Free Traffic Legal Advice

Dear Sirs,

Re: Letter of Claim dated 17th December 2024

I refer to your Letter of Claim.

I confirm that my address for service at this time is as follows, and I request that any outdated address be erased from your records to ensure compliance with data protection obligations:

[YOUR ADDRESS]

Please note that the alleged debt is disputed, and any court proceedings will be robustly defended.

I note that the sum claimed has been increased by an excessive and unjustifiable amount, which appears contrary to the principles established by the Government, who described such practices as “extorting money from motorists.” Please refrain from sending boilerplate responses or justifications regarding this issue.

Under the Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims, I require specific answers to the following questions:

1. Does the additional £60 represent what you describe as a “Debt Recovery” fee? If so, is this figure net of or inclusive of VAT? If inclusive, I trust you will explain why I, as the alleged debtor, am being asked to cover your client’s VAT liability.

2. Regarding the principal sum of the alleged Parking Charge Notice (PCN), is this being claimed as damages for breach of contract, or will it be pleaded as consideration for a purported parking contract?

I would caution you against simply dismissing these questions with vague or boilerplate responses, as I am fully aware of the implications. By claiming that PCNs are exempt from VAT while simultaneously inflating the debt recovery element, your client – with your assistance – appears to be evading VAT obligations due to HMRC. Such mendacious conduct raises serious questions about the legality and ethics of your and your clients practices.

I strongly advise your client to cease and desist. Should this matter proceed to court, you can be assured that these issues will be brought to the court’s attention, alongside a robust defence and potentially a counterclaim for unreasonable conduct.

Yours faithfully,


[YOUR NAME]

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]

IN THE COUNTY COURT

Claim No: [Claim Number]

BETWEEN:

Norwich Traffic Control 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 further submits that the Claimant cannot hold the Defendant liable as the registered keeper due to non-compliance with Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA).

5. The Notice to Driver (NtD) and Notice to Keeper (NtK) failed to comply with paragraphs 7(2)(a) and 8(2)(a) of PoFA, which require the Claimant to "specify the period of parking." Instead, the notices merely record a single point in time, which is insufficient.

6. The persuasive appeal decision in Scott Brennan v Premier Parking Solutions (2023) H6DP632H supports this position. At paragraph 27, HHJ Mitchell clarified that PoFA requires a recorded minimum period of parking, not merely an instant in time. Since the Claimant has failed to do so, its notices are non-compliant and incapable of transferring liability to the keeper.

7. The Claimant is put to strict proof of the allegation that the Defendant was the driver, as no presumption of driver liability exists. In VCS v Edward (2023) HOKF6C9C, HHJ Gargan (paragraph 35) held that it is not appropriate to infer that the registered keeper was the driver in the absence of evidence. The Claimant has failed to establish PoFA compliance and cannot assume keeper liability.

8. The Claimant has failed to engage meaningfully with the Defendant's Letter of Claim (LoC) response and has not addressed critical issues, breaching the Pre-Action Protocols (PAP). The Claimant’s solicitor has:

(a) Failed to respond to the Defendant’s argument that the £60 'debt recovery' charge is unenforceable, as it was not explicitly stated on the signage, nor does it comply with the Consumer Rights Act 2015.

(b) Ignored the Defendant’s request for timestamped photographs of the signage in situ at the time of the alleged contravention, despite claiming compliance with the IPC Code of Practice.

(c) Provided a generalised statement about signage but failed to establish that the specific signage at the location was clear, legible, and compliant with contractual and consumer law.

(d) Refused to acknowledge or address the failure to specify a "period of parking" in the NtD and NtK, thereby failing to justify their attempt to hold the Keeper liable under PoFA.

(e) Misapplied ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] without demonstrating that the facts of this case align with the Beavis ruling. The Claimant’s reliance on Beavis ignores the distinctions regarding signage, the contractual basis of the charge, and whether the charge is genuinely a deterrent.

9. The Claimant’s failure to engage meaningfully with the Defendant’s response demonstrates unreasonable behaviour under CPR 27.14(2)(g) and a failure to comply with the Pre-Action Protocols (PAP). The Defendant submits that this warrants a strike-out of the claim or, in the alternative, a costs order for unreasonable conduct.

10. 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.

11. 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: