DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Private parking tickets
*****************************************************
#Post#: 94250--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN Chester Private Car Park
DIR By: 3Sh3roo
Date: October 15, 2025, 4:12 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Thanks for that, Imgbb seems to have inverted the NtK hence it
looked like the dates were redacted, attached again below as
pics rather than PDF:
HTML https://ibb.co/fYTCcdvf
HTML https://ibb.co/yc1MsW58
#Post#: 94371--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN Chester Private Car Park
DIR By: 3Sh3roo
Date: October 16, 2025, 12:11 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
I received the following email from ELMS, noting they have not
responded to my email sent yesterday challenging the £70.
---------
Good morning
Further to my previous email, please find attached the contract
containing a site map, and a clear copy of the sign, as
requested in your email below.
Please let us know if you require any further information.
Kind Regards
Angie Bailey
ELMS Legal Limited
----------
Attachments below:
HTML https://ibb.co/dJ4dN3yN
HTML https://ibb.co/ZpR96TJ2
HTML https://ibb.co/7Jnzsz6w
Is the contract out of date or am I missing something?
#Post#: 94373--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN Chester Private Car Park
DIR By: DWMB2
Date: October 16, 2025, 12:28 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Clause 6.5 states that the contract will automatically extend
for a further 12 months unless/until the client gives notice in
writing of their desire to end said contract.
Given it was agreed 10 years ago, however, there'd be no harm in
putting them to proof that no such instruction has been received
at a later stage.
Also worth checking, if you haven't already, that the company
with whom that agreement was made ("RESIDENTIAL MANAGEMENT GROUP
LIMITED") still hold an interest in the land that allows them to
hold such a contract.
#Post#: 94479--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN Chester Private Car Park
DIR By: 3Sh3roo
Date: October 17, 2025, 7:19 am
---------------------------------------------------------
I've not asked them anything more about the contract, I also got
a response from them ref the VAT issue as follows, should I now
just wait for the legal pack to come through?
----------
Good morning,
Thank you for your email, the contents of which we have noted.
I can confirm that there is no VAT added to the £70.00 fee.
You have stated that you feel the £70.00 Debt Recovery Fee is
not recoverable, however the Private Parking Sector Single Code
of Practice (2024) reads as follows:
“09 Escalation of costs Where a Parking Charge becomes
overdue a sum of up to £70 may be added.”
There is no requirement to provide invoices, remittances,
statements or any further evidence to support the addition of
this amount and therefore this is not something which we would
provide.
With regard to your previous comments, the amount of the parking
charge falls within the “between £50 to £100” bracket quoted at
paragraph 111 of Parking Eye -v- Beavis [2015]. It is also in
keeping with the guidelines given by the ATA: - “Part 8.2.1, The
Private Parking Sector Single Code of Practice version 1.1 dated
17/02/2025 states “Parking Charges must not exceed £100.”. The
amount charged is set at a rate that covers the operational
costs of the parking management scheme and acts as a deterrent,
as was found to be appropriate in Parking Eye -v- Beavis [2015].
The hold on the above case is due to expire on 17 November 2025.
If payment of £170.00 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 01529 406096 or alternatively, you can make
payment online through our website at
HTML https://elmslegal.co.uk/payments/
Please ensure you use your unique reference number, XXXXXXXX, 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.
Kind Regards
Emily Scriminger-Faulkner
Deputy Team Leader
ELMS Legal Limited
-------
Thanks once again for all your help & guidance.
#Post#: 94507--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN Chester Private Car Park
DIR By: b789
Date: October 17, 2025, 10:29 am
---------------------------------------------------------
The contract and signage bundle they’ve now disclosed actually
weakens their position further rather than improving it. You can
use this material decisively when replying or later in a
defence. Here’s the analysis and how you should now respond to
Elms.
1. Contract Date and Expiry
The “Terms and Conditions of Contract” are dated 7 July 2015 for
a 12-month term commencing 31 August 2015 and ending 30 August
2016.
There is no evidence of renewal, extension, or re-execution.
That is fatal to any current standing unless they can prove a
continuous contractual chain to 2025. The “Extended Term” clause
at 6.4 is conditional upon notice of extension being served;
they have produced no such notice.
Accordingly, what they have supplied proves that VCS had
authority in 2015–2016 only. It does not evidence any subsisting
right to operate or litigate at Signal Court in 2025.
2. Landowner Authority Deficiency
The signatory, John Rooney, signed “for and on behalf of
Residential Management Group Ltd” as Property Manager, not as
the freeholder or head leaseholder. There is no evidence of the
freeholder’s written authority empowering RMG Ltd to
sub-delegate enforcement rights.
The agreement grants only a “non-exclusive licence to occupy”
(clause 2) — not a proprietary interest nor an express right to
litigate in its own name. That distinction is crucial under CPR
16.4 and CPR Part 31.
Thus, even if still extant (it is not), this contract does not
confer locus standi to issue proceedings in VCS’s own name.
3. Signage Defects
The displayed sign is prohibitive rather than contractual. Its
dominant wording — “Valid Permit Holders Only” — forbids parking
without a permit. It offers no alternative licence or
consideration, so no contractual offer exists for a non-permit
holder to accept. The only logical inference is that
unauthorised parking constitutes trespass, actionable (if at
all) only by the landowner, not by VCS.
Additionally, the sign’s lower text states “Charges may include
VAT,” contradicting their earlier statement that the £70 “does
not contain VAT”. That inconsistency corroborates that the £70
is not a genuine cost but an arbitrary mark-up.
Respond with the following:
--- Quote ---
> Subject: Signal Court (16/04/2025) – Non-existent contractual
authority and defective signage
>
> Dear Ms Scriminger-Faulkner,
>
> Thank you for providing the redacted contract and site plan.
>
> Having reviewed them, I note:
>
> [indent]1. The agreement is dated 7 July 2015 and expired on
30 August 2016. No renewal or extension notice has been
produced. It therefore confers no authority whatsoever in 2025.
> 2. The document grants Vehicle Control Services Ltd only a
non-exclusive licence to occupy, not proprietary rights or
standing to litigate. 3. The signature is by a property manager,
not the freeholder or superior landlord.
> 4. The signage you rely upon is purely prohibitive (“Valid
Permit Holders Only”) and cannot form a contractual offer to
unauthorised drivers. Any alleged contravention would, at most,
constitute trespass—an action available only to the landowner.
> 5. The sign states “charges may include VAT”, whereas you have
now confirmed that the £70 “does not contain VAT”. That
inconsistency will be relied upon as evidence that no
third-party cost was incurred and that the £70 uplift is an
unrecoverable fabrication.[/indent]
>
> In view of the above, please confirm within seven days whether
you still intend to pursue this matter despite lacking (a)
subsisting landowner authority, (b) any enforceable contract,
and (c) a recoverable £70 uplift. If you proceed regardless, I
will invite the Court to strike out the claim and will seek
costs for unreasonable conduct.
>
> Yours faithfully,
>
> [Name]
--- End Quote ---
#Post#: 94519--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN Chester Private Car Park
DIR By: DWMB2
Date: October 17, 2025, 11:48 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote ---
> The “Extended Term” clause at 6.4 is conditional upon notice
of extension being served
--- End Quote ---
Is it? I can see mention of written notice being required for
termination, but renewal seems to be automatic. I'd agree
raising the point about the length of time would seem sensible
nonetheless.
#Post#: 94527--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN Chester Private Car Park
DIR By: b789
Date: October 17, 2025, 12:28 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Ah, yes. I’ve re-read the form of VCS/RMG agreement (the 2015
“Fully Comprehensive Scheme”). Clause 6.4 in that template is
the usual rolling renewal: the initial 12-month term continues
automatically (“will continue to rollover”) unless terminated on
notice. The written notice requirement sits with termination,
not renewal.
So the clean way to run this is:
Correct the point (no need to concede anything):
[indent]“I note the agreement provides for automatic
continuation beyond 2016 absent termination. You are therefore
put to strict proof that it remained continuously in force up to
16/04/2025 and that no termination or variation
occurred.”[/indent]
Still attack authority/continuity (the 10-year gap matters): ask
for—
[indent]• Evidence of continuous subsistence: any renewal
letters, later schedules, addenda, or confirmations covering the
period 2016–2025.
• Evidence the counterparty is still the lawful occupier/agent
empowered to grant enforcement rights (RMG’s mandate from the
freeholder or superior landlord).
• Evidence of ongoing performance & consideration (e.g. annual
sign rental invoices, maintenance/permits logs).
• The current site plan and signage audit for 2025 (the plan
you’ve been sent is dated and marked “not to scale”).
• Proof that the agreement expressly permits VCS to litigate in
its own name (non-exclusive licence to occupy isn’t the same as
standing to sue).[/indent]
Keep the other two pressure points live:
[indent]• Prohibitive sign (“Valid Permit Holders Only”) →
no offer to non-permit users, so at best trespass (landowner
only).
• £70 no VAT → their written admission + the sign’s
“charges may include VAT” line helps show the £70 is an internal
uplift, not a third-party, VATable service. Couple that with
PPSCoP v1.1 (17/02/2025) banning add-ons and PoFA 4(5)
cap.[/indent]
If useful, here’s an insert you can drop into the next letter
(replacing my earlier line about “notice of extension”):
[indent]“Having reviewed the contract, I note it provides for
automatic continuation beyond 30/08/2016 absent termination. You
are therefore put to strict proof that the agreement subsisted
continuously to 16/04/2025 and that the contracting entity (RMG)
held and still holds authority from the landowner to confer
enforcement and litigation rights on VCS. Please provide copies
of any renewals, addenda, or confirmations post-2016, evidence
of ongoing consideration (annual signage/maintenance invoices),
and the current site plan and signage audit. In the absence of
such proof, your client lacks standing.”[/indent]
That preserves accuracy while keeping the evidential burden on
them.
#Post#: 94559--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN Chester Private Car Park
DIR By: 3Sh3roo
Date: October 17, 2025, 5:47 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Just trying to put together both posts, would the following
suffice as a response, I've combined them to the best of my
ability/knowledge:
--- Quote ---
>
>
> Having reviewed the contract, I note it provides for automatic
continuation beyond 30/08/2016 absent termination.
>
> 1. You are therefore put to strict proof that the agreement
subsisted continuously to 16/04/2025 and that the contracting
entity (RMG) held and still holds authority from the landowner
to confer enforcement and litigation rights on VCS. Please
provide copies of any renewals, addenda, or confirmations
post-2016, evidence of ongoing consideration (annual
signage/maintenance invoices), and the current site plan and
signage audit. In the absence of such proof, your client lacks
standing.
> 2. The document grants Vehicle Control Services Ltd only a
non-exclusive licence to occupy, not proprietary rights or
standing to litigate.
> 3. The signature is by a property manager, not the freeholder
or superior landlord.
> 4. The signage you rely upon is purely prohibitive (“Valid
Permit Holders Only”) and cannot form a contractual offer to
unauthorised drivers. Any alleged contravention would, at most,
constitute trespass—an action available only to the landowner.
> 5. The sign states “charges may include VAT”, whereas you have
now confirmed that the £70 “does not contain VAT”. That
inconsistency will be relied upon as evidence that no
third-party cost was incurred and that the £70 uplift is an
unrecoverable fabrication.
>
> In view of the above, please confirm within seven days whether
you still intend to pursue this matter despite lacking (a)
subsisting landowner authority, (b) any enforceable contract,
and (c) a recoverable £70 uplift. If you proceed regardless, I
will invite the Court to strike out the claim and will seek
costs for unreasonable conduct.
>
>
--- End Quote ---
Thanks
#Post#: 94801--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN Chester Private Car Park
DIR By: 3Sh3roo
Date: October 20, 2025, 7:42 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Please see response from ELMS below, should I just now wait?
--- Quote ---
>
> Good afternoon,
>
> Thank you for your email, the contents of which we note.
>
> I have confirmed with our client, Vehicle Control Services
Limited, that the contract remains in place and has not been
terminated by either party.
>
> Please refer to clause 3.5 of the attached contract, which
reads in part “which may extend to debt recovery and/or court
action” and 5.2 which reads “including suing for their
recovery”.
>
> I can confirm that J. Rooney was authorised to sign this
contract on behalf of Residential Management Group Ltd and so
would be able to agree to the terms and conditions therein.
>
> Your comments regarding the signage being purely prohibitive
have been noted, and our client would disagree that a contact
was not formed.
>
> Your comments regarding VAT have also been noted, however our
client maintains that this is not relevant to the matter at
hand.
>
> The matter remains on hold until 20 November 2025, after which
it may be issued upon.
>
> Kind Regards
>
> Emily Scriminger-Faulkner
>
> Deputy Team Leader
>
> ELMS Legal Limited
>
>
>
--- End Quote ---
#Post#: 94862--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN Chester Private Car Park
DIR By: b789
Date: October 20, 2025, 12:16 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
So why have you not bothered to show us the copy of the contract
referred to in that response????
Respond to that rubbish from with:
--- Quote ---
> Subject: Signal Court (16/04/2025) — Strict proof of standing,
subsistence, signage and £70 uplift
>
> Dear Ms Scriminger-Faulkner,
>
> Thank you for your email.
>
> “Contract remains in place” — assertion is not evidence
> A bare confirmation is insufficient for PAPDC purposes. Please
provide strict proof that the 07/07/2015 agreement subsisted
continuously to 16/04/2025, namely:
> [indent]• Copies of any renewals, extensions, side letters or
variations post-2016;
> • Annual invoices/receipts for the contract consideration
(e.g. sign rental/maintenance) and any management charges;
> • A current authority letter from the landowner/freeholder (or
superior landlord) confirming that Residential Management Group
Ltd had and still has authority to appoint VCS to enforce and to
litigate in its own name at Signal Court in 2025.[/indent]
>
> Clauses 3.5 and 5.2
> You rely on 3.5 (“may extend to debt recovery and/or court
action”) and 5.2 (“including suing for their recovery”). Those
clauses are only operative if (a) the agreement was in force in
2025; and (b) the counterparty was legally empowered by the
landowner to delegate litigation rights. Produce the upstream
mandate from the landowner evidencing RMG’s power to confer
locus standi. Without it, your client’s alleged standing is put
to strict proof.
>
> Site plan and signage — material-date proof required
> The plan you supplied is historic and marked “not to scale”.
Please provide a contemporaneous (April 2025) signage audit: the
number, locations, sizes and wording of all signs as at the
material date, and photographs showing visibility on the
approach, at the bay and at night. The principal sign you rely
on is prohibitive (“Valid Permit Holders Only”), offers no
licence to non-permit users and therefore cannot form a contract
with them; at most it alleges trespass, which only the landowner
could pursue. This point is maintained.
>
> £70 “debt recovery” uplift — your VAT admission remains
material
> You now say VAT is “not relevant”. It is. Your express
confirmation that the £70 “does not contain VAT”, taken with the
sign’s statement that “charges may include VAT”, is probative
that no VATable third-party service was supplied or paid for and
that the £70 is an internal surcharge. I will rely on that
admission. For the avoidance of doubt:
> [indent]• PoFA Sch.4 para 4(5) caps keeper liability at the
NtK sum;
> • The PPSCoP (17/02/2025) prohibits adding debt-recovery
uplifts;
> • CRA 2015 fairness/transparency applies to ancillary charges;
and
> • County court authority has repeatedly disallowed the £60/£70
bolt-on.[/indent]
>
> Unless you produce verifiable proof of a real third-party cost
actually incurred and paid (invoice + proof of payment), any
claim for £170 will be opposed as double recovery and
unreasonable.
>
> PAPDC compliance and timetable
> Please provide the documents requested at 1)–3) within 7 days.
In their absence I will treat your position as non-compliant
with the Protocol and will place this correspondence before the
court on conduct, inviting appropriate case-management relief
and costs. For clarity, no payment will be made on an inflated
figure.
>
> This is without prejudice to all other points, including
primacy of title/tenancy rights and the absence of a contractual
offer on your signage.
>
> Finally, it appears from your correspondence that this matter
is being handled by administrative staff rather than a legally
qualified or authorised person. Conduct of litigation is a
reserved legal activity under section 12 of the Legal Services
Act 2007.
>
> Please therefore confirm, within seven days:
> [indent]1. The full name and SRA number of the supervising
solicitor responsible for this case;
> 2. That all communications, including the preparation and
service of any Letter of Claim or statement of case, are
undertaken under that solicitor’s supervision; and
> 3. That any statement of truth or court document will be
signed by an authorised person.[/indent]
>
> If this information is not provided, or if it transpires that
unregulated personnel are exercising reserved legal functions
without supervision, I will refer the matter to the Solicitors
Regulation Authority.
>
> Yours faithfully,
>
> [Name]
> [Address / Email]
--- End Quote ---
*****************************************************
Page 7 of 9
DIR Previous Page
DIR Next Page