Free Traffic Legal Advice

Dear Sirs,

Re: Your purported Letter of Claim – [Client/PCN ref], Sea View Car Park, Polzeath – alleged event 20/10/2020

Your latest missive is yet another template non-response. It recycles stock phrases, misstates the law, and ignores the specific defects I identified. It is, frankly, legally embarrassing.

1. Protocol failure (again)
You still have not served a compliant Letter of Claim under the PAPDC and PD-PAC (PAPDC 3.1(a)–(d), 5.1–5.2; PD-PAC 6(a)–(c)). You even admit “a full site map of the car park and signage are not available”. That concession is fatal to any allegation that terms were properly communicated or incorporated on 20/10/2020.

2. Keeper liability – bare assertion is not evidence
Your one-line claim that Schedule 4 PoFA entitles recovery from the keeper is denied. Keeper liability is strict and only arises if every statutory condition is met. The NtK you rely on failed PoFA 9(2)(e)(i) (no compliant “invitation to keeper”), and you have produced neither that contemporaneous NtK nor proof of service under 9(4)–(6). Your curious suggestion that your “right has now expired as recovery action has commenced” is nonsense: commencing “recovery” does not transmute a non-compliant NtK into a compliant one. There is no presumption that the keeper was the driver: see VCS v Edward (2023) [H0KF6C9C]. I will not identify the driver.

3. The £70 add-on – unrecoverable double recovery
Your reliance on a trade association code to tack on £70 is misconceived. A private code does not override statute, the fixed small-claims costs regime, or the court’s duty to prevent double recovery. The add-on is routinely struck out as an abuse and any pleaded sum must be confined to the (denied) principal PCN. You have also been inconsistent (£60 in earlier material; £70 now) so please explain why the difference.

4. Standing/landowner authority – your position is hopeless
Your statement that “the agreement between our client and the landowner is not relevant” is risible and betrays a basic misunderstanding of locus standi. Only a party with authority from the landowner can (a) offer parking contracts to motorists, and (b) sue in its own name for alleged breach. This is not optional “background” – it goes to the very heart of the cause of action. The Supreme Court in ParkingEye v Beavis proceeded on the explicit premise that the operator held landowner authority; absent that authority the claim would have failed at the first hurdle. Your client is put to strict proof.

Produce now:

• The contemporaneous, unredacted landowner agreement in force on 20/10/2020 (redactions limited to commercially sensitive rates only), expressly granting your client authority to: manage/operate the site; erect and maintain signage; offer parking contracts; issue PCNs; and commence legal proceedings in its own name.
• A landowner (or superior titleholder) witness statement exhibiting that agreement and confirming its scope and duration.
• The site boundary plan and the schedule of signs cross-referenced in that agreement.

Your refusal to provide this is not merely non-compliance with the PPSCoP requirement for written authority on reasonable request; it is an admission that you cannot prove standing. Issue on that footing and the claim will be met with an application to stay/strike for want of standing and for unreasonable conduct costs.

5. Signage and incorporation
You concede you cannot provide a site map or signage set. That is the evidence by which you would hope to prove offer, terms, prominence, and incorporation. Without it, you have no contract case. Strict proof remains required of wording, positioning, dimensions, illumination, and the terms in force on the material date.

6. “Debt advice” fiction
Nowhere did I request a 30-day hold for debt advice. Your file note to that effect is false. Rectify your records immediately. This is a data accuracy issue (UK GDPR, Art. 5(1)(d) and Art. 16).

7. Service & communications – no web portal
I will not use your web portal. Do not direct me to it again. All future correspondence must be by email to: [your email] or by post to: [your postal address]. You may choose either channel. For the avoidance of doubt, “service” via a portal will not be accepted and portal notifications will be ignored. Update your records accordingly and confirm.

8. What you must provide (or discontinue)
To progress this pre-action exchange properly, serve a compliant PAPDC pack within 14 days, comprising:

(i) the items in §4 above (standing/authority);
(ii) the full ANPR data and stills; machine audit/VRM logs (entry, payment, whitelist/permit look-ups) for the relevant period;
(iii) the contemporaneous NtK and proof of service relied upon for PoFA;
(iv) the complete signage set and site plan applicable on 20/10/2020;
(v) a breakdown of the principal sum and a confirmation that the £70 add-on will not be pursued.

Failing that, confirm the matter is closed.

If you nevertheless issue a County Court claim without first curing these defects, I will apply to stay/strike under PD-PAC 15(b) and seek costs under CPR 27.14 for unreasonable conduct. Your client has been on clear notice for months. Proceeding on template bluster while disavowing the relevance of standing would merely compound the embarrassment.

Yours faithfully,

[Name of defendant]

[Postal address]
[Email]
[Your ref/Our ref]