DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
  HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       *****************************************************
   DIR Return to: Private parking tickets
       *****************************************************
       #Post#: 88731--------------------------------------------------
       Re: Response to letter of claim email
   DIR By: b789
       Date: September 6, 2025, 9:48 pm
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       They have not complied with the Pre-Action Protocol for Debt
       Claims and have failed to supply key documents (landholder
       authority, proof the terms relied upon were in place on the
       material date, evidence of the driver, etc.). The NtK confirms
       no reliance on PoFA, so keeper liability is not available and
       strict proof of driver identity is required.
       Respond to them with the following and CC yourself:
       --- Quote ---
       > Re: Your purported response to my PAPDC request – Ref.
       711200081882PEL
       >
       > Dear Sirs,
       >
       > I acknowledge receipt of your email dated 1 September 2025.
       You have provided a facsimile “terms” sign, a site plan, a copy
       of your client’s NtK (which does not rely on Schedule 4 PoFA
       2012), and some images. You have refused to provide the other
       documents I requested, asserting they are “disproportionate
       and/or not relevant”.
       >
       > With respect, that stance is incompatible with the Civil
       Procedure Rules and the Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims.
       Paragraphs 3.1(a)–(d), 5.1 and 5.2 of the Protocol, and
       paragraphs 6(a) and 6(c) of the Practice Direction on Pre-Action
       Conduct and Protocols require the early exchange of sufficient
       information and key documents to enable the issues to be
       understood and for narrowing to occur. Your refusal frustrates
       those aims.
       >
       > For the avoidance of doubt:
       >
       > [indent]1. Your client’s NtK does not rely on PoFA to hold the
       Keeper liable. Keeper liability is therefore unavailable. If you
       contend the registered keeper was the driver, provide your
       proof. Otherwise, please confirm that proceedings will not be
       issued against the keeper.[/indent]
       >
       > [indent]2. Your “signage” pack is not proof of what was
       present and legible on the material date. Provide
       contemporaneous photographs (date-stamped) taken at the relevant
       time, at driver eye-height from all approaches, showing the
       entrance signage and the terms relied upon, and a plan
       cross-referencing each sign’s exact position.[/indent]
       >
       > [indent]3. Identify the precise contractual term allegedly
       breached. Your allegation is pleaded in the alternative (“either
       … or …”), which is impermissibly vague. Specify the single
       clause relied upon and explain how you say it was breached on
       the facts.[/indent]
       >
       > [indent]4. Standing: produce the landholder contract (or a
       suitably redacted copy) conferring authority on the named
       Claimant to operate, issue PCNs and litigate in its own name for
       the material period. A generic witness statement will not
       suffice; I require the operative grant of authority.[/indent]
       >
       > [indent]5. Quantum: you continue to demand £170. Identify the
       principal sum, the legal basis for any add-on, and whether any
       “debt recovery” component includes VAT (and if not, why not). If
       you contend the add-on is recoverable, set out the authority you
       rely upon.[/indent]
       >
       > I repeat that I am entitled to these materials under PD-PAC
       6(a) and 6(c), and I need them to comply with 6(b). Upon receipt
       of a compliant Letter of Claim that encloses the above, I will
       provide a full response within 30 days.
       >
       > If you issue without first complying, I will apply immediately
       for a stay under PD-PAC 15(b), with costs, and will invite the
       court to impose appropriate sanctions having regard to
       paragraphs 13 and 16.
       >
       > Please either provide the documents within 14 days and
       re-start the 30-day PAPDC clock with a compliant Letter of
       Claim, or confirm that the matter is discontinued against the
       registered keeper.
       >
       > Yours faithfully,
       --- End Quote ---
       #Post#: 88781--------------------------------------------------
       Re: Response to letter of claim email
   DIR By: TW-27
       Date: September 7, 2025, 9:04 am
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       Great, thank you.
       Much appreciated!
       *****************************************************
       Page 3 of 3
   DIR Previous Page