Free Traffic Legal Advice

 b789

    Hero Member

Thank you SO much for your ongoing interest and help in this case ! I will let you know the outcome in due course? Regards!

After having received an LBC and replied back still dipsuting but adding that the letter was not compliant (which it wasn't).

(It is disappointing to note that your letter fails to meet the requirements set out in paragraphs 3.1(a)–(d), 5.1, and 5.2 of the Protocol, as well as paragraphs 6(a) and 6(c) of the Practice Direction. These provisions are not optional; they exist to facilitate informed engagement and proportionate resolution prior to litigation. I encourage you to review them carefully.

The Civil Procedure Rules 1998, Part 3, Pre-Action Conduct and Protocols, require that parties exchange sufficient information to understand each other’s position before proceedings are issued. Paragraph 6 of the Practice Direction clarifies that this includes disclosure of key documents relevant to the dispute. Your letter refers to a “contract” yet fails to provide one—undermining the very basis of your client’s claim and obstructing meaningful pre-litigation dialogue.

I also note that your Letter Before Claim fails to enclose the required Reply Form and Information Sheet, as stipulated under paragraph 3.1(a) of the Protocol. Providing only a hyperlink to these documents does not satisfy the requirement to include them with the letter itself. This omission impedes my ability to respond meaningfully and constitutes a procedural defect. I request that you remedy this by supplying the required documents before any further action is taken.)

They had set a hold date of the 13th Nov. I have heard nothing until today. This seems to be a backward move in the process? Any thoughts please? I received a letter from ELMS Legal https://ibb.co/DDPPNfKm

Whilst I wouldn't normally advise responding to any debt recovery letter, in this case, Elms are clearly in breach of the DMCC and they should be reported to the CMA and I would suggest you email the following to Elms and CC yourself:

Subject: Your reference VCS22897672 – Notice of complaint under the DMCC and request to return file to client

Dear Sirs

I refer to your “URGENT: NOTIFICATION OF INSTRUCTION” dated 24 November 2025 in respect of an alleged Parking Charge Notice issued by Vehicle Control Services Ltd (“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 seek 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 that is 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:

1. Misleading actions, 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.

2. Misleading omissions, by failing to explain the legal limitations on liability on airport land and the true status and enforceability of the alleged debt.

3. Aggressive practices, 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.

4. 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 be providing 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 which will be robustly defended.

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

[Name]
[Address]
[Email]

Should I actually follow up and complain to the CMA too?

If you send correspondence saying you're going to do something, I would recommend you actually do, so that you don't create the impression that you are all bluster and no substance.