Free Traffic Legal Advice

Welcome to FTLA.

A couple of questions to start off:

• In whose name did you appeal?
• When appealing, did you select any options identifying yourself as the driver?
• Have you checked your spam emails to make sure a reply hasn't gone missing?
  

There are no time-limits in place for the car park

The signage says "VISITOR (V) BAYS - VALID 24 HOURS MAX STAY".

PCM's signage is often a bit rubbish - are you able to get any photos showing its placement and prominence within the car park?

When you appealed the Notice to Driver (NtD) that was affixed to the vehicle, did you do so in your name as the Driver? Silly move if you did but we are where we are. PCM had no idea of the drivers identity until you gave it to them on a plate. Only the driver can be liable for the charge, especially if they have not complied fully with all the requirements of PoFA.

In whose name is the Notice to Keeper (NtK)? It matters not who the owner of the vehicle is. There is only a Registered Keeper and a Driver and they are both separate legal entities. The Keeper is under no legal obligation to identify the Driver and should never do so.

Based on the photos you have shown, no contract could have been formed based on the signage and the requirements to display the stupid scratch cards.

The way we would normally advise the Keeper of a vehicle that has received an NtD to appeal only as the Keeper on day 27 after the NtD is issued. This is because sometimes the operator will then respond to the appeal, invariably rejecting the appeal, but having failed to issue an NtK, cannot then rely on PoFA to hold the Keeper liable.

IN this case, the NtD itself is not PoFA compliant as it does not define the period of parking. This invalidates the PCN and they cannot transfer liability to the Keeper if the driver is not identified.

Whilst PCM have ignored the fact that their PCN is not PoFA compliant, they have threatened Keeper liability in the NtK. As they are IPC members, I do not advise trying to appeal to the IAS as that invariably is a waste of time. Others will disagree and if you do try, remember that you have a less than 5% chance of succeeding.

The ideal way this will be sorted is if they try to make a claim in the county court for the alleged debt. Here you will have around a 99% chance of winning.

You only need to safely ignore any debt collector or Debt Recovery Agent (DRA) letters. We don't need to see or know about them and you can safely use them as kindling. The DRAs are not a party to any contract allegedly breached by the driver and the are powerless to actually do anything except try and scare the low-hanging fruit on the gullible tree into paying up out of ignorance and fear.

If/when the Keeper receives a Letter of Claim (LoC) then came back and show us for further advice.

Hi,

We have now received a 'Keeper Liability Notice' from PCM, added to the imgur at https://imgur.com/a/Hb0XMuU

Is this the same as a Letter of Claim? Does it require any response?

Thanks

No, that is not an LoC. You are a way off receiving an LoC. What you have received is the Notice to Keeper (NtK).

Did you send the appeal as suggested on day 27?

When I first posted we had already received the Notice to Keeper (dated 17/1/25) and were past the 27 days from the driver notice. I had previously submitted an appeal but had not received any response. Have they just sent another notice to keeper then? The one from 17/1 specifies it is Notice to Keeper, and the recent one (dated 14/2) says Keeper Liability Notice.

I guess I just continue to wait to receive the Letter of Claim?

Thanks

As the driver has not been identified and the PCN is not PoFA compliant, the Keeper cannot be liable and it would be the claimants burden to prove the identity of the driver. No assumptions or inferences can be made.

Moorside Legal are firm of utter incompetent wannabe legals so no worries there. you can rest assured that when they issue the claim, they will fail to comply with CPR 16.4(1)(a) which is usually fatal to their claim and a request for strike out will be made with the defence.

In the meantime, you can respond to their rubbish LoC with the following by email to info@moorsidelegal.co.uk and CC yourself:

Dear Sirs,

Your Letter Before Claim contains insufficient detail of the claim and fails to provide copies of evidence your client places reliance upon and thus is in complete contravention of the Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims.

I am the registered keeper of the vehicle. I am not obliged to identify the driver and I decline to do so. As there is no legal presumption that the keeper of a vehicle was its driver on any particular occasion, your client cannot pursue me as driver as per VCS v Edward (2023) [H0KF6C9C].

If your client intends to rely on Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA) to establish keeper liability, they are precluded from doing so. The initial Notice to Driver failed to comply with paragraph 7(2)(a), and the subsequent Notice to Keeper was similarly defective under paragraph 8(2)(a). As such, the statutory conditions for invoking keeper liability have not been met. Should your client proceed to issue a claim, I will rely on the persuasive appellate authority in Brennan v Premier Parking Solutions Ltd (2023), which confirms that non-compliance with PoFA renders keeper liability unenforceable. If your firm were competent enough to advise your client accurately, you would already be aware of this fatal deficiency.

As your client cannot pursue me as driver or keeper, it would be an abuse of the court’s process for your client to issue a claim against me and I will defend any such claim vigorously and seek costs in relation to your client’s unreasonable and vexatious conduct under Part 27.14(2)(g)

Because your letter lacks specificity and breaches the requirements of the Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims (paragraphs 3.1(a)-(d), 5.1 and 5.2) as well as the Practice Direction - Pre-Action Conduct (paragraphs 6(a) and 6(c)), you must treat this letter as a formal request for all of the documents/information that the protocol now requires your client to provide. Your client must not issue proceedings without complying with that protocol.

As solicitors you must surely be familiar with the requirements of both the Practice Direction and the Pre-Action Protocol for debt claims and your client, as a serial litigator of debt claims, should likewise be aware of them. As you (and your client) must know, the Practice Direction and Protocol bind all potential litigants, whatever the size or type of the claim. Its express purpose is to assist parties in understanding the claim and their respective positions in relation to it, to enable parties to take stock of their positions and to negotiate a settlement, or at least narrow the issues, without incurring the costs of court proceedings or using up valuable court time. It is embarrassing that a firm of Solicitors are sending a consumer a vague and un-evidenced 'Letter of Claim' in complete ignorance of the pre-existing Practice Direction and the Pre-Action Protocol.

I confirm that, once I am in receipt of a Letter Before Claim that complies with the requirements of para 3.1 (a) of the Pre-Action Protocol, I shall then seek advice and submit a formal response within 30 days, as required by the Protocol. Thus, I require your client to comply with its obligations by sending me the following information/documents:

1. An explanation of the cause of action
2. whether they are pursuing me as driver or keeper
3. whether they are relying on the provisions of Schedule 4 of POFA 2012
4. what the details of the claim are; for how long it is claimed the vehicle was parked, how the monies being claimed arose and have been calculated
5. Is the claim for a contractual breach? If so, what is the date of the agreement? The names of the parties to it and provide to me a copy of that contract.
6. If the claim is for a contractual breach, photographs showing the vehicle was parked in contravention of said contract.
7. Is the claim for trespass? If so, provide details.
8. Provide me a copy of the contract with the landowner under which they assert authority to bring the claim, as required by the BPA/IPC Private Parking Single Code of Practice (PPSCoP).
9. a plan showing where any signs were displayed
10. Photographs of the signs displayed (size of sign, size of font, height at which displayed) at the time of any alleged contravention.
11. Provide details of the original charge, and detail any interest and administrative or other charges added
12. Am I to understand that 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?
13. With regard to the principal alleged PCN sum: Is this damages, or will it be pleaded as consideration for parking?

I am clearly entitled to this information under paragraphs 6(a) and 6(c) of the Practice Direction. I also need it in order to comply with my own obligations under paragraph 6(b).

If your client does not provide me with this information then I put you on notice that I will be relying on the cases of Webb Resolutions Ltd v Waller Needham & Green [2012] EWHC 3529 (Ch), Daejan Investments Limited v The Park West Club Limited (Part 20) Buxton Associates [2003] EWHC 2872, Charles Church Developments Ltd v Stent Foundations Limited & Peter Dann Limited [2007] EWHC 855 in asking the court to impose sanctions on your client and to order a stay of the proceedings, pursuant to paragraphs 13, 15(b) and (c) and 16 of the Practice Direction, as referred to in paragraph 7.2 of the Protocol.

Until your client has complied with its obligations and provided this information, I am unable to respond properly to the alleged claim and to consider my position in relation to it, and it is entirely premature (and a waste of costs and court time) for your client to issue proceedings. Should your client do so, then I will seek an immediate stay pursuant to paragraph 15(b) of the Practice Direction and an order that this information is provided.

Yours faithfully,

[Your name]

Hi there,

6 weeks after sending Moorside Legal the drafted response to letter of claim, they have responded to the email saying that in order to process it I need to pass their security checks by confirming address and post code, and vehicle registration. Should I respond to this with the requested information?

Email language below:

Dear
Thank you for your email.
To enable us to process your email, we need to confirm that we are corresponding with the correct individual. To pass our security checks, we ask that you confirm the following: 
Address and post code
Vehicle registration
Please reply to this email to continue the email thread. 
Yours sincerely
Moorside Legal