-
Hi All,
I have just received a letter before claim.
Since the ticket has been issued they have passed this to DCLB and now with ELMS legal.
Since the ticket was issued there has been a update on the address
Please see attached letter. [ Guests cannot view attachments ] [ Guests cannot view attachments ]
[ Guests cannot view attachments ] -
-
Usual tactics by Excel. They use Elms to file the claim and then dismiss them to continue on their own. However, you can guarantee that this will never make it to a hearing.
For now, we need to clarify in whose name is the LoC addressed? Is it to your mother, who you said is the registered keeper but she does not have a drivers licence?
From here on in, everything must be done in the name of the person to who the LoC is addressed. You can do everything on behalf of your mother as long as it is all in her name and signed in her name (all documents can simply be signed electronically by typing the full name of the signatory).
So, please answer this question before we can provide further advice. -
-
Hello B789,
Thank you for the swift response and contributing.
Yes it’s in my mother’s name and her old address. I would need them
To update it as I am using the Royal Mail redirecting service that’s taking sometime to get letters to the new address.
And you’re right she’s the keeper but not the driver. Doesn’t hold a driving license -
-
If the address for service is wrong, then you must urgently send a Date Rectification Notice (DRN) to the DPOs of Excel and Elms. This should have been done as soon as the first notice was received with the wrong address.
The DRN must instruct the DPO to update their records with the current address for service and to erase the old address. The highlighted words are there for a reason, so use them.
They normally require proof that the person making the request is the right person to do so. If the V5C has been updated and has the correct current address, then a copy of that is sufficient. Otherwise, you will need a utility bill or bank statement with the correct address, making sure that you redact all other information on it.
Why have you never shown us the original Notice to Driver (NtD) that was received? We could do with a view of that.
Respond to the LoC with the following:QuoteDear 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, -
-
Thanks for sending that across
Forgive my stupidity the i have uploaded all documents into this link previously.
https://imgur.com/a/excel-parking-Gk99KYn
Let me know if the notice to driver is missing.
Do I send that email to their info@elmslegal.co.uk?
I will sign it as my mother. -
-
There is no copy of the physical NtK that was received in the post. That is the definitive document we need to see. What you have shown in those photos is the information about the PCN on their website, which is not what I mean.
Yes, send the response to info@elmslegal.co.uk and also CC in yourself. -
-
I think I have found the original notice to keeper.
The backside is all about how to pay
[ Guests cannot view attachments ] -
-
That's the document. As stated, it is not POFA compliant and therefore they cannot transfer liability from the unknown driver to the Keeper.
Let the try and sue the Keeper. It their money that they're wasting.
Interesting that in their evidence the state:5. A series of images were taken showing the location of the vehicle in relation to the signs on site and are now supplied as photographic evidence. The photographic evidence shows the vehicle parked adjacent to signage making the Terms and Conditions clear.
6. The Patrol Officer (PO) observed the vehicle parked in situ. When digitally recording the contravention the PO made the following written statement: "contra 34:- vehicle parked in a customer only car park and viewed the driver and an old lady leaving the site towards VW garage"
7. Contravention photographs supplied, which are time and date stamped, confirm the parked position of the appellant's vehicle within the site.
the phrase in point 6 —"viewed the driver and an old lady leaving the site towards VW garage" —
could reasonably be interpreted as inappropriate or offensive, particularly in a formal or quasi-legal context.
Referring to someone as “an old lady” is:• Informal and subjective: It lacks professional or neutral tone.
• Potentially discriminatory: It may be seen as ageist or patronising, especially in the context of a parking enforcement action.
• Unnecessary for the allegation: The age of the person is irrelevant to the alleged contravention.
In correspondence it would be fair and reasonable to raise this as an example of unprofessional and potentially prejudicial language by the operator. You could state that:“The PO’s description referring to the ‘old lady’ is wholly unprofessional, irrelevant to the alleged facts, and indicative of bias. It is inappropriate to include subjective or pejorative characterisations in a formal evidence submission.”
If you've not yet sent the response to the loC, you could add a paragraph near the end with:Finally, I note that the written observation recorded by your client’s patrol officer includes the phrase “an old lady leaving the site.” This language is unprofessional, subjective, and entirely irrelevant to the alleged contravention. It is wholly inappropriate in formal proceedings and indicative of a lack of impartiality in your client’s evidence. Should this matter proceed to court, I reserve the right to challenge the credibility and propriety of such testimony. -
-
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? -
-
Hi H C Anderson,
Please see attached the back on NTK.
OP? Is that short for something.
Regarding this ticket - I have a receipt from pets at home to confirm
That I was a customer and was on site.
Regarding my elderly mother she is disabled and can’t walk long distance.
If memory recalls the car was parked on the edge of the boundary. So literally less than 10 steps.
The car was parked here and the boundary is where the white mini is exiting.
At the site there is only a few stores and VW. To suggest that I went into VW while VW have their own parking bays is bonkers.
I didn’t have a MOT due nor a service.
[ Guests cannot view attachments ] -
-
OP? Is that short for something.
"Original Poster" - you -
-
Thanks.
Right at the top of the back of the NTK:
'You have been issued with this notice..do not ignore..as appropriate you should now: (A)pay the charge, B....
Clearly the NTK complies with PoFA as regards invitation to pay so this is not a procedural defence. -
-
Then how would you defend it?
It’s crazy they have no evidence of me leaving besides the PO statement.
@B789 what’s your thoughts here ? -
-
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?
And how does the NtK comply with PoFA 9(2)(a)? Where is the period of parking referred to? What evidence does that NtK show that the vehicle was parked for longer than the minimum consideration period for a contract to have been formed?
Just in case you have not read it, I suggest you familiarise yourself with the persuasive appeal case of Scott Brennan v Premier Park Solutions (2023) [H6DP632H]
Just as you can't be partially or even mostly pregnant, you either are or you aren't. It is a binary matter. Likewise, an NtK cannot be partially or even mostly PoFA compliant. It either is or it isn't. In this case, it isn't.
Therefore, if the NtK is not PoFA compliant, there can be no Keeper liability.
As for your comment:“You can send cage-rattling letters but...”
An LoC response is not a bluff. It’s a legitimate and reasoned exercise of the Pre-Action Protocol, designed to:• Force disclosure of evidence,
• Narrow the issues,
• Preserve points of defence (including procedural failings),
• ablish the unreasonableness of any future claim.
That is not cage-rattling — it’s litigation protocol and entirely proper. -
Like x 1
View List