Boilerplate response but you may as well have a bit of fun with them by responding with the following:
Dear Sirs,
Re: Your Response to My Letter of 17th December 2024
I acknowledge receipt of your email and attached documents. However, your response does not adequately address the points raised in my previous correspondence. I will reiterate and expand on my concerns below.
1. Debt Recovery Costs
You claim that the £60 "debt recovery" fee is contractually agreed upon when entering the car park. This is categorically disputed.
• Lack of Contractual Basis: The signage at the location forms the basis of any purported contract. If the £60 debt recovery fee is not explicitly mentioned on the sign, it cannot be considered part of the terms agreed upon by motorists. Please provide photographic evidence of the exact signage in place at the time of the alleged contravention, showing that it clearly states this additional fee as part of the terms.
• Consumer Rights Act 2015: Even if such a charge were mentioned (which is denied), any term imposing an arbitrary £60 penalty would likely be deemed an unfair contract term and unenforceable.
• VAT Clarification: While you assert that your VAT-liable services are distinct, this does not explain how the £60 is calculated or why it should be recoverable from the motorist. Provide a clear breakdown of this charge and its VAT treatment.
Without evidence that the £60 charge was explicitly agreed upon and prominently displayed on the signage, this fee is unenforceable.
2. Nature of the Alleged Parking Charge
Your response suggests the parking charge is for breach of contract, yet you have also implied it is a contractual fee. This inconsistency is misleading. Please clarify:
• Was the parking charge issued as damages for a breach of contract or as a fee for a contractual service?
• If it is for breach of contract, provide evidence of how the charge is a legitimate reflection of the breach. If it is a fee, explain how the “core terms” of the contract were agreed upon by a motorist who neither parked nor authorised any contractual agreement.
3. Signage and Contractual Clarity
You assert that the vehicle was parked directly beside your client’s signage, making the terms of the contract clear. However, proximity to a sign does not necessarily equate to an acceptance of its terms, especially if the sign is unclear, ambiguous, or fails to meet legal and regulatory standards.
I require the following evidence to properly assess the validity of your claim:
• Photographs of the Signage: Clear, timestamped photographs of the specific sign next to which the vehicle was parked. These should demonstrate the content, visibility, and clarity of the sign, including any relevant lighting or obstructions present at the time of the alleged contravention.
• Compliance with the IPC Code of Practice: Evidence that the signage complies with the International Parking Community (IPC) Code of Practice, specifically regarding font size, contrast, placement, and visibility.
• Reference to Additional Charges: If you assert that the £60 debt recovery fee is enforceable, you must provide evidence that this charge was clearly displayed on the sign. Any terms not prominently displayed cannot form part of a purported contract.
Simply parking near a sign does not amount to unequivocal acceptance of its terms, particularly if those terms are unclear, inconspicuous, or inconsistent with regulatory standards. If the sign failed to make the terms of the alleged contract clear, any claim of breach is invalid.
4. NtK and NtD Non-Compliance with PoFA
As the Registered Keeper responding to this Letter of Claim, I note that both the Notice to Driver (NtD) and the Notice to Keeper (NtK) fail to comply with the statutory requirements of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA). Specifically, they do not meet the requirement to "specify the period of parking" as mandated by paragraphs 7(2)(a) (NtD) and 8(2)(a) (NtK).
Failure to Specify "Period of Parking"
• The NtD and NtK both provide only a single timestamp of 0948, which does not constitute a "period of parking" as required under PoFA. A single timestamp merely indicates the vehicle’s presence at a specific moment in time but does not demonstrate that the vehicle was parked for a "period," as defined by law.
• PoFA explicitly requires the notice to specify "the vehicle, the relevant land on which it was parked, and the period of parking to which the notice relates." Without a defined period, the notices fail to establish any alleged contravention.
Relevance of "Unauthorised Parking"
• Even in cases of "unauthorised parking," PoFA mandates that the notice must "specify the period of parking." The term "parking" inherently implies a duration of time during which the vehicle was stationary. A single timestamp, such as 0948, does not substantiate the alleged contravention or demonstrate that the vehicle was parked without authorisation for any specific period.
• Without specifying a period of parking, it is impossible to determine whether the alleged breach occurred or whether the vehicle was legitimately stationary for a reasonable duration, such as to read unclear signage.
Non-Compliance Undermines Keeper Liability
As liability under PoFA depends on strict compliance with its requirements, the failure to specify a period of parking in both the NtD and NtK means that your client cannot transfer liability to the registered keeper. Any further attempts to pursue the alleged debt against me as the Keeper are baseless and constitute unreasonable behaviour.
5. Misapplication of the Beavis Case
It is astonishing that your client and yourselves, their bulk-litigation representative, continue to refer to ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] as though it is some kind of universal panacea that legitimises all parking charge notices (PCNs), regardless of the specific facts of the case or the legal framework. This misuse of the Beavis precedent demonstrates an embarrassing lack of understanding of its scope and applicability.
Fundamental Differences Between This Case and Beavis
The circumstances of Beavis involved a free retail car park with clear and prominent signage, where the charge was deemed commercially justified as a deterrent to overstaying. Key factors considered by the Supreme Court included:
• The clear and prominent nature of the signage.
• The legitimate interest of the landowner in managing parking for commercial benefit.
• The absence of terms or charges that were disproportionate or extravagant.
In stark contrast:
1. The alleged contravention in this case involves "unauthorised parking," not overstaying in a free car park. The Beavis principles do not automatically apply.
2. The signage relied upon by your client has not been demonstrated to meet the same standard of clarity and prominence as in Beavis.
3. Your client seeks to impose an additional £60 "debt recovery" charge that was not mentioned in Beavis and appears to be an arbitrary penalty, inconsistent with the Consumer Rights Act 2015.
Irrelevance of Beavis to This Matter
Your attempt to rely on Beavis without addressing these fundamental differences only serves to undermine your position and highlights the flawed nature of your claim. To treat Beavis as a one-size-fits-all justification for PCNs shows an alarming disregard for the nuances of contract law and the specific circumstances required for the Beavis principles to apply.
Conclusion on Misapplication
The reference to Beavis in this case does not strengthen your client’s claim—it weakens it by drawing attention to the significant deficiencies in their approach. Should this matter proceed to court, I will not hesitate to bring your client’s misuse of Beavis to the court's attention as evidence of poor litigation practice and a lack of legal understanding.
6. Data Protection and Address for Service
You have failed to confirm that any outdated address has been erased from your records in compliance with data protection obligations. I repeat my request for confirmation that my current address for service is the only one held on file.
Conclusion
Your response has failed to justify the alleged debt or meaningfully address the serious concerns I raised, particularly regarding the lack of compliance with PoFA, the absence of a contractual basis for additional charges, and the misapplication of legal precedent. I maintain that the alleged debt is disputed, and should you proceed with legal action, I will robustly defend the claim, highlighting your client’s unreasonable and potentially unlawful conduct.
I remind you of your obligations under the Overriding Objective and the Pre-Action Protocols to avoid unnecessary court proceedings. Should you continue to provide inadequate responses or pursue this baseless claim, I will ensure that your client’s conduct and misuse of legal processes are brought to the court’s attention.
Yours faithfully,
[Your Name]
