That reply from Ms Bailey is weak and defensive — they're clearly rattled. Their key tells are:
• refusal to disclose any invoices or proof of third-party debt recovery;
• backpedal from their own “PoFA not relied on” stance;
• reliance on Elliott v Loake and CPS v AJH Films, which are both discredited in this context;
• and another attempt to blur the line between assisting and conducting litigation.
I suggest you respond with:
Subject: Signal Court (16/04/2025) — Formal Notice: Reliance on Misleading Authority and VAT Evidence
Dear Ms Bailey,
Thank you for your response dated [insert date].
1. VAT and the £70 uplift
Your confirmation that the £70 “does not contain VAT” and that “charges may include VAT” stands as an unequivocal admission that no VAT-bearing service was procured. This destroys any pretence that the £70 represents a genuine third-party cost. You are now on notice that this point will be relied upon at hearing to demonstrate that the £70 is a fabricated in-house charge, not a loss, expense, or recoverable sum under any head of law.
If the £70 were truly “incurred”, a VAT invoice and remittance proof would exist. Your refusal to disclose these documents will be drawn to the Court’s attention as evidence that they do not exist.
2. Statutory Cap and Mischaracterisation
Schedule 4, paragraph 4(5) of PoFA is clear: where keeper liability is invoked, the sum recoverable is limited to that specified in the Notice to Keeper. You have now expressly stated that you are relying on PoFA, which means the £70 uplift is statutorily barred. You cannot simultaneously assert PoFA compliance and rely on a non-PoFA contractual or “consequential loss” theory.
3. Misuse of Criminal Authorities
Your reliance on Elliott v Loake and CPS v AJH Films is misconceived. Elliott v Loake is a criminal case ([1983] Crim LR 36) and provides no civil presumption that a registered keeper was the driver. AJH Films ([2015] EWCA Civ 1453) is a civil case on vicarious liability in an employer/employee context; it has no application to a private individual’s keeper liability. Unless you plead and prove an identified driver or strict PoFA keeper liability, your authorities are irrelevant.
4. Standing and Authority
Your refusal to disclose the landowner contract, subsistence evidence, and delegation chain until “requested by the Court” is non-compliant with the Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims. It prevents the narrowing of issues and will be raised as unreasonable conduct when costs are addressed.
5. Conduct of Litigation
I note your statement that “all litigation will be conducted in line with the Legal Services Act 2007.” That statement is circular and non-responsive. Please confirm whether Ms Scriminger-Faulkner and yourself are personally authorised under Schedule 2 of the Act to conduct litigation, and if not, that any court pleadings, statements of truth, or witness evidence will be signed and submitted exclusively by Mr Shoreman-Lawson or another authorised person.
Should unauthorised personnel perform reserved legal activities, I will refer the matter to the SRA without further notice.
Conclusion
Your client’s position is unsustainable in law. The £70 uplift will not survive judicial scrutiny, and your reliance on discredited authority will be cited on conduct and costs. If you are not personally authorised to conduct litigation, it may be prudent to refer this correspondence to an authorised individual within your firm who is capable of addressing the substantive legal issues raised.
I will now await formal proceedings or discontinuance. Further correspondence of a generic or repetitive nature will not be acknowledged.
Yours faithfully,
[Name]
[Address]
