Free Traffic Legal Advice

Ah yes, got it. I wanted to run the complaint format by this forum before sending it to PPS. I hadn't actually sent it yet.

I'll send that over to PPS now.

Many thanks again

For rear of upsetting my fellow posters, my suggestion raises yet again a fundamental issue: nowhere in legislation or the Code of Practice does PCN or Parking Charge Notice appear.

I've just received a response from PPS to the complaint I raised. In their email, they claim to have sent me a response to my initial appeal back in Feb 2025

IMO, always, always, always use their evidence against them where possible rather than assert something of your own.

Back to the procedural timeline as I understand it:

PPS issued a 'Parking Charge Notice' dated 28 January. Setting aside for one moment that neither the Code of Practice nor PoFA recognise a Parking Charge Notice as a legal entity(these being Notice to Driver and Notice to Keeper), it is clear from its form(which in the main attempts to comply with the conditions set out in para. 4 of the Schedule to the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012) and that the keeper's details have been obtained ONLY pursuant to the creditor's undertaking to DVLA that these would be used for permitted and statutory purposes, namely to issue a Notice to Keeper, that the creditor intended that the recipient treat the notice as a Notice to Keeper;

On receipt of a challenge from the addressee, PPS assert that they issued a rejection on 14 Feb. which gave the addressee the option to pay or appeal to POPLA and which also circumscribed the creditor's scope for future action (by virtue of the Code of Practice) to responding to any appeal to POPLA or pursuing the keeper after the stated period for doing so had elapsed;

And yet, despite their actions being limited in this way, the creditor issued a FURTHER Notice to Keeper on 17 March, that is to say outwith the Code of Practice. 

Not only is this a flagrant breach of the Code of Practice e.g. 2  Notices to Keeper for the same event, the latter, extra procedural, notice purports to rely upon the provisions of PoFA  NONE of which could apply because, taken at face value, it was served out of time(amongst its many other irregularities).



I would focus my attention on this issue.

Don't worry. The point being made by H C Andersen is probably correct but as you have pointed out, far too difficult for mere mortals to decipher.

The point is that you never received a response to your initial appeal with a POPLA code that you could then use for a secondary appeal. They are claiming that they did send it to you and have produced a copy of an email that supposedly was sent.

What you need to do is put them to strict proof that the email was in fact sent by providing a copy of the metadata from the header of the sent email. That metadata will confirm whether the it was in fact sent and that your email servers acknowledged receipt.

However, all this is not going to stop the inevitable Letter of Claim (LoC) and subsequent N1SDT Claim Form arriving from the CNBC. To be honest, I am not going to hold any hope that the BPA will actually do anything about this and POPLA would most likely not have helped either.

For now, I advise that you can respond to PPS and put them to strict prof that they actually sent the appeal response email by evidencing the metadata from their sent email header. Tell them, that should they try and litigate this matter, any failure to provide the requested evidence will be used against them.

Apart from that, continue to ignore any and all debt recovery letters and come back when you receive a Letter of Claim (LoC), most likely from DCB Legal. You can rest assured that if you continue to follow the advice, you won't be paying a penny to these scammers.

Whether PPS could convince a court that their response was sent as claimed when set against the standard of balance of probabilities would be a matter for the court which would not, IMO, simply accept the binary options of show us your metadata (whatever this might be). In any event, the ONLY notice which carried the title Notice to Keeper was sent out of time as regards PoFA, therefore PPS may not exercise the 'Right to claim unpaid parking charges from keeper of vehicle'.

OP, whether they carried on or not is their choice. Yours are dissuasion tactics.

While you're waiting for a response, pl put together a simple timeline of events and notices/correspondence highlighting their names or content succinctly.

*** - Date of alleged breach and driver liability
***   Parking Charge Notice (an undefined term) purporting to be a Notice to Keeper;
*** - Response(appeal) from keeper;
*** - A notice headed 'Notice to Keeper'(a defined legal term);
*** - Notification that reply to response from keeper sent by email on **. Copy enclosed;

Fill in the gaps and add anything further which is relevant.

Helloo,

The following is the timeline of events so far

28 Jan 2025 - Date of alleged breach and driver liability
04 Feb 2025 - Parking Charge Notice received
08 Feb 2025 - Response(appeal) from keeper
22 Mar 2025 - Notice to Keeper received
23 Mar 2025 - Complaint raised with BPA (PPS website was not accessible)
28 Apr 2025 - Emailed BPA asking for an update on complaint
06 May 2025 - Emailed BPA asking for an update on complaint
12 May 2025 - BPA response received (to ask PPS for a copy of their appeal response)
18 May 2025 - Complaint raised with PPS requesting copy of appeal response
19 May 2025 - Received email from PPS along with appeal response and original email they claim to have sent on 14 Feb 2025
19 May 2025 - Responded to PPS requesting them email headers of email they claim to have sent on 14 Feb 2025
23 May 2025 - Received email from PPS along with email headers of email they claim to have sent on 14 Feb 2025

I have attached a copy of the email header information PPS have sent across.

I presume advice to wait and come back when I receive a Letter of Claim (LoC) still holds so I'll drop a message when I receive it.

As always, thanks a ton for the support 

[ Guests cannot view attachments ]

I thought the email metadata is what's inside the marked red circle in the attached image? Or am I wrong in thinking that?

I did redact the message id of the sender and receiver assuming it was sensitive information but can send it over unredacted if needed.

[ Guests cannot view attachments ]

Yep, as you say, it does seem like they sent an email on the 14 Feb.

It still feels like there was some technical issue somewhere as I did not receive that email, just don't know how to prove it. I have searched my inbox, spam and trash folders and it's not there. Moreover, all their recent responses have been coming through just fine, in fact, on the original appeal email thread. I even got their autoresponse email this time which I didn't the first time.

I suppose there is nothing further I can do to get my email provider(Gmail) to confirm if that message was delivered to my inbox or not?

Ah, the incompetents at Gladstone have been retained. Always good for a laugh. They never comply with CPR 16.4(1)(a) which often leads to a strike out.

Respond to the LoC with the following, as it also requires them to produce their “site plan” which used to include a provable doctored Google Map view where they have changed the road names to suit their claim rather than the actual facts on the ground:

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 the evidence your client intends to rely upon. It is therefore non‑compliant with the Pre‑Action Protocol for Debt Claims (PAPDC). As a supposed firm of solicitors, one would expect you to comply 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 exist to facilitate informed, proportionate resolution, and I suggest you reacquaint yourselves with them.

The Civil Procedure Rules 1998, Pre‑Action Conduct and Protocols (Part 3), require each party to exchange sufficient information to understand the other’s position. Part 6 clarifies that this includes disclosure of key documents relevant to the issues in dispute. Your template letter refers to a “contract” yet encloses none. That omission undermines the very basis upon which your client’s claim allegedly rests. It is not possible to engage in any form of meaningful pre‑litigation dialogue while you refuse to furnish the documents you purport to enforce.

I confirm that, once I am in receipt of a Letter Before Claim that complies with paragraph 3.1(a), I shall seek advice and submit a full response within 30 days. Accordingly, please now provide:

1. A copy of the original Notice to Keeper and the full notice chain relied upon to assert any alleged PoFA 2012 liability.
2. An actual photograph of the sign(s) in situ on the material date (not stock images), together with a contemporaneous site map showing sign locations.
3. The precise wording of the contractual term(s) your client alleges were breached.
4. The written agreement between your client and the landowner evidencing authority to manage, enforce and litigate in their own name.
5. A clear breakdown of the sums claimed, identifying whether the principal amount is alleged consideration or damages, and clarifying the legal basis and VAT position of the Ł70 add‑on.

These documents are required under paragraphs 6(a) and 6(c) of the Practice Direction to enable me to meet my obligation under paragraph 6(b).

Your letter’s attempt at intimidation

I also note that your accompanying schedule manages to refer to a “CCJ” four times, in what is clearly intended as a coercive device rather than legitimate legal information. The repetition is telling: it demonstrates not confidence in your client’s position, but reliance on fear as a substitute for substance.

To be clear: I am fully aware that a County Court Judgment only arises after your client wins a claim (which is highly unlikely on the facts), and even then, any judgment paid within one calendar month is removed from the register and has no impact on credit. Your overuse of the term “CCJ” is therefore not only pointless but improper.

Your firm is on notice that this conduct will now be reported to:

• the Solicitors Regulation Authority, for use of misleading and oppressive tactics contrary to the SRA Code of Conduct; and
• the Competition and Markets Authority, under the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024, given the statutory prohibition on coercive and misleading commercial practices.

If you proceed to issue a claim without first providing the documents and information required under the PAPDC and Pre‑Action Conduct, I will draw your non‑compliance to the Court’s attention and seek appropriate sanctions, including a stay and case‑management orders pursuant to paragraph 15(b) of the Practice Direction. Any unreasonable conduct by you or your client will be relied upon in support of an application for costs.

For the avoidance of doubt, I will not engage with any web portal. I will respond only via email or post.

Yours faithfully,

[Your Name][/b][/b]

When they respond, remind me to give you the SRA and CMA complaints to submit.