They have not complied with the Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims and have failed to supply key documents (landholder authority, proof the terms relied upon were in place on the material date, evidence of the driver, etc.). The NtK confirms no reliance on PoFA, so keeper liability is not available and strict proof of driver identity is required.
Re: Your purported response to my PAPDC request – Ref. 711200081882PEL
Dear Sirs,
I acknowledge receipt of your email dated 1 September 2025. You have provided a facsimile “terms” sign, a site plan, a copy of your client’s NtK (which does not rely on Schedule 4 PoFA 2012), and some images. You have refused to provide the other documents I requested, asserting they are “disproportionate and/or not relevant”.
With respect, that stance is incompatible with the Civil Procedure Rules and the Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims. Paragraphs 3.1(a)–(d), 5.1 and 5.2 of the Protocol, and paragraphs 6(a) and 6(c) of the Practice Direction on Pre-Action Conduct and Protocols require the early exchange of sufficient information and key documents to enable the issues to be understood and for narrowing to occur. Your refusal frustrates those aims.
For the avoidance of doubt:
1. Your client’s NtK does not rely on PoFA to hold the Keeper liable. Keeper liability is therefore unavailable. If you contend the registered keeper was the driver, provide your proof. Otherwise, please confirm that proceedings will not be issued against the keeper.
2. Your “signage” pack is not proof of what was present and legible on the material date. Provide contemporaneous photographs (date-stamped) taken at the relevant time, at driver eye-height from all approaches, showing the entrance signage and the terms relied upon, and a plan cross-referencing each sign’s exact position.
3. Identify the precise contractual term allegedly breached. Your allegation is pleaded in the alternative (“either … or …”), which is impermissibly vague. Specify the single clause relied upon and explain how you say it was breached on the facts.
4. Standing: produce the landholder contract (or a suitably redacted copy) conferring authority on the named Claimant to operate, issue PCNs and litigate in its own name for the material period. A generic witness statement will not suffice; I require the operative grant of authority.
5. Quantum: you continue to demand £170. Identify the principal sum, the legal basis for any add-on, and whether any “debt recovery” component includes VAT (and if not, why not). If you contend the add-on is recoverable, set out the authority you rely upon.
I repeat that I am entitled to these materials under PD-PAC 6(a) and 6(c), and I need them to comply with 6(b). Upon receipt of a compliant Letter of Claim that encloses the above, I will provide a full response within 30 days.
If you issue without first complying, I will apply immediately for a stay under PD-PAC 15(b), with costs, and will invite the court to impose appropriate sanctions having regard to paragraphs 13 and 16.
Please either provide the documents within 14 days and re-start the 30-day PAPDC clock with a compliant Letter of Claim, or confirm that the matter is discontinued against the registered keeper.
Yours faithfully,
