Free Traffic Legal Advice

I’m assuming the keeper blabbed the identity of the driver in their appeals. Pity, because the NtK is not fully compliant with all the requirements of PoFA and had the drivers identity remained unknown, the charge could not be transferred to the keeper.

As the appeals process has been exhausted, the keeper should ignore all debt collector letters. Come back if/when a Letter of Claim (LoC) is received.

Under no circumstances should the keeper ever, ever, ever communicate with the debt collectors. The are unable to do anything and are not a party to the contract the driver is alleged to have breached. Their sole purpose is to try and scare the low-hanging fruit on the gullible tree into paying the now inflated amount out of ignorance.

The fee has been increased by adding on a fake debt recovery fee of £70. If this ever went to court and the claim was not successfully defended, the amount awarded is never as much as originally claimed as the fake add ins are not allowed in a “small claim”. There is no risk of a CCJ because, in the unlikely event of losing the claim, as long as the judgment amount is paid within 28 days, there is no record of it on the credit file. It is completely expunged.

That is a worst case scenario. The most likely scenario, if it ever goes as far as a claim in the small claims track of the county court is that the claimant will discontinue once they realise that the defendant is willing to take it all the way. Their modus operandi is to try and scare the defendant into paying and once they realise that they haave to pay the trial fee, they move on to lower-hanging fruit.

So, for now, as advised, weather the useless debt collector letters. They really have no powers to do anything. Come back if/when an LoC is received. A real LoC will give 30:days to pay or respond. Anything giving only 14 days to pay is not an LoC and can be ignored.

For future reference, if a PCN is received by the keeper, never, ever reveal the identity of the driver unless advised otherwise. Always appeal as the keeper. There is no legal obligation for the keeper to identify the driver.

Tell your friend that they must not, under any circumstances, use any of the forms that came with the Letter of Claim (LoC). Show us the LoC so that a suitable response can be provided.

The PCN simply stated that the contravention was “Vehicle not registered”. There is no explanation on how that is a breach of any terms. We need to see how that contravention has been explained in the LoC.

As the driver was identified, any defence will rely on Jopson v Homeguard. Delivering, loading & unloading is not “Vehicle not registered”.

This is the suggested response to the LoC:

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 and I will defend any 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. Under what authority is this £70 fee, given the ParkingEye v Beavis ruling rejected such extras as unrecoverable.
14. 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,

Correct - you should not return any associated paperwork/forms that the law firm may have sent.