Free Traffic Legal Advice

I received the following email from ELMS, noting they have not responded to my email sent yesterday challenging the £70.

---------
Good morning

Further to my previous email, please find attached the contract containing a site map, and a clear copy of the sign, as requested in your email below.

Please let us know if you require any further information.

Kind Regards
 
Angie Bailey
 
ELMS Legal Limited
----------

Attachments below:

https://ibb.co/dJ4dN3yN
https://ibb.co/ZpR96TJ2
https://ibb.co/7Jnzsz6w

Is the contract out of date or am I missing something?

I've not asked them anything more about the contract, I also got a response from them ref the VAT issue as follows, should I now just wait for the legal pack to come through?

----------
Good morning,

Thank you for your email, the contents of which we have noted.

I can confirm that there is no VAT added to the £70.00 fee.

You have stated that you feel the £70.00 Debt Recovery Fee is not recoverable, however the Private Parking Sector Single Code of Practice (2024) reads as follows:

“09    Escalation of costs    Where a Parking Charge becomes overdue a sum of up to £70 may be added.”

There is no requirement to provide invoices, remittances, statements or any further evidence to support the addition of this amount and therefore this is not something which we would provide. 

With regard to your previous comments, the amount of the parking charge falls within the “between £50 to £100” bracket quoted at paragraph 111 of Parking Eye -v- Beavis [2015]. It is also in keeping with the guidelines given by the ATA: - “Part 8.2.1, The Private Parking Sector Single Code of Practice version 1.1 dated 17/02/2025 states “Parking Charges must not exceed £100.”. The amount charged is set at a rate that covers the operational costs of the parking management scheme and acts as a deterrent, as was found to be appropriate in Parking Eye -v- Beavis [2015].

The hold on the above case is due to expire on 17 November 2025.

If payment of £170.00 was made before this date, then the case would not proceed any further. We would also be able to accept this either in full or via instalments over a maximum of 10 months. If you would like to set up a payment plan please contact us to advise how much you would be looking to make payment for and which date of the month would be best for the payments to be due, then we would be able to set this up on our system which would put a hold on any legal proceedings.

If you are wanting to make a payment on the outstanding balance, please contact us on 01529 406096 or alternatively, you can make payment online through our website at https://elmslegal.co.uk/payments/

Please ensure you use your unique reference number, XXXXXXXX, so that we can allocate your payment to your account, otherwise the payment may not be registered and will be returned to you resulting in the balance still being outstanding.

Alternatively, if you were looking to dispute the matter further then you would be able to do so once the case has been issued. Once this has been issued the court would send you a claim pack which would allow you to file a full defence and have your case allocated to a hearing.

Kind Regards

Emily Scriminger-Faulkner

Deputy Team Leader

ELMS Legal Limited
-------

Thanks once again for all your help & guidance.

The “Extended Term” clause at 6.4 is conditional upon notice of extension being served

Is it? I can see mention of written notice being required for termination, but renewal seems to be automatic. I'd agree raising the point about the length of time would seem sensible nonetheless.

Just trying to put together both posts, would the following suffice as a response, I've combined them to the best of my ability/knowledge:

Having reviewed the contract, I note it provides for automatic continuation beyond 30/08/2016 absent termination.

1. You are therefore put to strict proof that the agreement subsisted continuously to 16/04/2025 and that the contracting entity (RMG) held and still holds authority from the landowner to confer enforcement and litigation rights on VCS. Please provide copies of any renewals, addenda, or confirmations post-2016, evidence of ongoing consideration (annual signage/maintenance invoices), and the current site plan and signage audit. In the absence of such proof, your client lacks standing.
2. The document grants Vehicle Control Services Ltd only a non-exclusive licence to occupy, not proprietary rights or standing to litigate.
3. The signature is by a property manager, not the freeholder or superior landlord.
4. The signage you rely upon is purely prohibitive (“Valid Permit Holders Only”) and cannot form a contractual offer to unauthorised drivers. Any alleged contravention would, at most, constitute trespass—an action available only to the landowner.
5. The sign states “charges may include VAT”, whereas you have now confirmed that the £70 “does not contain VAT”. That inconsistency will be relied upon as evidence that no third-party cost was incurred and that the £70 uplift is an unrecoverable fabrication.

In view of the above, please confirm within seven days whether you still intend to pursue this matter despite lacking (a) subsisting landowner authority, (b) any enforceable contract, and (c) a recoverable £70 uplift. If you proceed regardless, I will invite the Court to strike out the claim and will seek costs for unreasonable conduct.

Thanks

So why have you not bothered to show us the copy of the contract referred to in that response????

Respond to that rubbish from  with:

Subject: Signal Court (16/04/2025) — Strict proof of standing, subsistence, signage and £70 uplift

Dear Ms Scriminger-Faulkner,

Thank you for your email.

“Contract remains in place” — assertion is not evidence
A bare confirmation is insufficient for PAPDC purposes. Please provide strict proof that the 07/07/2015 agreement subsisted continuously to 16/04/2025, namely:

• Copies of any renewals, extensions, side letters or variations post-2016;
• Annual invoices/receipts for the contract consideration (e.g. sign rental/maintenance) and any management charges;
• A current authority letter from the landowner/freeholder (or superior landlord) confirming that Residential Management Group Ltd had and still has authority to appoint VCS to enforce and to litigate in its own name at Signal Court in 2025.

Clauses 3.5 and 5.2
You rely on 3.5 (“may extend to debt recovery and/or court action”) and 5.2 (“including suing for their recovery”). Those clauses are only operative if (a) the agreement was in force in 2025; and (b) the counterparty was legally empowered by the landowner to delegate litigation rights. Produce the upstream mandate from the landowner evidencing RMG’s power to confer locus standi. Without it, your client’s alleged standing is put to strict proof.

Site plan and signage — material-date proof required
The plan you supplied is historic and marked “not to scale”. Please provide a contemporaneous (April 2025) signage audit: the number, locations, sizes and wording of all signs as at the material date, and photographs showing visibility on the approach, at the bay and at night. The principal sign you rely on is prohibitive (“Valid Permit Holders Only”), offers no licence to non-permit users and therefore cannot form a contract with them; at most it alleges trespass, which only the landowner could pursue. This point is maintained.

£70 “debt recovery” uplift — your VAT admission remains material
You now say VAT is “not relevant”. It is. Your express confirmation that the £70 “does not contain VAT”, taken with the sign’s statement that “charges may include VAT”, is probative that no VATable third-party service was supplied or paid for and that the £70 is an internal surcharge. I will rely on that admission. For the avoidance of doubt:

• PoFA Sch.4 para 4(5) caps keeper liability at the NtK sum;
• The PPSCoP (17/02/2025) prohibits adding debt-recovery uplifts;
• CRA 2015 fairness/transparency applies to ancillary charges; and
• County court authority has repeatedly disallowed the £60/£70 bolt-on.

Unless you produce verifiable proof of a real third-party cost actually incurred and paid (invoice + proof of payment), any claim for £170 will be opposed as double recovery and unreasonable.

PAPDC compliance and timetable
Please provide the documents requested at 1)–3) within 7 days. In their absence I will treat your position as non-compliant with the Protocol and will place this correspondence before the court on conduct, inviting appropriate case-management relief and costs. For clarity, no payment will be made on an inflated figure.

This is without prejudice to all other points, including primacy of title/tenancy rights and the absence of a contractual offer on your signage.

Finally, it appears from your correspondence that this matter is being handled by administrative staff rather than a legally qualified or authorised person. Conduct of litigation is a reserved legal activity under section 12 of the Legal Services Act 2007.

Please therefore confirm, within seven days:

1. The full name and SRA number of the supervising solicitor responsible for this case;
2. That all communications, including the preparation and service of any Letter of Claim or statement of case, are undertaken under that solicitor’s supervision; and
3. That any statement of truth or court document will be signed by an authorised person.

If this information is not provided, or if it transpires that unregulated personnel are exercising reserved legal functions without supervision, I will refer the matter to the Solicitors Regulation Authority.

Yours faithfully,

[Name]
[Address / Email]

Feedback as follows:

Good afternoon,

Thank you for your email.

I have passed this request to our client and will revert to you in due course.

Kind Regards
 
Emily Scriminger-Faulkner

Deputy Team Leader
 
ELMS Legal Limited

She hasn't addressed the last section about legally qualified people (or anything for that matter).

Please see response from ELMS as follows, do I just wait till 20th Nov?

Thank you for your patience whilst we received our clients response.


Our client maintains that the Contract is valid and that the signage on site meets BPA approval. Our client further advises that the information requested would be provided if required by the Court.
 
The £70 recovery fee applicable to this matter does not contain VAT. The statement “charges may include VAT” is correct, they may. The operative word being “may”.

Liability Cap under PoFA - We note your reference to Schedule 4, Paragraph 4(5) of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA), which states that the registered keeper’s liability is limited to the amount specified in the Notice to Keeper (NtK). However, this statutory cap relates specifically to keeper liability, not to charges pursued against a driver or contractually liable party outside PoFA. The £70 is pursued as a contractual charge and/or a consequential loss resulting from non-payment, not as a PoFA recovery.

Parking Code of Practice (PPSCoP – February 2025)  - You cite the Private Parking Code of Practice (17 February 2025) as prohibiting such uplifts. Please note that this Code sets the current cap at £70.00 for Debt Recovery Fees.

Consumer Rights Act 2015 (CRA) - With respect to the CRA 2015, we maintain that the £70 charge is both transparent and proportionate in the context of the contractual arrangement. The charge is outlined in the terms and conditions communicated at the point of contract (i.e. signage), and it reflects the legitimate costs of debt recovery action. Case law has recognised the principle that such costs may be recoverable where properly incorporated into the contract.

County Court Authority - While we acknowledge that some County Court decisions have disallowed similar charges, others have upheld them depending on case-specific facts. As you will appreciate, County Court judgments are not binding precedents. We are satisfied that our position is supported by existing contractual documentation and legal principles, and we are prepared to present our case should this matter proceed further.

I can confirm that, with regard to your comments regarding conduct of litigation,  we are assisting our client with litigation, not conducting. Edmund Shoreman-Lawson (SRA number – 537827 ) is the Principle of ELMS Legal Ltd, being a Solicitor (SRA number – 537827 ) with a current practising certificate is an authorised person for this purpose.

This matter remains on hold until 20/11/2025.

Kind Regards
 
Angie Bailey
 
ELMS Legal Limited