Free Traffic Legal Advice

Dear Sirs,

Re: Your Letter of Claim dated 14 March 2025 and subsequent evasive response

Your recent reply to my response under the Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims (“PAPDC”) is as predictable as it is professionally unacceptable.

Rather than comply with the PAPDC, you have doubled down on your client’s unreasonable position by issuing a dismissive, boilerplate non-response. You have not answered a single question I raised with the clarity or specificity the Protocol demands. Your attempt to discredit my letter on the basis that it resembled a commonly used template is legally irrelevant and patently absurd. The questions posed are pertinent, necessary, and entirely within the scope of the PAPDC and Practice Direction – Pre-Action Conduct.

As regulated solicitors, you are required to engage constructively, not attempt to browbeat consumers into silence. If your client’s case had any legal merit, you would have no difficulty providing coherent answers. Your failure to do so will be a matter of record.

I remind you again:

• I am the registered keeper. I am under no obligation to identify the driver and I decline to do so.
• There is no legal presumption that the keeper was the driver: see VCS v Edward [2023] (H0KF6C9C).
• Your client is not relying on PoFA 2012, so cannot pursue me as the keeper.
• Therefore, your client has no cause of action against me in either capacity.

Your refusal to acknowledge this basic legal reality is prima facie evidence of unreasonable conduct.

Should you issue a claim in these circumstances, I will immediately seek:

• A costs order under CPR 27.14(2)(g) on the basis of your unreasonable behaviour;
• A formal stay of proceedings under paragraph 15 of the Practice Direction;
• Disclosure orders compelling the very information your client should have provided before threatening litigation;
• And I will file a formal complaint to the Solicitors Regulation Authority, supported by this correspondence.

Furthermore, your conduct now compels me to require additional information, as allowed under the PAPDC. I repeat my earlier questions and now demand that your client also provides answers to the following, to allow me to fully understand the alleged claim:

1. Full details of the alleged cause of action.
2. Confirmation of whether your client alleges a contract with me, and if so:

 a. The date it was formed,
 b. The parties to it,
 c. The terms relied upon, and
 d. A copy of the alleged contract.

3. Confirmation of whether the claim is brought in contract or in tort (e.g. trespass).
4. A complete breakdown of the amount claimed: principal, added sums, interest, costs.
5. Whether the added £60 sum is a “debt recovery” charge, contractual fee, or other.
6. If it is a “debt recovery” fee:

 a. Is it paid to a third party or retained by your client?
 b. Is it VAT-inclusive?
 c. If VAT is charged, why am I being asked to cover your client’s tax liability?

7. Full details of the alleged contravention:

 a. Precise duration of stay,
 b. Evidence relied upon (e.g. ANPR records),
 c. Any grace or consideration periods applied.

8. A copy of the signage that allegedly formed the contract.
9. A site map showing signage locations.
10. Proof of your client’s landowner authority, as required by the BPA/IPC Private Parking Single Code of Practice.
11. Evidence that your client has fully complied with that Code.
12. Confirmation of whether the alleged charge was ever subject to internal or independent appeal. If so, provide all correspondence and decisions.
13. Whether your client holds DVLA Keeper data; and if so, the exact date that data was obtained and under what basis.
14. Whether your client asserts that keeper liability applies and, if not, who they allege the driver to be and on what basis.
15. Whether your client’s signs were in compliance with the Consumer Rights Act 2015 and applicable guidance on unfair terms in consumer contracts.

I repeat: you must not issue proceedings until your client has complied with the PAPDC and supplied full answers to the above. Any claim issued without proper pre-action disclosure will be met with an application to strike out, stay, or sanction, supported by authority including:

• Webb Resolutions Ltd v Waller Needham & Green [2012] EWHC 3529 (Ch),
• Charles Church Developments Ltd v Stent Foundations Ltd [2007] EWHC 855 (TCC),
• Daejan Investments Ltd v Park West Club Ltd [2003] EWHC 2872 (TCC).

You are now on formal notice: any further failure to comply will be used against your firm and your client in any proceedings. I will seek full recovery of costs for your unreasonable and abusive litigation tactics, and escalate your professional misconduct to the SRA.

Yours faithfully,

[Your Name]