Free Traffic Legal Advice

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 evidence your client places reliance upon and thus is in complete contravention of the Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims.

As a firm of supposed solicitors, one would expect you to be capable of crafting a letter that aligns 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 do not exist for decoration—they exist to facilitate informed discussion and proportionate resolution. You might wish to reacquaint yourselves with them.

For the avoidance of doubt, I will not accept being required to use your web portal; all communication must be conducted exclusively by email or post, at your election.

The Civil Procedure Rules 1998, Pre-Action Conduct and Protocols (Part 3), stipulate that prior to proceedings, parties should have exchanged sufficient information to understand each other’s position. Part 6 helpfully clarifies that this includes disclosure of key documents relevant to the issues in dispute.

Your template letter mentions a “contract”, yet fails to provide one. This would appear to undermine the only foundation upon which your client’s claim allegedly rests. It’s difficult to engage in meaningful pre-litigation dialogue when your side declines to furnish the very document it purports to enforce.

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. A copy of the original Notice to Keeper (NtK) that confirms any PoFA 2012 liability
2. A copy of the contract (or contracts) you allege exists between your client and the driver, in the form of an actual photograph of the sign you contend was at the location on the material date, not a generic stock image
3. The exact wording of the clause (or clauses) of the terms and conditions of the contract(s) which is (are) relied upon that you allege to have been breached
4. The written agreement between your client and the landowner, establishing authority to enforce
5. A breakdown of the charges claimed, identifying whether the principal sum is claimed as consideration or damages, and whether the £70 “debt recovery” fee includes VAT
6. The full name and role of the person with conduct of this matter and their regulatory status/authorisation to conduct litigation

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]

Re: Your defective pre-action conduct – demand for proper PAPDC compliance

For the attention of: the person with conduct of this matter

Dear Sirs,

Your latest email repeats assertions and still fails to engage with the Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims (“PAPDC”) and the Practice Direction – Pre-Action Conduct and Protocols (“PD-PACP”). You have not provided the documents expressly requested to enable informed discussion and proportionate resolution.

Allegation: “Parked outside the confines of a marked bay”
If this is your pleaded breach, provide:

1. Contemporaneous, time-stamped photographs from the material date clearly showing the vehicle and the bay boundaries/markings (wide and close-up).
2. The exact contractual clause relied upon, as displayed on the signage on the material date.
3. A site plan showing bay layout and the locations of all relevant signs visible from the area in question.

Protocol/PD breaches and core documents still missing
You have not complied with PAPDC ¶¶3.1(a)–(d), 5.1–5.2 and PD-PACP ¶¶6(a), 6(c). In particular, you have failed to provide:

• Contemporaneous photographs of the signage in situ on the material date (not generic artwork).
• The precise contractual clause(s) allegedly breached.
• The landowner contract/authority establishing your client’s standing to operate and to litigate.
• A clear, lawful breakdown of the principal sum and the pleaded legal basis for any sum above the face value of the PCN (which is denied).
Web portals

I will not use a portal. Pre-action obligations are not satisfied by pointing to one. Provide documents by email or post.

Inflated add-on
Trade-association codes do not expand recoverable sums. The £70 “debt recovery” add-on (or any iteration of it) is not recoverable and will be opposed as abusive (see Excel Parking Services Ltd v Wilkinson (County Court appeal, 2020)).

Next steps
On receipt of a compliant Letter of Claim and the above documents, I will seek advice and provide a full response within 30 days as contemplated by the PAPDC. If you issue without first complying, I will apply for an immediate stay under PD-PACP ¶15(b), seek an order for disclosure, and invite the court to impose sanctions and costs (see Webb Resolutions Ltd v Waller Needham & Green [2012] EWHC 3529 (Ch); Daejan Investments Ltd v Park West Club Ltd [2003] EWHC 2872; Charles Church Developments Ltd v Stent Foundations Ltd [2007] EWHC 855).

SRA referral
If your firm persists in (i) refusing to comply with the PAPDC/PD-PACP, (ii) attempting to force portal use in place of disclosure, and/or (iii) presenting inflated or contradictory sums and mischaracterising add-ons as recoverable, I will refer this pre-action conduct to the Solicitors Regulation Authority for investigation under the SRA Principles and Code of Conduct (misleading communications and failure to act with integrity and in a way that upholds public trust).

What you must now provide (within 14 days)

1. The NtK relied upon (showing strict PoFA compliance, if alleged) – accepted if already complete.
2. Contemporaneous photographs of all signage and the actual bay/area as it was on the material date.
3. The exact contractual clause(s) allegedly breached.
4. The landowner contract/authority to operate and to litigate.
5. A clear breakdown of the principal sum and the legal basis for any sum above the PCN face value.

Absent compliance, treat this as your final opportunity to rectify your non-compliance.

Yours faithfully,

Re: Your continuing PAPDC/PD-PACP non-compliance – High Point Village

For the attention of: the person with conduct of this matter

Dear Sirs,

I acknowledge receipt of your email of 27/10/2025 attaching (again) the postal parking charge, a signage image and photographs of the vehicle. Your message still does not comply with the Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims (PAPDC) or the Practice Direction – Pre-Action Conduct and Protocols (PD-PACP).

What remains missing (despite repeated requests)
[indent[1. The precise contractual clause(s) allegedly breached (for “parked outside the confines of a marked bay”) as displayed on the material date.
2. Contemporaneous, time-stamped, wide-angle photographs showing the vehicle in situ relative to the bay boundaries/markings and the nearest terms signs (not cropped close-ups).
3. A site plan identifying bay layout and the location of all terms signs visible from the relevant area on the material date.
4. Landowner contract/authority conferring standing to operate and to litigate.
5. A clear, lawful breakdown of the principal sum and the pleaded legal basis for any sum above the face value of the PCN.[/indent]

Your latest attachments do not cure those deficiencies. If the images you rely upon are contemporaneous, provide their capture dates/times and originals with embedded metadata together with the site plan.

Landowner authority (locus standi)
Your assertion that authority is “unclear” or irrelevant is wrong in law. Locus standi is a threshold issue. Produce the landowner agreement.

Portal refusal
Pre-action obligations are not discharged by pointing to a portal. Provide the documents by email or post.

£70 add-on
Trade-association codes do not expand recoverable damages. The £70 “debt recovery” add-on is denied and will be opposed as an abuse. Please confirm now whether you intend to plead any amount above the face value of the PCN and the legal basis for doing so.

Next steps / SRA
Upon receipt of a compliant Letter of Claim and the above documents, I will seek advice and provide a full response within 30 days as contemplated by the PAPDC. If you issue without first complying, I will apply for an immediate stay under PD-PACP ¶15(b), seek an order compelling disclosure, and invite the court to impose sanctions and costs (including by reference to the authorities previously cited).

If your firm persists in (i) refusing to comply with PAPDC/PD-PACP, (ii) attempting to force portal use in place of disclosure, and/or (iii) presenting inflated/irrecoverable sums as if recoverable, I will refer this pre-action conduct to the Solicitors Regulation Authority for investigation under the SRA Principles and Code of Conduct (misleading communications; failure to act with integrity and in a way that upholds public trust).

What you must provide within 14 days

• The exact contractual clause(s) relied upon;
• Contemporaneous photographs (with dates/times/metadata) of the vehicle relative to bay markings and nearby terms signs;
• A site plan of the area and sign locations as at the material date;
• The landowner authority/contract to operate and to litigate; and
• A lawful breakdown of the sum claimed, identifying the legal basis for any amount above the PCN face value.

Absent compliance, treat this as your final opportunity to rectify your non-compliance.

Yours faithfully,