DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Private parking tickets
*****************************************************
#Post#: 94880--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN Chester Private Car Park
DIR By: 3Sh3roo
Date: October 20, 2025, 2:18 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Thanks for this, I will send it today. The copy of the contract
is in post #61, I think you've seen it already... :)
Also, I shared the AST back in May which is the only paperwork
I've signed, not that I expect anyone to remember.
#Post#: 95022--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN Chester Private Car Park
DIR By: 3Sh3roo
Date: October 21, 2025, 9:54 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Feedback as follows:
--- Quote ---
>
> Good afternoon,
>
> Thank you for your email.
>
> I have passed this request to our client and will revert to
you in due course.
>
> Kind Regards
>
> Emily Scriminger-Faulkner
>
> Deputy Team Leader
>
> ELMS Legal Limited
>
>
--- End Quote ---
She hasn't addressed the last section about legally qualified
people (or anything for that matter).
#Post#: 95036--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN Chester Private Car Park
DIR By: DWMB2
Date: October 21, 2025, 10:32 am
---------------------------------------------------------
I am perhaps extending them more benefit of the doubt than they
deserve here, but to reduce the amount of back and forth, I'd be
tempted to wait until they come back to you, having passed the
request to their client, and see which (if any) of your queries
they address. You can chase if nothing is received in a timely
manner, of course.
#Post#: 95764--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN Chester Private Car Park
DIR By: 3Sh3roo
Date: October 27, 2025, 12:23 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Please see response from ELMS as follows, do I just wait till
20th Nov?
--- Quote ---
>
> Thank you for your patience whilst we received our clients
response.
>
>
> Our client maintains that the Contract is valid and that the
signage on site meets BPA approval. Our client further advises
that the information requested would be provided if required by
the Court.
>
> The £70 recovery fee applicable to this matter does not
contain VAT. The statement “charges may include VAT” is correct,
they may. The operative word being “may”.
>
> Liability Cap under PoFA - We note your reference to Schedule
4, Paragraph 4(5) of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA),
which states that the registered keeper’s liability is limited
to the amount specified in the Notice to Keeper (NtK). However,
this statutory cap relates specifically to keeper liability, not
to charges pursued against a driver or contractually liable
party outside PoFA. The £70 is pursued as a contractual charge
and/or a consequential loss resulting from non-payment, not as a
PoFA recovery.
>
> Parking Code of Practice (PPSCoP – February 2025) - You cite
the Private Parking Code of Practice (17 February 2025) as
prohibiting such uplifts. Please note that this Code sets the
current cap at £70.00 for Debt Recovery Fees.
>
> Consumer Rights Act 2015 (CRA) - With respect to the CRA 2015,
we maintain that the £70 charge is both transparent and
proportionate in the context of the contractual arrangement. The
charge is outlined in the terms and conditions communicated at
the point of contract (i.e. signage), and it reflects the
legitimate costs of debt recovery action. Case law has
recognised the principle that such costs may be recoverable
where properly incorporated into the contract.
>
> County Court Authority - While we acknowledge that some County
Court decisions have disallowed similar charges, others have
upheld them depending on case-specific facts. As you will
appreciate, County Court judgments are not binding precedents.
We are satisfied that our position is supported by existing
contractual documentation and legal principles, and we are
prepared to present our case should this matter proceed further.
>
> I can confirm that, with regard to your comments regarding
conduct of litigation, we are assisting our client with
litigation, not conducting. Edmund Shoreman-Lawson (SRA number –
537827 ) is the Principle of ELMS Legal Ltd, being a Solicitor
(SRA number – 537827 ) with a current practising certificate is
an authorised person for this purpose.
>
> This matter remains on hold until 20/11/2025.
>
> Kind Regards
>
> Angie Bailey
>
> ELMS Legal Limited
>
>
--- End Quote ---
#Post#: 95782--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN Chester Private Car Park
DIR By: b789
Date: October 27, 2025, 2:17 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Respond with the following:
--- Quote ---
> Subject: Signal Court (16/04/2025) — £70 uplift, standing,
driver/keeper basis, and authorisation
>
> Dear Ms Bailey,
>
> Thank you for your email.
>
> 1. £70 “debt recovery” — your VAT admission remains probative
> You have twice confirmed the £70 “does not contain VAT”, while
the sign says “charges may include VAT”. I will rely on that
admission. Absent a VAT-bearing invoice and proof of payment to
an external supplier, the £70 is plainly an internal
surcharge/double recovery, not a genuine third-party cost.
Please either (a) produce the third-party invoice(s) and
remittance(s), or (b) confirm you will not pursue the £70.
>
> 2. “The Code allows £70” — not determinative and still subject
to law
> Whatever an industry code may say, it cannot:
> [indent]• expand PoFA caps;
> • disapply the CRA 2015 fairness/transparency tests (s.62/s.64
and Sch.2); or
> • override the small-claims fixed-costs regime.[/indent]
>
> Even if a code says “may be added”, that does not make it
recoverable at law, nor does it obviate the need to prove a real
cost and fair incorporation with adequate prominence (which your
signage does not achieve).
>
> 3. Driver v Keeper — choose your theory and provide the
evidence
> Your PoFA point concedes the keeper cap applies to keeper
liability. If you intend to pursue a driver/contract theory to
escape PoFA 4(5), then:
> [indent]• identify the person you allege was driving; and
> • serve the evidence by which you will seek to prove that
allegation.[/indent]
>
> If you do not identify/prove a driver, confirm you rely on
PoFA keeper liability and will therefore limit any claim to the
NtK sum only.
>
> 4. “Consequential loss” — not a magic label
> Labelling the £70 a “contractual charge and/or consequential
loss” does not succeed. Consequential loss requires actual loss,
causation and mitigation — all provable by documents. You
decline to provide any. A pre-set uplift, untethered to a real
cost, is neither loss nor a recoverable cost on the small-claims
track.
>
> 5. Standing and authority — assertions are not evidence
> You say the contract “remains in place”, the signage “meets
BPA approval”, and Mr Rooney was “authorised”. Please provide
proof, not statements:
> [indent](a) documentary evidence of continuous subsistence
2016–2025 (renewals/addenda/consideration paid);
> (b) the upstream mandate by which RMG was empowered by the
freeholder/superior landlord to delegate enforcement and
litigation rights to VCS; and
> (c) a material-date (April 2025) signage audit (locations,
sizes, wording, night-time visibility).[/indent]
>
> Your plan is historic/not to scale and the principal sign is
prohibitive (“Valid Permit Holders Only”), offering no contract
to non-permit users. At best that is trespass, actionable only
by the landowner.
>
> 6. Conduct of litigation / supervision
> Noted that you “assist” rather than conduct. Please confirm
that any statement of case/statement of truth will be signed by
Mr Edmund Shoreman-Lawson (SRA 537827) or another authorised
person, and identify any non-solicitor representative you intend
to brief together with their rights of audience.
>
> 7. Protocol timetable
> Please provide the documents requested at 1), 3) and 5) within
7 days. In their absence I will treat your position as
non-compliant with the PAPDC and place this correspondence
before the Court on conduct, inviting appropriate
case-management relief and costs. For the avoidance of doubt, no
payment will be made on an inflated figure.
>
> Yours faithfully,
>
> [Name]
> [Address / Email]
--- End Quote ---
#Post#: 96324--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN Chester Private Car Park
DIR By: 3Sh3roo
Date: October 31, 2025, 9:05 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Please see response as follows, is it worth pointing out the AST
or should that be left till later?
--- Quote ---
>
> Thank you for your email, the contents of which have been
noted. In response to your points raised, we would advise the
following:
>
> 1.£70 “debt recovery”
> Please note that neither ourselves nor Vehicle Control
Services Ltd (“our client”) are under any legal obligation to
provide the documentation you have requested. The debt recovery
fee has been lawfully incurred in accordance with the terms and
conditions displayed on site and accepted at the time of
parking. We reject your assertion that the fee constitutes
“double recovery” or that it is otherwise unenforceable. The £70
charge forms part of the recoverable amount and will continue to
be pursued as such.
>
> 2.“The Code allows £70” — not determinative and still subject
to law
> Whilst your comments have been noted regarding the Code, we
would again affirm that the Code allows for the recovery of
these costs which were outlined in the terms and conditions
referenced above. We maintain that this cost is both fair and
reasonable.
>
> 3.Driver v Keeper
> The Notice to Keeper sent by our client complies with PoFA
(2012) and therefore as you have not named the driver, we are
able to pursue you for the outstanding balance as the registered
keeper. If you were not the driver, then please advise of their
details. As no evidence has been provided identifying another
driver, it is reasonable to infer that the keeper was the
driver, an inference the court may draw on the balance of
probabilities. While Elliott v Loake [1982] RTR 228 was a
criminal case, it supports the principle that such an inference
may be made in the absence of contrary evidence. Likewise, CPS v
AJH Films Ltd [2015] EWCA Crim 1068 illustrates that liability
may extend to those responsible for a vehicle’s use.
>
> We can rely on the reasonable assumption that the Keeper was
the Driver. We do not have to rely on PoFA even though the NTK
sent was PoFA compliant.
>
> 4.Standing and authority
> Our client has advised that should these documents be
requested by the Courts our client will provide them.
>
> 5.Conduct of litigation / supervision
> All litigation will be conducted in line with the Legal
Services Act 2007.
>
> I can advise that this matter is on hold until the 29 November
2025.
>
> If payment 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 0XXX9 4XXXX6 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,
XXXXXXXXXXX, 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.
>
> Many thanks
>
> Kind Regards
>
> Angie Bailey
>
> ELMS Legal Limited
>
>
--- End Quote ---
#Post#: 96357--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN Chester Private Car Park
DIR By: b789
Date: October 31, 2025, 12:58 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
That reply from Ms Bailey is weak and defensive — they're
clearly rattled. Their key tells are:
[indent]• refusal to disclose any invoices or proof of
third-party debt recovery;
• backpedal from their own “PoFA not relied on” stance;
• reliance on Elliott v Loake and CPS v AJH Films, which are
both discredited in this context;
• and another attempt to blur the line between assisting and
conducting litigation.[/indent]
I suggest you respond with:
--- Quote ---
> Subject: Signal Court (16/04/2025) — Formal Notice: Reliance
on Misleading Authority and VAT Evidence
>
> Dear Ms Bailey,
>
> Thank you for your response dated [insert date].
>
> 1. VAT and the £70 uplift
> Your confirmation that the £70 “does not contain VAT” and that
“charges may include VAT” stands as an unequivocal admission
that no VAT-bearing service was procured. This destroys any
pretence that the £70 represents a genuine third-party cost. You
are now on notice that this point will be relied upon at hearing
to demonstrate that the £70 is a fabricated in-house charge, not
a loss, expense, or recoverable sum under any head of law.
>
> If the £70 were truly “incurred”, a VAT invoice and remittance
proof would exist. Your refusal to disclose these documents will
be drawn to the Court’s attention as evidence that they do not
exist.
>
> 2. Statutory Cap and Mischaracterisation
> Schedule 4, paragraph 4(5) of PoFA is clear: where keeper
liability is invoked, the sum recoverable is limited to that
specified in the Notice to Keeper. You have now expressly stated
that you are relying on PoFA, which means the £70 uplift is
statutorily barred. You cannot simultaneously assert PoFA
compliance and rely on a non-PoFA contractual or “consequential
loss” theory.
>
> 3. Misuse of Criminal Authorities
> Your reliance on Elliott v Loake and CPS v AJH Films is
misconceived. Elliott v Loake is a criminal case ([1983] Crim LR
36) and provides no civil presumption that a registered keeper
was the driver. AJH Films ([2015] EWCA Civ 1453) is a civil case
on vicarious liability in an employer/employee context; it has
no application to a private individual’s keeper liability.
Unless you plead and prove an identified driver or strict PoFA
keeper liability, your authorities are irrelevant.
>
> 4. Standing and Authority
> Your refusal to disclose the landowner contract, subsistence
evidence, and delegation chain until “requested by the Court” is
non-compliant with the Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims. It
prevents the narrowing of issues and will be raised as
unreasonable conduct when costs are addressed.
>
> 5. Conduct of Litigation
> I note your statement that “all litigation will be conducted
in line with the Legal Services Act 2007.” That statement is
circular and non-responsive. Please confirm whether Ms
Scriminger-Faulkner and yourself are personally authorised under
Schedule 2 of the Act to conduct litigation, and if not, that
any court pleadings, statements of truth, or witness evidence
will be signed and submitted exclusively by Mr Shoreman-Lawson
or another authorised person.
>
> Should unauthorised personnel perform reserved legal
activities, I will refer the matter to the SRA without further
notice.
>
> Conclusion
> Your client’s position is unsustainable in law. The £70 uplift
will not survive judicial scrutiny, and your reliance on
discredited authority will be cited on conduct and costs. If you
are not personally authorised to conduct litigation, it may be
prudent to refer this correspondence to an authorised individual
within your firm who is capable of addressing the substantive
legal issues raised.
>
> I will now await formal proceedings or discontinuance. Further
correspondence of a generic or repetitive nature will not be
acknowledged.
>
> Yours faithfully,
>
> [Name]
> [Address]
--- End Quote ---
#Post#: 96784--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN Chester Private Car Park
DIR By: 3Sh3roo
Date: November 4, 2025, 9:37 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Feedback from Elms as below, they've just added the same old
contract dated 7th July 2015, best to just ignore?
--- Quote ---
>
> Good morning,
>
> Thank you for your email. Please see below our responses to
your points.
>
> 1. VAT and the £70 uplift
> We have confirmed that the £70.00 fee added to the balance of
£100.00 does not include VAT. It is approved by The Private
Parking Sector Single Code of Practice. We are under no
obligation to provide invoices to substantiate this claim, as
they are not required.
>
> 2. Statutory Cap and Mischaracterisation
> The Notice to Keeper (attached) reads in part:
> Failure to make payment within 28 days of the Issue Date of
this Notice will result in the full charge of 000.000 being
applied plus additional costs incurred through debt recovery
and/or court action. Where debt recovery action is taken,
further charges may be incurred that will be added to the value
of the PCN up to the value of an additional £70.00.
> We maintain, therefore, that the full balance remains
recoverable.
>
> 3. Misuse of Criminal Authorities
> Elliott v Loake:
> This case shows courts can draw common-sense conclusions about
who was driving when the facts point that way. If the keeper
does not say who was driving and gives no evidence to the
contrary, the court can decide it was the keeper on the balance
of probabilities. It is not about criminal rules. It is about
everyday civil inference when someone stays silent on something
they should know.
> CPS v AJH Films:
> This case confirms that someone can be held responsible when
they allow another person to use their vehicle and then refuse
to identify them. Even though the case involved a company, the
basic point stands: if you let someone use your car and later
refuse to say who it was, the court can treat you as
responsible.
>
> 4. Standing and Authority
> You have been previously provided with the contract (attached
again), and confirmation that the site remains active. We note
your comments that you feel this is insufficient and advise
again that further commercially sensitive documentation such as
renewals would be provided if our client was ordered to do so by
the court.
>
> 5. Conduct of Litigation
> I can confirm neither myself nor Angie are conducting
litigation. Any court pleadings, statements of truth, or witness
evidence will be signed and submitted by an authorised person.
>
> The matter remains on hold until 29 November 2025, after which
date it may be issued upon without further notice.
>
> Kind Regards
>
> Emily Scriminger-Faulkner
>
> Deputy Team Leader
>
> ELMS Legal Limited
>
>
>
--- End Quote ---
#Post#: 96796--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN Chester Private Car Park
DIR By: b789
Date: November 4, 2025, 10:36 am
---------------------------------------------------------
It beggars belief that this person is a supposedly legally
trained person, considering the responses being give each time.
I advise you to send the following response to that rubbish:
--- Quote ---
> Subject: Re: Vehicle Control Services Ltd – Alleged Parking
Charge (Signal Court, 16/04/2025)
>
> Dear Ms Scriminger-Faulkner,
>
> Thank you for your latest response, the content of which once
again demonstrates a fundamental lack of understanding of both
statutory and procedural requirements.
>
> [indent]1. VAT and the £70 Uplift
> You repeat that the £70 does not include VAT yet decline to
produce any evidence of an external service or invoice. That
admission confirms the sum is an internal administrative charge,
not a debt-recovery cost “incurred”. Its inclusion therefore
constitutes double recovery and an abuse of process. The PPSCoP
cannot authorise what statute and settled case law prohibit.
>
> 2. Statutory Cap
> Your attempt to rely on wording within the Notice to Keeper
does not override Schedule 4(5) of the Protection of Freedoms
Act 2012, which caps keeper liability at the amount specified in
the NtK. No amount of self-serving drafting alters statute. If
you truly believe your client can contract out of primary
legislation, that belief is as misplaced as it is concerning.
>
> 3. Elliott v Loake (1983 Crim LR 36)
> Your description of this criminal case as supporting a “civil
inference” is fanciful. It involved forensic evidence proving
the keeper was the driver; there was no legal presumption. You
are invited to produce a single binding civil authority
establishing such a presumption. None exists.
>
> 4. Combined Parking Solutions v AJH Films [2015] EWCA Civ 1453
> Your portrayal of this case as applying to private individuals
is wrong in law. It concerned vicarious liability in an
employer–employee relationship, not an owner’s refusal to name a
driver. It cannot be stretched to impose personal liability upon
a private keeper. To suggest otherwise is misleading and
unbecoming of a legal services provider.
>
> 5. Standing and Authority
> You confirm that commercially sensitive documents will be
withheld unless ordered by the Court. That position is
non-compliant with the Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims,
paragraphs 3.1(a)–(d) and 5.2, which require disclosure of key
documents to enable informed engagement. A refusal to do so will
be brought to the Court’s attention on costs and conduct.
>
> 6. Conduct of Litigation
> I note your admission that neither you nor Ms Bailey are
authorised persons. If you are unable to engage with the
substantive points raised or to comply with the Protocol, it
would be prudent to refer this correspondence to an authorised
solicitor or other responsible adult within your firm who
can.[/indent]
>
> Unless and until you provide a compliant Letter of Claim with
full documentation, no further correspondence will be
entertained. Any proceedings issued in breach of the PAPDC will
be met with an immediate application to stay and for costs on
the indemnity basis.
>
> Yours faithfully,
>
> [Your Name]
> [Address]
--- End Quote ---
#Post#: 97045--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN Chester Private Car Park
DIR By: 3Sh3roo
Date: November 6, 2025, 7:04 am
---------------------------------------------------------
I got the following response from ELMS, they are just sharing
the same contract of 2015 and site map (not to scale)
--- Quote ---
>
> Good morning,
>
> Thank you for your kind email, the contents of which we note.
>
> You have been previously provided with the contract, site
plan, and signage for the relevant land. Please find this
attached again for your reference.
>
> The matter remains on hold until 29 November 2025, after which
date it may be issued upon without further notice.
>
> Kind Regards
>
> Emily Scriminger-Faulkner
>
> Deputy Team Leader
>
> ELMS Legal Limited
>
--- End Quote ---
*****************************************************
Page 8 of 9
DIR Previous Page
DIR Next Page