VAT applies. If it is the former, your client must justify the quantum as a genuine pre-estimate of loss. You have done neither.

Your client’s continued refusal to disclose these documents — while threatening litigation — is procedurally improper and obstructive. It is not “proportionate”; it is evasive.

Position on Liability and Settlement

I remain unable to assess the merits of any alleged claim until your client complies with its pre-action obligations. Any attempt to resolve this matter must be preceded by full and proper disclosure. Until then, I do not accept liability and reject any suggestion that I am obliged to settle an unsubstantiated claim.

Should proceedings be issued without compliance, I will seek:

• A stay under paragraph 15(b) of the Practice Direction
• Sanctions under paragraphs 13 and 16
• Costs under CPR 27.14(2)(g) for unreasonable conduct

I reserve the right to place your client’s conduct before the court and, if necessary, refer this matter to the Solicitors Regulation Authority.

Yours faithfully,

[Your Name]

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 adequately 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 16.7.3(1);

(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 submits that courts have previously struck out similar claims of their own initiative for failure to adequately comply with CPR 16.4, particularly where the Particulars of Claim failed to specify the contractual terms relied upon or explain the alleged breach with sufficient clarity.

5. In comparable cases involving modest sums, judges have found that requiring further case management steps would be disproportionate and contrary to the overriding objective. Accordingly, strike-out was deemed appropriate. 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 due to the Claimant’s failure to adequately comply with CPR 16.4, rather than permitting an amendment. The Defendant proposes that the following Order be made:

Draft Order:

Of the Court's own initiative and upon reading the particulars of claim and the defence.

AND the court being of the view that the particulars of claim do not adequately comply with CPR 16.4(1)(a) because: (a) they do not set out the exact wording of the clause (or clauses) of the terms and conditions of the contract which is (or are) relied on; and (b) they do not adequately set out the reason (or reasons) why the claimant asserts that the defendant was in breach of contract.

AND the claimant could have complied with CPR 16.4(1)(a) had it served separate detailed particulars of claim, as it could have done pursuant to CPR PD 7C.5.2(2), but chose not to do so.

AND upon the claim being for a very modest sum such that the court considers it disproportionate and not in accordance with the overriding objective to allot to this case any further share of the court's resources by ordering further particulars of claim and a further defence, each followed by further referrals to the judge for case management.

ORDER:

1. The claim is struck out.

2. Permission to either party to apply to set aside, vary or stay this order by application on notice, which must be filed at this Court not more than 5 days after service of this order, failing which no such application may be made.