URI:
   DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
  HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       *****************************************************
   DIR Return to: Private parking tickets
       *****************************************************
       #Post#: 129931--------------------------------------------------
       Letter Before Claim - ELMS Legal - Elephant Park
   DIR By: bimmerfan
       Date: September 8, 2026, 10:24 am
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       On 20/3/2026, the driver parked at Elephant Park, London SE17
       1FY for 36 minutes. The Contravention alleged is "Parked for
       longer than the maximum period permitted" (code 80).
       NtK posted on 26/3/2026, Do Not Ignore notice followed, issued
       on 24/04/2026 (attached)
       Have now received Letter Before Claim from ELMS Legal Ltd, dated
       1/9/26 (attached)
       No appeal was made to the original PCN. Advice would be much
       appreciated.
       signage:
  HTML https://ibb.co/svcFvKjd
       notice:
  HTML https://ibb.co/YBY1nSwJ
       lbc:
  HTML https://ibb.co/cSN0K1H5
       #Post#: 129936--------------------------------------------------
       Re: Letter Before Claim - ELMS Legal - Elephant Park
   DIR By: Sander333
       Date: September 8, 2026, 10:39 am
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       If you can post the rear of the PCN as I cannot see if they have
       named the creditor. The general advice  is not to ignore but to
       appeal in order to show that you have engaged with the process.
       Was the driver a customer of any premises in order to have it
       cancelled at source. You will have to respond to L BC denying
       the debt and the reason(s) for doing so.
       #Post#: 129940--------------------------------------------------
       Re: Letter Before Claim - ELMS Legal - Elephant Park
   DIR By: InterCity125
       Date: September 8, 2026, 10:42 am
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       The OP has only posted a reminder notice and not the original
       PCN.
       #Post#: 129953--------------------------------------------------
       Re: Letter Before Claim - ELMS Legal - Elephant Park
   DIR By: bimmerfan
       Date: September 8, 2026, 11:45 am
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       This is ntk from the exact same location and contravention just
       with different PCN number, but everything else should be the
       same.
       front:
  HTML https://ibb.co/jkwDqzhd
       back:
  HTML https://ibb.co/MxRNkYTb
       #Post#: 130101--------------------------------------------------
       Re: Letter Before Claim - ELMS Legal - Elephant Park
   DIR By: bimmerfan
       Date: September 10, 2026, 10:42 am
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       What would the strongest grounds for denying the debt be?
       #Post#: 130131--------------------------------------------------
       Re: Letter Before Claim - ELMS Legal - Elephant Park
   DIR By: InterCity125
       Date: September 11, 2026, 2:43 am
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       The strongest arguments would be;
       1. The NtK does not contain the statutory wording required by
       POFA Schedule 4 Paragraph 9(2)(b) so liability cannot be
       transferred from the unknown driver to the keeper - marginal
       argument.
       2. That the notice relies on a 'time on site' argument and does
       not show or prove any 'period of parking' - this is the stronger
       argument - that the Defendant could reasonable say, "That is
       took the vehicle driver around 10 minutes to locate the exact
       address and that no parking actually occurred before that point
       in time - it also took a few minutes to leave the site after the
       parking event - with all this considered the actually period of
       parking was within the terms of the alleged contract."
       *****************************************************
       Page 1 of 1