Free Traffic Legal Advice

Quote from: InterCity125 on November 26, 2025, 11:16:39 am

Is the original NtK not PoFA compliant

Absolutely not. It does not comply with PoFA 9(2)(a) as there is no "period of parking" noted. A single point in time is not a "period".

Having FUBAR'd that winning point, you are also SNAFU'd because they have evidence that the driver remained parked for longer than the minimum 5 minute consideration period, and so a contract was formed.

You could try and argue:

Quote

The operator’s own images cover a total duration of only around six minutes. Under Section 5.1 of the Private Parking Single Code of Practice, a minimum consideration period of at least five minutes must be allowed for drivers to locate a bay, read the terms and decide whether to stay. The short interval shown is wholly consistent with that mandatory consideration period and does not establish that the driver parked beyond it or entered into any chargeable parking contract.

You never know.

PPS use the utterly incompetent wannabes at Gladstones to issue their claims. Gladstones never comply with CPR 16.4(1)(a) which means there is a high likelihood that any claim issued by them will be struck out before it ever reaches a hearing anyway.

As an aside... those photos all appear to show the driver in the vehicle with the footbrake applied as evidenced by the brake lights being illuminated. With that in mind, whilst you can’t honestly say there was no obstruction if the photos show the the car across a garage entrance, but you can argue:

• This was not “parking” in the sense contemplated by the sign (driver stayed in the vehicle, brake lights on, ready to move at any moment).
• The garage was locked and clearly not in active use at the time; the operator has produced no evidence that anyone wanted to use it or was prevented from doing so.
• Because the driver was present and able to move immediately, any potential obstruction was purely theoretical. Had access been needed, the vehicle would have been moved within seconds. A £100 charge for a brief, fully-controllable stop in front of a locked garage is penal and disproportionate.

You could frame it along these lines:

Quote

The operator’s photographs show the vehicle partly across a small garage entrance, but they also show the driver present in the driver’s seat at all times, with the brake lights illuminated. The garage door is closed and locked and there is no evidence that it was in use or that anybody wished to enter or exit during the brief period in question. In these circumstances, any “obstruction” was entirely theoretical. The vehicle was not parked and abandoned; it was a short, attended stop, and the driver could and would have moved immediately had access been required. It is wholly disproportionate and unreasonable to demand £100 for such a transient, attended stop in front of a locked garage with no evidence of any actual obstruction or loss.

That keeps it realistic (acknowledges what the photos show) but pushes back hard on “obstructive parking” as a £100 contractual breach.

Yes, it does seem that the original PCN does not comply with CPR 16.4(1)(a). I wonder whether that would be enough to have the case dropped if it goes to court.

Subject: Response to your Letter of Claim – Ref: [reference number]

Dear Sirs,

Your Letter Before Claim contains insufficient detail of the claim and fails to provide copies of the evidence your client intends to rely upon. It is therefore non‑compliant with the Pre‑Action Protocol for Debt Claims (PAPDC). As a supposed firm of solicitors, one would expect you to comply with paragraphs 3.1(a)–(d), 5.1 and 5.2 of the Protocol, and paragraphs 6(a) and 6(c) of the Practice Direction. These provisions exist to facilitate informed, proportionate resolution, and I suggest you reacquaint yourselves with them.

The Civil Procedure Rules 1998, Pre‑Action Conduct and Protocols (Part 3), require each party to exchange sufficient information to understand the other’s position. Part 6 clarifies that this includes disclosure of key documents relevant to the issues in dispute. Your template letter refers to a “contract” yet encloses none. That omission undermines the very basis upon which your client’s claim allegedly rests. It is not possible to engage in any form of meaningful pre‑litigation dialogue while you refuse to furnish the documents you purport to enforce.

I confirm that, once I am in receipt of a Letter Before Claim that complies with paragraph 3.1(a), I shall seek advice and submit a full response within 30 days. Accordingly, please now provide:

1. A copy of the original Notice to Keeper and the full notice chain relied upon to assert any alleged PoFA 2012 liability.
2. An actual photograph of the sign(s) in situ on the material date (not stock images), together with a contemporaneous site map showing sign locations.
3. The precise wording of the contractual term(s) your client alleges were breached.
4. The written agreement between your client and the landowner evidencing authority to manage, enforce and litigate in their own name.
5. A clear breakdown of the sums claimed, identifying whether the principal amount is alleged consideration or damages, and clarifying the legal basis and VAT position of the £70 add‑on.

These documents are required under paragraphs 6(a) and 6(c) of the Practice Direction to enable me to meet my obligation under paragraph 6(b).

Your letter’s attempt at intimidation

I also note that your accompanying schedule manages to refer to a “CCJ” four times, in what is clearly intended as a coercive device rather than legitimate legal information. The repetition is telling: it demonstrates not confidence in your client’s position, but reliance on fear as a substitute for substance.

To be clear: I am fully aware that a County Court Judgment only arises after your client wins a claim (which is unlikely on the facts), and even then, any judgment paid within one calendar month is removed from the register and has no impact on credit. Your overuse of the term “CCJ” is therefore not only pointless but improper.

Your firm is on notice that this conduct will now be reported to:

• the Solicitors Regulation Authority, for use of misleading and oppressive tactics contrary to the SRA Code of Conduct; and
• the Competition and Markets Authority, under the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024, given the statutory prohibition on coercive and misleading commercial practices.

If you proceed to issue a claim without first providing the documents and information required under the PAPDC and Pre‑Action Conduct, I will draw your non‑compliance to the Court’s attention and seek appropriate sanctions, including a stay and case‑management orders pursuant to paragraph 15(b) of the Practice Direction. Any unreasonable conduct by you or your client will be relied upon in support of an application for costs.

For the avoidance of doubt, I will not engage with any web portal. I will respond only via email or post.

Yours faithfully,

[Your Name]