3. PCN Chester Private Car Park
« previous next »
Pages: 1 ... 4 5 [6]

Author Topic: PCN Chester Private Car Park  (Read 15393 times)

0 Members and 153 Guests are viewing this topic.

Re: PCN Chester Private Car Park
« Reply #75 on: »
Please see response as follows, is it worth pointing out the AST or should that be left till later?

Quote
Thank you for your email, the contents of which have been noted. In response to your points raised, we would advise the following:
 
1.£70 “debt recovery”
Please note that neither ourselves nor Vehicle Control Services Ltd (“our client”) are under any legal obligation to provide the documentation you have requested. The debt recovery fee has been lawfully incurred in accordance with the terms and conditions displayed on site and accepted at the time of parking. We reject your assertion that the fee constitutes “double recovery” or that it is otherwise unenforceable. The £70 charge forms part of the recoverable amount and will continue to be pursued as such.
 
2.“The Code allows £70” — not determinative and still subject to law
Whilst your comments have been noted regarding the Code, we would again affirm that the Code allows for the recovery of these costs which were outlined in the terms and conditions referenced above. We maintain that this cost is both fair and reasonable. 
 
3.Driver v Keeper
The Notice to Keeper sent by our client complies with PoFA (2012) and therefore as you have not named the driver, we are able to pursue you for the outstanding balance as the registered keeper. If you were not the driver, then please advise of their details.  As no evidence has been provided identifying another driver, it is reasonable to infer that the keeper was the driver, an inference the court may draw on the balance of probabilities. While Elliott v Loake [1982] RTR 228 was a criminal case, it supports the principle that such an inference may be made in the absence of contrary evidence. Likewise, CPS v AJH Films Ltd [2015] EWCA Crim 1068 illustrates that liability may extend to those responsible for a vehicle’s use.

We can rely on the reasonable assumption that the Keeper was the Driver. We do not have to rely on PoFA even though the NTK sent was PoFA compliant.
 
4.Standing and authority
Our client has advised that should these documents be requested by the Courts our client will provide them.
 
5.Conduct of litigation / supervision
All litigation will be conducted in line with the Legal Services Act 2007.
 
I can advise that this matter is on hold until the 29 November 2025.

If payment was made before this date, then the case would not proceed any further. We would also be able to accept this either in full or via instalments over a maximum of 10 months. If you would like to set up a payment plan please contact us to advise how much you would be looking to make payment for and which date of the month would be best for the payments to be due, then we would be able to set this up on our system which would put a hold on any legal proceedings.

If you are wanting to make a payment on the outstanding balance, please contact us on 0XXX9 4XXXX6 or alternatively, you can make payment online through our website at https://elmslegal.co.uk/payments/
Please ensure you use your unique reference number, XXXXXXXXXXX, so that we can allocate your payment to your account, otherwise the payment may not be registered and will be returned to you resulting in the balance still being outstanding.

Alternatively, if you were looking to dispute the matter further then you would be able to do so once the case has been issued. Once this has been issued the court would send you a claim pack which would allow you to file a full defence and have your case allocated to a hearing.
 
Many thanks
 
Kind Regards
 
Angie Bailey
 
ELMS Legal Limited

Logged
Re: PCN Chester Private Car Park
« Reply #76 on: »
That reply from Ms Bailey is weak and defensive — they're clearly rattled. Their key tells are:
• refusal to disclose any invoices or proof of third-party debt recovery;
• backpedal from their own “PoFA not relied on” stance;
• reliance on Elliott v Loake and CPS v AJH Films, which are both discredited in this context;
• and another attempt to blur the line between assisting and conducting litigation.

I suggest you respond with:

Quote
Subject: Signal Court (16/04/2025) — Formal Notice: Reliance on Misleading Authority and VAT Evidence

Dear Ms Bailey,

Thank you for your response dated [insert date].

1. VAT and the £70 uplift
Your confirmation that the £70 “does not contain VAT” and that “charges may include VAT” stands as an unequivocal admission that no VAT-bearing service was procured. This destroys any pretence that the £70 represents a genuine third-party cost. You are now on notice that this point will be relied upon at hearing to demonstrate that the £70 is a fabricated in-house charge, not a loss, expense, or recoverable sum under any head of law.

If the £70 were truly “incurred”, a VAT invoice and remittance proof would exist. Your refusal to disclose these documents will be drawn to the Court’s attention as evidence that they do not exist.

2. Statutory Cap and Mischaracterisation
Schedule 4, paragraph 4(5) of PoFA is clear: where keeper liability is invoked, the sum recoverable is limited to that specified in the Notice to Keeper. You have now expressly stated that you are relying on PoFA, which means the £70 uplift is statutorily barred. You cannot simultaneously assert PoFA compliance and rely on a non-PoFA contractual or “consequential loss” theory.

3. Misuse of Criminal Authorities
Your reliance on Elliott v Loake and CPS v AJH Films is misconceived. Elliott v Loake is a criminal case ([1983] Crim LR 36) and provides no civil presumption that a registered keeper was the driver. AJH Films ([2015] EWCA Civ 1453) is a civil case on vicarious liability in an employer/employee context; it has no application to a private individual’s keeper liability. Unless you plead and prove an identified driver or strict PoFA keeper liability, your authorities are irrelevant.

4. Standing and Authority
Your refusal to disclose the landowner contract, subsistence evidence, and delegation chain until “requested by the Court” is non-compliant with the Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims. It prevents the narrowing of issues and will be raised as unreasonable conduct when costs are addressed.

5. Conduct of Litigation
I note your statement that “all litigation will be conducted in line with the Legal Services Act 2007.” That statement is circular and non-responsive. Please confirm whether Ms Scriminger-Faulkner and yourself are personally authorised under Schedule 2 of the Act to conduct litigation, and if not, that any court pleadings, statements of truth, or witness evidence will be signed and submitted exclusively by Mr Shoreman-Lawson or another authorised person.

Should unauthorised personnel perform reserved legal activities, I will refer the matter to the SRA without further notice.

Conclusion
Your client’s position is unsustainable in law. The £70 uplift will not survive judicial scrutiny, and your reliance on discredited authority will be cited on conduct and costs. If you are not personally authorised to conduct litigation, it may be prudent to refer this correspondence to an authorised individual within your firm who is capable of addressing the substantive legal issues raised.

I will now await formal proceedings or discontinuance. Further correspondence of a generic or repetitive nature will not be acknowledged.

Yours faithfully,

[Name]
[Address]
Logged
Never argue with stupid people. They will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience” - Mark Twain
Like Like x 1 View List
Re: PCN Chester Private Car Park
« Reply #77 on: »
Feedback from Elms as below, they've just added the same old contract dated 7th July 2015, best to just ignore?

Quote
Good morning,
 
Thank you for your email. Please see below our responses to your points.
 
1. VAT and the £70 uplift
We have confirmed that the £70.00 fee added to the balance of £100.00 does not include VAT. It is approved by The Private Parking Sector Single Code of Practice. We are under no obligation to provide invoices to substantiate this claim, as they are not required.
 
2. Statutory Cap and Mischaracterisation
The Notice to Keeper (attached) reads in part:
Failure to make payment within 28 days of the Issue Date of this Notice will result in the full charge of 000.000 being applied plus additional costs incurred through debt recovery and/or court action. Where debt recovery action is taken, further charges may be incurred that will be added to the value of the PCN up to the value of an additional £70.00.
We maintain, therefore, that the full balance remains recoverable.
 
3. Misuse of Criminal Authorities
Elliott v Loake:
This case shows courts can draw common-sense conclusions about who was driving when the facts point that way. If the keeper does not say who was driving and gives no evidence to the contrary, the court can decide it was the keeper on the balance of probabilities. It is not about criminal rules. It is about everyday civil inference when someone stays silent on something they should know.
CPS v AJH Films:
This case confirms that someone can be held responsible when they allow another person to use their vehicle and then refuse to identify them. Even though the case involved a company, the basic point stands: if you let someone use your car and later refuse to say who it was, the court can treat you as responsible.
 
4. Standing and Authority
You have been previously provided with the contract (attached again), and confirmation that the site remains active. We note your comments that you feel this is insufficient and advise again that further commercially sensitive documentation such as renewals would be provided if our client was ordered to do so by the court.
 
5. Conduct of Litigation
I can confirm neither myself nor Angie are conducting litigation. Any court pleadings, statements of truth, or witness evidence will be signed and submitted by an authorised person.
 
The matter remains on hold until 29 November 2025, after which date it may be issued upon without further notice.
 
Kind Regards
 
Emily Scriminger-Faulkner
 
Deputy Team Leader
 
ELMS Legal Limited


Logged
Re: PCN Chester Private Car Park
« Reply #78 on: »
It beggars belief that this person is a supposedly legally trained person, considering the responses being give each time. I advise you to send the following response to that rubbish:

Quote
Subject: Re: Vehicle Control Services Ltd – Alleged Parking Charge (Signal Court, 16/04/2025)

Dear Ms Scriminger-Faulkner,

Thank you for your latest response, the content of which once again demonstrates a fundamental lack of understanding of both statutory and procedural requirements.

1. VAT and the £70 Uplift
You repeat that the £70 does not include VAT yet decline to produce any evidence of an external service or invoice. That admission confirms the sum is an internal administrative charge, not a debt-recovery cost “incurred”. Its inclusion therefore constitutes double recovery and an abuse of process. The PPSCoP cannot authorise what statute and settled case law prohibit.

2. Statutory Cap
Your attempt to rely on wording within the Notice to Keeper does not override Schedule 4(5) of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, which caps keeper liability at the amount specified in the NtK. No amount of self-serving drafting alters statute. If you truly believe your client can contract out of primary legislation, that belief is as misplaced as it is concerning.

3. Elliott v Loake (1983 Crim LR 36)
Your description of this criminal case as supporting a “civil inference” is fanciful. It involved forensic evidence proving the keeper was the driver; there was no legal presumption. You are invited to produce a single binding civil authority establishing such a presumption. None exists.

4. Combined Parking Solutions v AJH Films [2015] EWCA Civ 1453
Your portrayal of this case as applying to private individuals is wrong in law. It concerned vicarious liability in an employer–employee relationship, not an owner’s refusal to name a driver. It cannot be stretched to impose personal liability upon a private keeper. To suggest otherwise is misleading and unbecoming of a legal services provider.

5. Standing and Authority
You confirm that commercially sensitive documents will be withheld unless ordered by the Court. That position is non-compliant with the Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims, paragraphs 3.1(a)–(d) and 5.2, which require disclosure of key documents to enable informed engagement. A refusal to do so will be brought to the Court’s attention on costs and conduct.

6. Conduct of Litigation
I note your admission that neither you nor Ms Bailey are authorised persons. If you are unable to engage with the substantive points raised or to comply with the Protocol, it would be prudent to refer this correspondence to an authorised solicitor or other responsible adult within your firm who can.

Unless and until you provide a compliant Letter of Claim with full documentation, no further correspondence will be entertained. Any proceedings issued in breach of the PAPDC will be met with an immediate application to stay and for costs on the indemnity basis.

Yours faithfully,

[Your Name]
[Address]
Logged
Never argue with stupid people. They will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience” - Mark Twain
Like Like x 1 View List
Re: PCN Chester Private Car Park
« Reply #79 on: »
I got the following response from ELMS, they are just sharing the same contract of 2015 and site map (not to scale)

Quote
Good morning,

Thank you for your kind email, the contents of which we note. 

You have been previously provided with the contract, site plan, and signage for the relevant land. Please find this attached again for your reference. 

The matter remains on hold until 29 November 2025, after which date it may be issued upon without further notice.

Kind Regards
 
Emily Scriminger-Faulkner

Deputy Team Leader
 
ELMS Legal Limited
Logged
Re: PCN Chester Private Car Park
« Reply #80 on: »
No point in any further response. Let them issue the claim, if they dare, and you can also refer them to the SRA for breaching the PAPDC.
Logged
Never argue with stupid people. They will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience” - Mark Twain
Like Like x 1 View List
Re: PCN Chester Private Car Park
« Reply #81 on: »
So I've not heard anything from ELMS so far, they stated that the matter was on hold until 29th November. Naturally I don't want to tempt fate or invite them to waste our time. However I want to ensure that no nasty surprises are sprung, I have been on holiday for a couple of weeks but seen no letters, emails, communication from them.

Should I just sit back and hope they've gone away?
Logged
Re: PCN Chester Private Car Park
« Reply #82 on: »
The ball remains in their court, but keep a close eye on your post.
Logged
Like Like x 1 View List
Pages: 1 ... 4 5 [6]
« previous next »
  3. PCN Chester Private Car Park