Just Had this,..... They won't let up, will they!!!!!
VCS22897672
From: pat moore <pat.moore@hotmail.com>
Sent: 01 December 2025 15:19
To: debtassist <debtassist@elmslegal.co.uk>; enquiries@elmslegal.co.uk; info <info@elmslegal.co.uk>; pat moore <pat.moore@hotmail.com>
Subject: Subject: Formal Complaint & DMCC Notice – Your Ref: VCS22897672
Dear Sirs,
Re: Your “URGENT: NOTIFICATION OF INSTRUCTION” dated 24 November 2025 – Vehicle Control Services Ltd (VCS) / Bristol Airport – Alleged Parking Charge
I refer to your above letter in respect of an alleged Parking Charge Notice issued by VCS at Bristol Airport on 28 March 2025.
For the avoidance of doubt, I do not accept that any contractual liability exists. The allegation arises from a brief, involuntary stall of around 23 seconds at a live roundabout while I was attempting to locate a pre‑booked meet‑and‑greet facility. The signage relied upon is wholly prohibitive (“No stopping”) and offers no contractual licence or consideration to motorists. At most, any complaint would sound in trespass (for which only the landowner could claim actual loss). VCS also seeks an additional £70 “costs” on top of the £100 parking charge, a sum which is not recoverable in law.
In those circumstances, the “debt” you are seeking to recover is disputed, is not legally owed, and is based on a speculative airport “no stopping” charge on non‑relevant land which cannot give rise to keeper liability under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012.
Notwithstanding the above, your letter presents the sum of £170 as a recoverable contractual debt and uses urgent and intimidating language plainly designed to pressurise payment. In my view this conduct amounts to unfair commercial practices within the meaning of Part 4, Chapter 1 of the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024 (“DMCC”), including but not limited to:
Misleading actions (Section 227), by giving the false impression that there is a valid contractual right to recover £170 from me when no such right exists and the £70 add‑on is not recoverable.
Misleading omissions (Section 228), by failing to explain the legal limitations on liability on airport land and the true status and enforceability of the alleged debt.
Aggressive practices (Section 229), by deploying an “URGENT” heading, repeated “Action Required” wording and implied threats of further costs in circumstances where the existence of any debt is highly questionable, thereby exerting undue pressure on a consumer.
A failure to meet the standard of professional diligence reasonably to be expected of a CILEx‑regulated legal business dealing with consumers in a highly technical area of law.
A commercial practice which is misleading, aggressive, or contrary to professional diligence, and which is likely to cause the average consumer to take a transactional decision they would not otherwise have taken (such as paying an unenforceable parking charge), is prohibited and unlawful under the DMCC.
I therefore put you on notice that:
a) I am submitting a formal complaint to the Competition and Markets Authority regarding your letter and your firm’s role in the wider practice of pursuing unenforceable airport “no‑stopping” parking charges as alleged contractual debts. I will provide the CMA with copies of your letter, the underlying VCS documentation and a summary of why the alleged debt is not legally recoverable.
b) I am also submitting a complaint to CILEx Regulation on the basis that your conduct appears to breach your regulatory duties of integrity, transparency and professional diligence when dealing with consumers. If any of the individuals responsible for this matter are also solicitors regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority, I reserve the right to raise the same concerns with the SRA.
c) A separate complaint will be made to the CMA concerning VCS’s own conduct and business model in issuing such charges at Bristol Airport on a prohibitive signage basis.
You will be aware that the CMA now has direct civil enforcement powers under the DMCC and can decide for itself whether a commercial practice is unfair and, if so, impose significant financial penalties, require redress for affected consumers and seek enforcement orders and undertakings. I will be inviting the CMA to consider whether your standard debt‑recovery templates and your relationship with VCS form part of a wider pattern of unfair commercial practices in the private parking sector.
In light of the above, I now require you to cease all debt‑recovery activity on this matter and to return the file to your client, Vehicle Control Services Ltd, making it clear that I deny any liability. If VCS genuinely consider that they have a viable cause of action, they are at liberty to issue a properly particularised county court claim – a step for which I have already prepared a full defence and court bundle.
Please note that any further misleading or aggressive correspondence from your firm will be treated as further evidence of unfair commercial practices under the DMCC and may be relied upon in any court proceedings, regulatory complaints or costs applications regarding unreasonable conduct.
I look forward to your written confirmation that you have closed your file and referred the matter back to your client.
Yours faithfully,
Patrick Moore
From: debtassist <debtassist@elmslegal.co.uk>
Sent: 11 December 2025 10:01
To: 'pat moore' <pat.moore@hotmail.com>
Subject: RE: Subject: Formal Complaint & DMCC Notice – Your Ref: VCS22897672
Good morning,
Thank you for your correspondence. Please note that as we act on behalf of our client in this matter, we are not providing a service to you. Therefore, your concerns do not fall within the scope of our formal complaint’s procedure.
That said, we have noted the contents of your letter, and the case has been reviewed in full to ensure that all matters you have raised have been properly considered and responded to. Our response below addresses each of the points you have raised and clarifies our client’s position in full.
We remain satisfied that both our client’s actions and our conduct fully comply with all relevant legislation and professional obligations and would ask you note that CILEx advise that all efforts must first be made to resolve issues with the firm in the first instance.
The £70.00 debt recovery fee is allowed. The 2024 Private Parking Code of Practice allows parking firms to add up to £70.00 once a charge is overdue. The court confirmed this in Vehicle Control Services Ltd v Percy, where the judge held that these fees are lawful when they form part of the contract.
You say the Notice to Keeper does not comply with the Protection of Freedoms Act (“POFA”). We are not relying on POFA and are not claiming keeper liability under that law as in your appeal dated 22 April 2025 you confirmed that you were driving the vehicle at the time of the contravention. Therefore, we are able to pursue you as the driver, rather than as the registered keeper of the vehicle. Please find attached a copy of your appeal for your reference.
The area is clearly marked with “No Stopping” signs, and these are enforced by Vehicle Control Services Ltd at Bristol Airport. The rule is strict: stopping for any reason, except a genuine emergency, breaks the terms. How long you stop doesn’t matter legally.
This is supported by case law. In ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis, the Supreme Court confirmed that someone is liable if they break clearly displayed rules, no matter how long the breach lasts. In airport cases, Vehicle Control Services Ltd v Ward confirmed that even stopping for a moment counts as a breach. Similarly, Vehicle Control Services Ltd v Crutchley confirmed that stopping for just a few seconds is enough, and the reason for stopping is legally irrelevant.
Your claims under the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024 are completely rejected. You were correctly informed about the basis of the charge, the recoverable fee, your legal liability, and your options to pay or challenge it. There has been no misrepresentation, omission, or aggressive behaviour. Using urgency in formal debt letters is legal and standard practice.
Kind Regards
Emily Scriminger-Faulkner
Deputy Team Leader
ELMS Legal Limited
Christmas Opening Hours:
22 December – 09:00 – 17:30
23 December – 09:00 – 17:30
24 December – 09:00 – 16:30
25 December – Closed
26 December – Closed
29 December – 09:30 – 16:30
30 December – 09:30 – 16:30
31 December – 09:30 – 16:30
01 January – Closed
02 January – 09:00 – 17:30 (normal hours resume)
ELMS Legal Limited
Company Number: 9160334
Registered Office: 31 Handley Street, Sleaford, Lincolnshire, NG34 7TQ
Telephone Number: 01529 406097
Authorised by CILEx Regulation for Civil Litigation. Authorisation No: 2164466
Please be advised that we do not accept service of any court documents via email; please serve any court documents to the our registered office address above.
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE AND DISCLAIMER
This message is intended for the addressee only and may contain information that is privileged and confidential.
If you are not the intended recipient, any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication and its attachments is strictly prohibited. If you receive this communication in error, please notify us immediately by returning the original message and its attachments to us by e-mail and post. Finally please delete the message and any attachments from your system immediately.
Warning: Although the company has taken reasonable precautions to ensure no viruses are present in this email, the company cannot accept responsibility for any loss or damage arising from the use of this email or attachments.
Please note that our staff are entitled to a safe and respectful working environment. We have a zero-tolerance policy towards any form of harassment, including sexual harassment, from clients, debtors, advocates, service providers, members of the public and members of the press (please note that this list is not exhaustive). Any inappropriate conduct will be addressed seriously and will result in further action.
Thank you.
From: pat moore <pat.moore@hotmail.com>
Sent: 15 December 2025 16:26
To: debtassist <debtassist@elmslegal.co.uk>
Subject: Re: Subject: Formal Complaint & DMCC Notice – Your Ref: VCS22897672
Re: Your email of 11 December 2025 – Our Ref: VCS22897672
Dear Sirs,
Thank you for your reply. I do not accept your analysis of the facts or the law, and my complaints to the CMA and CILEx Regulation will proceed accordingly!
Your statement that you “are not providing a service to me” is irrelevant under the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024. You are a business undertaking commercial practices directed at me as a consumer by issuing payment demands. That brings your conduct within the scope of the DMCC.
1. No contractual liability
Your client’s “no stopping at Bristol Airport” model cannot create a contract. The signs are purely prohibitive and amount only to a warning. They offer no licence, no facility, and no consideration. A prohibition cannot be transformed into a contractual term by attaching a charge to the forbidden act.
The purported term is also impossible to perform lawfully. A motorist must be able to stop when required by traffic conditions, mechanical issues, or basic safety. Treating an unavoidable stall on a live roundabout as a contractual breach is unreasonable, unsafe, and unfair within the meaning of the Consumer Rights Act 2015.
The evidence shows the incident involved a brief, involuntary stall of around 23 seconds, with no obstruction and no misuse of any facility. To characterise this as acceptance of a £170 contractual charge is untenable.
2. Your reliance on the £70 add-on
Your email asserts that the 2024 Private Parking Code of Practice “allows” a £70 uplift and that Vehicle Control Services v Percy confirms this. That is a misstatement. The Code does not provide statutory authority for debt-recovery uplifts, and the courts’ consistent approach is that such additional sums are not generally recoverable because they constitute double recovery. Presenting them to a consumer as an automatically enforceable contractual term is misleading.
3. Your interpretation of “liability regardless of duration”
You state that “how long you stop doesn’t matter legally”. That is incorrect. Courts assess enforceability of terms by reference to circumstances, necessity, proportionality, and fairness. A business model that monetises unavoidable, momentary stops caused by mechanical issues on an active approach road is unlikely to survive judicial scrutiny.
4. Professional diligence
As regulated legal professionals, you are expected to advise your client when their position is unsustainable. Instead, you have chosen to endorse and pursue a claim based on signage incapable of forming a lawful contract. Encouraging litigation on the basis of an unenforceable or unfair term is inconsistent with professional diligence.
5. Misleading and aggressive practices
Your first letter misstated the law on the £70 add-on, presented the alleged debt as undisputed and fully enforceable, and used urgent language to pressure payment. Your latest email repeats the same inaccuracies. This will be placed before the CMA and CILEx Regulation.
Position
For the avoidance of doubt:
• No contractual liability arises.
• The £70 add-on is not lawfully recoverable.
• Your correspondence engages the DMCC as a misleading and aggressive commercial practice.
Accordingly, I require you to cease debt-recovery activity and return the file to your client, Vehicle Control Services Ltd. If VCS believe they have a viable cause of action, they may issue a properly particularised county court claim, which will be defended on the basis outlined above.
Please confirm whether you will now close your file or whether you intend to continue acting in a debt-collection capacity. Any further misleading or aggressive correspondence will simply be added to the regulatory complaints and, if necessary, placed before the court on the issue of conduct and costs.
Yours faithfully,
Patrick Moore
From: debtassist <debtassist@elmslegal.co.uk>
Sent: 19 December 2025 08:08
To: 'pat moore' <pat.moore@hotmail.com>
Subject: RE: Subject: Formal Complaint & DMCC Notice – Your Ref: VCS22897672
Good Morning,
Please see attached a letter in response to your email.
Kind Regards
Phoebe Grundle
Deputy Accounts and IT Manager
ELMS Legal Limited
Christmas Opening Hours:
22 December – 09:00 – 17:30
23 December – 09:00 – 17:30
24 December – 09:00 – 16:30
25 December – Closed
26 December – Closed
29 December – 09:30 – 16:30
30 December – 09:30 – 16:30
31 December – 09:30 – 16:30
01 January – Closed
02 January – 09:00 – 17:30 (normal hours resume)
ELMS Legal Limited
Company Number: 9160334
Registered Office: 31 Handley Street, Sleaford, Lincolnshire, NG34 7TQ
Telephone Number: 01529 406097
Authorised by CILEx Regulation for Civil Litigation. Authorisation No: 2164466
Please be advised that we do not accept service of any court documents via email and please serve any court documents to the our registered office address above.
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE AND DISCLAIMER
This message is intended for the addressee only and may contain information that is privileged and confidential.
If you are not the intended recipient, any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication and its attachments is strictly prohibited. If you receive this communication in error, please notify us immediately by returning the original message and its attachments to us by e-mail and post. Finally please delete the message and any attachments from your system immediately.
Warning: Although the company has taken reasonable precautions to ensure no viruses are present in this email, the company cannot accept responsibility for any loss or damage arising from the use of this email or attachments.
Please note that our staff are entitled to a safe and respectful working environment. We have a zero-tolerance policy towards any form of harassment, including sexual harassment, from clients, debtors, advocates, service providers, members of the public and members of the press (please note that this list is not exhaustive). Any inappropriate conduct will be addressed seriously and will result in further action.
Thank you.
From: pat moore <pat.moore@hotmail.com>
Sent: 21 December 2025 11:42
To: debtassist <debtassist@elmslegal.co.uk>
Subject: Re: Subject: Formal Complaint & DMCC Notice – Your Ref: VCS22897672
Re: VCS22897672 – Your letter dated 19 December 2025
Dear Ms Grundle,
Thank you for your letter dated 19 December 2025.
I do not accept your analysis of either the law or the facts. My complaints to the Competition and Markets Authority and to CILEx Regulation are proceeding, and your latest correspondence will be added to them.
No contractual liability
Your continued assertion that a binding contract arises from “No stopping” signage misunderstands fundamental principles of contract law. A contract requires an offer conferring some permission or benefit capable of acceptance, together with consideration. A sign stating “No stopping” does not offer any facility, licence, or service. It is purely prohibitive in nature and cannot be converted into a contractual term simply by attaching a charge to the forbidden act.
At most, such signage sounds in trespass, for which only the landowner may claim actual loss. It does not give rise to a contractual obligation to pay a fixed sum.
Impossibility and unfairness
Further, the purported term is impossible and unenforceable in its absolute form. A motorist must be able to stop when compelled by traffic conditions, safety considerations, or mechanical failure. This is a primary road safety obligation reflected in the Highway Code and in general law.
The evidence shows that the vehicle stalled briefly due to a mechanical event and remained stationary momentarily because it was unable to move until the vehicle was safely restarted. This was not a voluntary stop, nor the use of any facility. A term which purports to penalise a motorist for an unavoidable and safety-driven pause on a live approach road is plainly unfair within the meaning of the Consumer Rights Act 2015 and is void for impossibility.
Duration and proportionality
Your assertion that “duration is irrelevant” is incorrect. Courts assess enforceability by reference to context, necessity, proportionality, and fairness. A business model which monetises momentary, unavoidable stops caused by mechanical or traffic conditions on a live road is unlikely to withstand scrutiny.
Reliance on authorities and the £70 add-on
Your reliance on non-binding county court decisions does not assist. Those cases are fact-specific and do not address the scenario of an involuntary stop caused by mechanical failure in live traffic. They do not override the statutory protections in the Consumer Rights Act.
Your assertion that the £70 uplift is “lawful and recoverable” is also disputed. Such sums are routinely disallowed as double recovery. Presenting them to a consumer as automatically enforceable is misleading.
Professional obligations
As a regulated litigation firm, you are not merely transmitting your client’s position. You owe duties of professional judgment, integrity, and diligence. You know, or ought to know, that a term prohibiting all stopping of any kind whatsoever on a live roundabout is at serious risk of being held unenforceable and unfair. Endorsing and pursuing such a claim, while asserting contentious legal positions as settled fact, raises obvious regulatory concerns.
Position
My position is therefore clear:
No contract was formed.
Any purported term is void for impossibility and unfair under the Consumer Rights Act 2015.
The £70 add-on is not lawfully recoverable.
Your correspondence will be relied upon as evidence of misleading and aggressive commercial practices under the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024 and of a failure of professional diligence.
You state that the appropriate course is for the matter to be determined by the court. I agree. Further correspondence serves no purpose.
If your client believes it has a viable cause of action, it should issue a properly particularised claim, which will be defended in full. If not, you must cease debt-recovery activity and close your file. I reserve all rights in relation to costs, including consideration of non-party costs where appropriate.
Please confirm your client’s decision within 14 days. Any further correspondence will simply be added to the regulatory complaints and, if necessary, placed before the court on the issue of conduct.
Yours faithfully,
Patrick Moore
From: debtassist <debtassist@elmslegal.co.uk>
Sent: 06 January 2026 17:27
To: 'pat moore' <pat.moore@hotmail.com>
Subject: RE: Subject: Formal Complaint & DMCC Notice – Your Ref: VCS22897672
Good afternoon,
Thank you for your email.
I can confirm that we have liaised with Vehicle Control Services Limited (“our client”) and have been advised that they wish to proceed with this matter.
In compliance with the Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims, a Letter Before Claim will be sent to you on 09 January 2026. This will allow you 30 days in order to consider your options, after which a claim will be issued through the court.
Kind Regards
Emily Scriminger-Faulkner
Deputy Team Leader
ELMS Legal Limited
ELMS Legal Limited
Company Number: 9160334
Registered Office: 31 Handley Street, Sleaford, Lincolnshire, NG34 7TQ
Telephone Number: 01529 406097
Authorised by CILEx Regulation for Civil Litigation. Authorisation No: 2164466
Please be advised that we do not accept service of any court documents via email; please serve any court documents to the our registered office address above.
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE AND DISCLAIMER
This message is intended for the addressee only and may contain information that is privileged and confidential.
If you are not the intended recipient, any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication and its attachments is strictly prohibited. If you receive this communication in error, please notify us immediately by returning the original message and its attachments to us by e-mail and post. Finally please delete the message and any attachments from your system immediately.
Warning: Although the company has taken reasonable precautions to ensure no viruses are present in this email, the company cannot accept responsibility for any loss or damage arising from the use of this email or attachments.
Please note that our staff are entitled to a safe and respectful working environment. We have a zero-tolerance policy towards any form of harassment, including sexual harassment, from clients, debtors, advocates, service providers, members of the public and members of the press (please note that this list is not exhaustive). Any inappropriate conduct will be addressed seriously and will result in further action.
Thank you.
From: pat moore <pat.moore@hotmail.com>
Sent: 16 January 2026 10:55
To: debtassist <debtassist@elmslegal.co.uk>
Subject: Ref: VCS22897672 – Second Non Compliant Letter Before Claim (09/01/2026)
FINAL RESPONSE & NOTICE OF CONTINUING NON‑COMPLIANCE
Dear ELMS Legal,
Re: Your Letter Before Claim dated 09 January 2026
I write in response to your second letter purporting to be a Letter Before Claim under the Pre‑Action Protocol for Debt Claims.
1. Acknowledgment
I acknowledge receipt of your letter dated 09 January 2026.
2. Repeated and Material Non‑Compliance with the Protocol
This second letter repeats the same fundamental defects as your first letter of 21 August 2025. It remains non‑compliant with the mandatory requirements of the Protocol:
Ignoring Pre-Action Correspondence: Your letter makes no reference to the extensive pre-action correspondence between us from September to December 2025 (enclosed in my comprehensive court bundle, prepared in anticipation of proceedings). In that correspondence, I:
Formally disputed the debt.
Provided detailed grounds for my defence (de minimis, no breach of contract, disproportionate charge, unfair term under the Consumer Rights Act 2015, inadequate signage).
Repeatedly requested key evidence (unredacted landowner contract, full CCTV, contemporaneous signage), which your client refused to provide.
Completed and returned the Reply Form on 19 September 2025.
Your client's failure to engage with these substantive points and its refusal to provide evidence are documented and demonstrate a failure to comply with the spirit and purpose of the Pre-Action Protocol.
3. Notice of Reliance on Existing Court Bundle
Should your client issue proceedings, I will rely on my fully prepared Court Bundle (indexed, paginated, and exceeding 90 pages). This bundle documents:
The factual circumstances of the 23‑second involuntary stall
The confusing and materially altered construction zone
Your client’s procedural and evidential failures
My complete appeal history
The legal basis of my defence, including persuasive authority such as VCS v Jones (March 2025)
4. Position on Liability
Liability is fully disputed. Your client has repeatedly failed to comply with its pre‑action obligations. I will not be making any payment.
5. Next Steps
If your client elects to issue a claim, I will:
File a robust Defence based on the bundle already in my possession
Apply for sanctions under CPR 3 and the Practice Direction on Pre‑Action Conduct due to your client’s persistent non‑compliance
Seek my costs as a Litigant in Person
6. Final Position
Given the above, I consider the pre‑action phase concluded. Any further correspondence that does not provide:
A full breakdown of the £170 sum, and
The key evidence repeatedly requested
will not receive a substantive response.
Yours faithfully,
Patrick Moore
debtassist<debtassist@elmslegal.co.uk>
You
Good morning,
Thank you for your email, the contents of which we note.
Please be advised that there is no requirement under the Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims for a Letter of Claim to refer to previous correspondence. The Protocol requires that a compliant Letter of Claim is served containing the prescribed information and enclosures, and we maintain that our Letter of Claim dated 09 January 2026 complies fully with those requirements.
For the avoidance of doubt, the outstanding balance is broken down as follows:
£100.00 – Original Charge
£70.00 – Debt Recovery Costs
Total: £170.00
We further confirm that the additional £70.00 debt recovery fee is lawful and recoverable. Part 9 of the Private Parking Sector Single Code of Practice (2024) expressly permits parking operators to add recovery fees of up to £70.00 once a charge becomes overdue.
This position has also been confirmed by the courts. In Vehicle Control Services Ltd v Percy, the court held that such fees are lawful where they form part of the contractual terms. The sum has not been misrepresented and forms part of the contractual debt arising from non-payment of the PCN.
Vehicle Control Services Limited (“our client”) maintains that the Charge was issued lawfully in accordance with the terms and conditions clearly displayed on site. The location is prominently signed with “No Stopping” signage enforced by our client. The terms are strict: stopping for any reason other than a genuine emergency constitutes a breach.
A contract is formed where a motorist uses private land subject to clear and visible terms, including signage setting out the applicable conditions. The “No Stopping” signage at Bristol Airport is prominent and forms part of the contractual terms governing use of the land.
In this case, the vehicle came to a standstill on a live roundabout where stopping is expressly prohibited. This falls squarely within the enforcement terms.
We reject your assertion that the terms are unfair or impossible under the Consumer Rights Act 2015. The restrictions are proportionate, commercially justified, and necessary to maintain safety and the efficient operation of the airport road network.
You are referred to the authority of Vehicle Control Services Ltd v Idle and Vehicle Control Services Ltd v Ward, in which the court confirmed that “No Stopping” signage can form a binding contract. The court held that by stopping, even briefly, a motorist accepts the contractual terms and becomes liable for the charge. The charge was held not to be a penalty.
The court further confirmed that a breach occurs at the moment the vehicle is brought to a standstill. The duration of the stop does not negate the breach. In Vehicle Control Services Ltd v Crutchley, liability arose from a stop of no more than 30 seconds. Accordingly, the moment the vehicle stopped, it was in breach of the advertised terms.
Your suggestion that a motorist may lawfully stop on a roundabout is not accepted. The Highway Code makes clear that drivers must keep moving once they have entered a roundabout unless traffic conditions require otherwise. Rule 185 requires drivers to keep moving if traffic allows, and Rule 184 emphasises that roundabouts are designed to maintain traffic flow. A voluntary stop on a live roundabout is contrary to these principles and presents an obvious safety risk. Our client’s restrictions are therefore entirely consistent with established highway safety guidance.
For completeness, please find attached the site information and CCTV footage as requested. These documents have previously been provided and are re-sent without admission that any further disclosure was required at this stage.
With reference to your comments regarding the Reply Form, an email was sent to you on 26/09/2025 confirming receipt of your document. A further email was sent on 02/10/2025 requesting clarification as to what further information you were seeking. In response to your email of 09/10/2025, a further reply was sent on 10/10/2025 addressing the points you had raised.
It is clear that the parties remain in dispute as to liability and enforceability. Please note that the matter has been placed on hold until 22 February 2026, after which our client reserves the right to commence legal proceedings without further notice, at which point the court will determine the issues you seek to raise.
Kind Regards
Emily Scriminger-Faulkner
Deputy Team Leader
ELMS Legal Limited
ELMS Legal Limited
Company Number: 9160334
Registered Office: 31 Handley Street, Sleaford, Lincolnshire, NG34 7TQ
Telephone Number: 01529 406097
Authorised by CILEx Regulation for Civil Litigation. Authorisation No: 2164466
Please be advised that we do not accept service of any court documents via email; please serve any court documents to the our registered office address above.
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE AND DISCLAIMER
This message is intended for the addressee only and may contain information that is privileged and confidential.
If you are not the intended recipient, any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication and its attachments is strictly prohibited. If you receive this communication in error, please notify us immediately by returning the original message and its attachments to us by e-mail and post. Finally please delete the message and any attachments from your system immediately.
Warning: Although the company has taken reasonable precautions to ensure no viruses are present in this email, the company cannot accept responsibility for any loss or damage arising from the use of this email or attachments.
Please note that our staff are entitled to a safe and respectful working environment. We have a zero-tolerance policy towards any form of harassment, including sexual harassment, from clients, debtors, advocates, service providers, members of the public and members of the press (please note that this list is not exhaustive). Any inappropriate conduct will be addressed seriously and will result in further action.
Thank you.
