Free Traffic Legal Advice

Dear Sirs,

Re: Letter of Claim dated 8th April 2025

I refer to your Letter of Claim, your ref: 10263288

I confirm that my address for service at this time is as follows, and I request that any outdated address be erased from your records to ensure compliance with data protection obligations:

[YOUR ADDRESS]

Please note that the alleged debt is disputed, and any court proceedings will be robustly defended.

I note that the sum claimed has been increased by an excessive and unjustifiable amount, which appears contrary to the principles established by the Government, who described such practices as “extorting money from motorists.” Please refrain from sending boilerplate responses or justifications regarding this issue.

Under the Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims, I require specific answers to the following questions:

1. Does the additional £70 represent what you describe as a “Debt Recovery” fee? If so, is this figure net of or inclusive of VAT? If inclusive, I trust you will explain why I, as the alleged debtor, am being asked to cover your client’s VAT liability.

2. Regarding the principal sum of the alleged Parking Charge Notice (PCN): Is this being claimed as damages for breach of contract, or will it be pleaded as consideration for a purported parking contract?

I would caution you against simply dismissing these questions with vague or boilerplate responses, as I am fully aware of the implications. By claiming that PCNs are exempt from VAT while simultaneously inflating the debt recovery element, your client – with your assistance – appears to be evading VAT obligations due to HMRC. Such mendacious conduct raises serious questions about the legality and ethics of your practices.

I strongly advise your client to cease and desist. Should this matter proceed to court, you can be assured that these issues will be brought to the court’s attention, alongside a robust defence and potentially a counterclaim for unreasonable conduct.

Yours faithfully,


[YOUR NAME]

Dear Sirs,

Re: Your Reference 10263288 – UKCPS Ltd
Letter of Claim dated 8 April 2025

I write in response to your email reply following my initial letter regarding the above matter. I now address the contents of your reply in full and set out further concerns with the conduct of this matter.

1. Procedural Background

Your Letter of Claim dated 8 April 2025 made a vague demand in relation to an alleged parking charge, citing a total sum of £170. In response, I wrote to you confirming:

• That the debt is denied;
• That my address for service should be updated;
• That the £70 surcharge appeared to be unjustified and potentially unlawful;
• That I required clarification on whether the PCN sum was being claimed as damages or as consideration for a contract;
• That boilerplate responses would not be accepted.

In your reply, you attempted to justify the additional £70 by reference to BPA and IPC Codes of Practice, asserting it was not a cost of recovery but a “reasonable amount” intended to encourage early payment. You claimed your client was pursuing a claim for unpaid parking charges due to a breach of contract. You also confirmed that you had placed the matter on hold for 30 days on the assumption that I was seeking debt advice.

Let me now make it absolutely clear that your Letter Before Claim was non-compliant with the Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims (PAPDC), and that your response has failed to correct or address these breaches.

2. Pre-Action Protocol Breaches

Your Letter of Claim contained insufficient detail of the claim and failed to include copies of evidence your client relies upon. This is a breach of:

• PAPDC paragraphs 3.1(a)–(d), 5.1, 5.2
• Practice Direction – Pre-Action Conduct, paragraphs 6(a) and 6(c)

I remind you that the Protocol is binding on all parties, including your client, a serial issuer of consumer claims. Your failure to comply with these pre-action duties is unacceptable.

3. Request for Disclosure and Clarification

Until your client complies with their obligations under the PAPDC, I cannot consider my position or respond substantively to the alleged claim. I therefore require the following information and documents under paragraphs 6(a) and 6(c) of the Practice Direction:

1. An explanation of the cause of action.
2. Whether your client is pursuing me as driver or registered keeper.
3. Whether your client relies on Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012.
4. Details of the alleged contravention: date, time, duration, and the calculation of the total sum claimed.
5. If the claim is for breach of contract: the date of the contract, parties, and a copy of the alleged contract.
6. Photographic evidence showing the vehicle allegedly in breach.
7. If alleging trespass: full particulars and supporting authority.
8. A copy of the contract with the landowner granting authority to litigate (as required by the Private Parking Single Code of Practice).
9. A site plan showing sign placement.
10. Photographs of signage (including font size and mounting height) at the time of the alleged contravention.
11. A breakdown of the £170: original PCN sum, interest, admin or other charges.
12. Clarification: is the £70 surcharge inclusive or exclusive of VAT? If inclusive, why am I as an alleged debtor being asked to pay your client’s VAT liability?
13. Clarification: is the principal PCN sum alleged to be damages or consideration for a parking contract?

I remind you again that failure to provide this information may lead to an application to stay proceedings, in line with authorities such as:

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

4. Registered Keeper Position – VCS v Edward (2023)

I confirm that I am the registered keeper of the vehicle. I decline to name the driver. As you are fully aware, there is no legal presumption in English law that the keeper of a vehicle was its driver.

I refer you to the persuasive appellate reasoning in Vehicle Control Services Ltd v Ian Mark Edward (2023) [H0KF6C9C], in which the judge confirmed this principle.

Your client cannot pursue me as the driver without evidence, and any reliance on a presumption of driver identity is misplaced and contrary to settled authority.

5. £70 Surcharge – VAT and Consumer Protection Concerns

Your explanation of the £70 surcharge as an “incentive” to pay early is disingenuous. This sum is clearly:

• Not a core term of any contract;
• Not proportionate as a pre-estimate of loss;
• Likely to be unenforceable under the Consumer Rights Act 2015.

You have not answered my legitimate question about whether the £70 is VAT inclusive. I repeat: if the principal PCN is claimed as VAT-exempt but the £70 includes VAT, then your client’s approach raises serious concerns of potential VAT evasion, which I reserve the right to report to HMRC.

6. Next Steps

As supposed solicitors, you should be well aware that these protocols and practice directions bind all potential litigants, regardless of the size or type of claim. Their stated purpose is to assist parties in understanding the claim, taking stock of their positions, and potentially resolving the dispute without recourse to litigation. It is frankly embarrassing that a regulated firm of solicitors would issue such a vague, unevidenced and non-compliant Letter of Claim.

I confirm that, once I am in receipt of a Letter of Claim which fully complies with paragraph 3.1(a) of the PAPDC, I will consider my position and respond formally within 30 days as required by the Protocol.

Please confirm that your client will not issue a claim until they have fully complied with their obligations under the Pre-Action Protocol. If a claim is issued prematurely, I will seek:

• An immediate stay of proceedings under Practice Direction paragraph 15(b);
• Sanctions and costs pursuant to CPR 27.14(2)(g);
• Further disclosure in line with the above.

Should your client proceed to issue proceedings in defiance of these requests and without proper disclosure, I will assert a robust defence and may also consider a counterclaim for unreasonable behaviour.

Yours faithfully,

[Your Full Name]

Subject: Final Response to Stage 2 Complaint Outcome – PCN Issued by UKCPS While Exercising Leasehold Right

Dear Ms Wood,

I write in response to your letter dated [insert date], regarding Stage 2 Complaint Reference 04152778.

I note your decision not to uphold my complaint, and I respectfully reject the rationale provided in full. With regret, I find it necessary to escalate this matter to the Housing Ombudsman Service on the basis of your continued refusal to recognise fundamental principles of property and contract law, and your failure to protect leaseholder rights under your management remit.

These are the core legal failures in your response and, for your reference, I will be including a copy of this letter in my escalation to the Housing Ombudsman.

1. Failure to Recognise Primacy of Contract

I am the leaseholder of Flat [flat number] and my lease grants me the right to park in my allocated space (number [space number] subject to the payment of service charges. There is no mention of a permit system, nor any reference to the involvement of third-party enforcement agents such as UKCPS.

The legal principle of primacy of contract means that any subsequent arrangements imposed by RMG or its contractors cannot override my pre-existing lease rights. That is well-established in the following case law:

• Jopson v Homeguard Services Ltd [2016] UKUT 496 (LC)
• Pace v Mr N (2016), [C6GF14F0]
• Link Parking v Ms P (2016) [C7GF50J7]

2. RMG’s Admission of Indiscriminate Enforcement

Jessica, your property manager, previously stated in writing:

"UKCPS issues parking charges to individuals who fail to display a permit, irrespective of their entitlement to park".

This is a clear admission that UKCPS is permitted to ignore the legal entitlements of leaseholders, which is indefensible in law and amounts to unlawful interference with leasehold property rights.

3. Section 37 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1987

If you assert that my lease was varied to allow this enforcement regime, please provide:

• A copy of the written agreement between myself and the freeholder;
• Or evidence of an application to, and approval by, the First-tier Tribunal under s.37(5)(a) or (b) of the Act.

You have supplied no such evidence. Therefore, your enforcement regime is entirely without legal foundation in respect of my demised property rights.

4. On the Offer to Pay

While I appreciate the offer to pay the PCN “on this occasion”, I must clarify that the correct resolution is cancellation, not payment, of a PCN issued unlawfully. Accepting payment in this way appears to be an attempt to sweep a procedural abuse under the rug without admission of fault. Any future PCN issued in identical circumstances would again constitute unlawful interference, and I reserve all rights in that regard.

5. Misunderstanding of Authority and Agency Law

RMG’s position that it is “unable to intervene” because UKCPS has passed the matter to a debt recovery agent and bulk litigators is both factually and legally absurd. The notion that the contractual principal loses authority over its own agent simply because the agent has referred the matter on is a fundamental misunderstanding of basic contract law.

UKCPS remains RMG’s appointed contractor and acts under its authority. If RMG cannot control the actions of its own agents, then either it has failed in its duty to manage those agents properly, or it has chosen not to. The idea that a matter becomes irreversible just because it has been “passed on” is nonsense.

RMG should have escalated this matter to its legal advisors. If this matter was reviewed by legal counsel, then I am forced to conclude that their advisors are equally incompetent or unaware of the most basic principles of agency law and leasehold rights.

6. Final Position

I do not accept that RMG or Places for People are legally powerless to instruct UKCPS or its legal agents to cancel a charge issued contrary to a lease. Your failure to do so, despite clear evidence, amounts to mismanagement and breach of your obligation to administer the estate in accordance with leaseholder rights.

As this is your final response, I will now escalate this matter to the Housing Ombudsman, requesting an investigation into:

• RMG’s failure to uphold leaseholder rights;
• Your tacit approval of unlawful enforcement activity;
• The stress and inconvenience caused by your failure to intervene meaningfully once the facts were made known.

Yours faithfully,

[Your Name]

Dear Jessica,

Thank you for your response.

While I note your assurance that the permit scheme is “not intended” to override my leasehold rights, the fact remains that it has done exactly that in practice — a PCN was issued to me while I was exercising my right to park in my own space, which is unconditional under my lease.

Your position is contradictory: you state that the scheme is not a variation of my lease, yet you also require compliance with it to avoid PCNs. This is, in effect, the imposition of a new condition on my leasehold right, and is exactly the interference I have raised from the outset.

I also note that you continue to assert that the PCN cannot be cancelled because it has been passed to your contractor’s own agents. This demonstrates either a misunderstanding of the basic principal–agent relationship in contract law or a refusal to exercise your authority as principal.

As this matter is now with the Housing Ombudsman, I will not enter into further debate with you directly. This response is simply to confirm that I do not accept your position and to preserve a clear record for the Ombudsman’s review.

Yours sincerely

[Your Name]

Housing Ombudsman Evidence Pack – Complaint Ref: 202513367

Complainant: [Your Name]
Landlord/Agent: Places for People Group Limited (via RMG)
Managing Agent’s Contractor: UKCPS Ltd
Complaint Subject: Improper enforcement of a private parking scheme against a leaseholder with an unconditional leasehold right to park

---

1. Background Summary
I am the leaseholder of Flat [***]. My lease grants me the right to park one permitted vehicle in my allocated space (Space 20) subject only to payment of service charges. There is no requirement to display a permit, no reference to signage, and no contractual relationship with any third-party parking enforcement company.

RMG manages the estate’s car park and has contracted UKCPS to operate a permit-based enforcement scheme. This scheme has resulted in the issuing of a Parking Charge Notice (PCN) to my vehicle whilst it was parked in my own space, despite displaying a valid permit.

---

2. Timeline of Events

14 March 2023 – Alleged contravention date. My vehicle was parked in my own allocated space and displayed a permit on the dashboard. UKCPS issued a PCN claiming “no permit displayed”.

Mid-2023 – 2024 – No contact from RMG. PCN passed by UKCPS to Trace Debt Recovery and later to Moorside Legal.

Early 2025 – I contacted RMG (Property Manager: Jessica) requesting intervention and cancellation of the PCN.

• Jessica confirmed UKCPS issues PCNs “irrespective of entitlement to park” if they deem a permit not displayed.
• Jessica stated that because the PCN was at “debt recovery” stage, RMG could not assist.

Stage 1 Complaint – RMG Response – RMG refused to uphold my complaint, repeated UKCPS’s position, and advised me to deal directly with Moorside Legal.

Stage 2 Complaint – RMG Response (Michelle Wood) – Again refused to uphold the complaint, claiming neither RMG nor UKCPS could cancel the PCN at its current stage. Offered to pay the PCN as a “goodwill gesture” but insisted permits must be displayed.

July 2025 – RMG Further Response (Jessica McGann) – Acknowledged my right to park but insisted the permit scheme does not override lease rights, describing it as a “practical measure” to prevent misuse of spaces. Continued to require compliance to avoid PCNs.

July 2025 – Complaint escalated to Housing Ombudsman.

---

3. Legal Position

a. Primacy of Contract
My lease is the primary and overriding contractual document governing my rights to park. The imposition of a permit scheme that penalises leaseholders for not displaying a permit is a new condition, not present in my lease. This cannot be lawfully imposed without a formal lease variation in accordance with s.37(5) of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1987.

b. Interference with Leasehold Rights
By issuing a PCN to my vehicle in my own space, the scheme has interfered with my legal right to park, despite RMG’s stated “intention” not to do so. Intention is irrelevant when the effect is to impose a penalty for exercising an existing right.

c. Principal–Agent Relationship
UKCPS acts as RMG’s appointed contractor. RMG, as principal, retains the authority to instruct its agent to cancel enforcement action, regardless of whether the agent has referred the matter to a debt recovery company or solicitor. RMG’s claim that it is “unable to intervene” is factually and legally incorrect.

d. Case Law
Relevant persuasive county court authorities include:

• Jopson v Homeguard Services Ltd [2016] UKUT 496 (LC)
• Pace v Mr N (2016, C6GF14F0)
• Link Parking v Ms P (2016, C7GF50J7)
All confirm that a leaseholder’s pre-existing rights cannot be overridden by later-imposed parking schemes.

---

4. Key Contradictions in RMG’s Position

1. Acknowledgement vs. Action – RMG claims to “fully recognise” my right to park yet refuses to take steps to cancel a PCN issued in direct breach of that right.

2. No Lease Variation – RMG insists the scheme is not a lease variation, yet in practice imposes compliance as a condition to avoid penalties.

3. Inaccurate Legal Reasoning – RMG’s claim that they “cannot intervene” because the matter is with a debt recovery agent or solicitor ignores basic principles of contract law and agency.

4. Offer to Pay vs. Cancellation – Offering to pay the PCN as a “gesture of goodwill” is an implicit admission that the PCN is unjustified, yet they have refused the correct remedy: cancellation.

---

5. Remedy Sought
I request the Housing Ombudsman find that RMG’s actions and inaction amount to maladministration and/or service failure by:

• Allowing a parking enforcement scheme to operate in a way that penalises leaseholders for exercising their legal rights.
• Failing to instruct their contractor to cancel an unjustified PCN despite having the authority to do so.
• Providing contradictory and legally incorrect responses during the complaints process.

I request the Ombudsman recommend:

1. Immediate written confirmation that my space is excluded from UKCPS enforcement.
2. Formal instruction to UKCPS/Moorside Legal to cancel the PCN.
3. A written apology for the stress and inconvenience caused.
4. Review of estate parking enforcement to prevent recurrence.