DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Private parking tickets
*****************************************************
#Post#: 90744--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN for stall at roundabout at Bristol Airport, CCTV stills
show 23 secs
DIR By: b789
Date: September 20, 2025, 8:39 am
---------------------------------------------------------
All good so far. The ball is now in their court and you are
waiting for their response to your letter.
#Post#: 90748--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN for stall at roundabout at Bristol Airport, CCTV stills
show 23 secs
DIR By: Patmoore
Date: September 20, 2025, 8:45 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Thank you!
#Post#: 90752--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN for stall at roundabout at Bristol Airport, CCTV stills
show 23 secs
DIR By: b789
Date: September 20, 2025, 8:52 am
---------------------------------------------------------
As a matter of interest, did you send that by post? If so, did
you post it first class and get a free certificate of posting
from any post office?
We never recommend using post. It is too unreliable and slow.
You should ALWAYS, if possible correspond by email. You can
attach any correspondence as a PDF to an email and you have
proof of sending, proof of delivery and it is instantaneous with
no trees being harmed in the pro9cess.
Elms Legal show the following email address which you should
use:
info@elm-online.co.uk
#Post#: 90768--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN for stall at roundabout at Bristol Airport, CCTV stills
show 23 secs
DIR By: Patmoore
Date: September 20, 2025, 10:19 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Hi - I responded by post, with a certificate of posting as well
as email!
#Post#: 96230--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN for stall at roundabout at Bristol Airport, CCTV stills
show 23 secs
DIR By: b789
Date: October 30, 2025, 2:06 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
FYI, here is a successful defence with costs awarded against VCS
for exactly the same allegation:
HTML https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6635565/bristol-airport-no-stopping-fine-case-success-and-724-cost-dcb-legal/p1
#Post#: 96232--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN for stall at roundabout at Bristol Airport, CCTV stills
show 23 secs
DIR By: Patmoore
Date: October 30, 2025, 2:35 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
b789
Hero Member
Thank you SO much for your ongoing interest and help in this
case ! I will let you know the outcome in due course? Regards!
#Post#: 96304--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN for stall at roundabout at Bristol Airport, CCTV stills
show 23 secs
DIR By: InterCity125
Date: October 31, 2025, 7:12 am
---------------------------------------------------------
This one is also very good as the OP goes to great lengths to
explain the various processes which he or she goes through;
HTML https://nationalconsumerservice.co.uk/topic/468850-vcs-cnntk-appealed-paploc-now-claimform-no-stopping-bristol-airport-claim-dismissed/#comments
#Post#: 100479--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN for stall at roundabout at Bristol Airport, CCTV stills
show 23 secs
DIR By: Patmoore
Date: December 1, 2025, 5:25 am
---------------------------------------------------------
After having received an LBC and replied back still dipsuting
but adding that the letter was not compliant (which it wasn't).
(It is disappointing to note that your letter fails to meet the
requirements set out in paragraphs 3.1(a)–(d), 5.1, and 5.2 of
the Protocol, as well as paragraphs 6(a) and 6(c) of the
Practice Direction. These provisions are not optional; they
exist to facilitate informed engagement and proportionate
resolution prior to litigation. I encourage you to review them
carefully.
The Civil Procedure Rules 1998, Part 3, Pre-Action Conduct and
Protocols, require that parties exchange sufficient information
to understand each other’s position before proceedings are
issued. Paragraph 6 of the Practice Direction clarifies that
this includes disclosure of key documents relevant to the
dispute. Your letter refers to a “contract” yet fails to provide
one—undermining the very basis of your client’s claim and
obstructing meaningful pre-litigation dialogue.
I also note that your Letter Before Claim fails to enclose the
required Reply Form and Information Sheet, as stipulated under
paragraph 3.1(a) of the Protocol. Providing only a hyperlink to
these documents does not satisfy the requirement to include them
with the letter itself. This omission impedes my ability to
respond meaningfully and constitutes a procedural defect. I
request that you remedy this by supplying the required documents
before any further action is taken.)
They had set a hold date of the 13th Nov. I have heard nothing
until today. This seems to be a backward move in the process?
Any thoughts please? I received a letter from ELMS Legal
HTML https://ibb.co/DDPPNfKm
#Post#: 100482--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN for stall at roundabout at Bristol Airport, CCTV stills
show 23 secs
DIR By: InterCity125
Date: December 1, 2025, 5:34 am
---------------------------------------------------------
It's just another debt collecting letter which you can ignore.
Whilst it does look like a step backwards in the process, you
have to remember that these people are incompetent in the
extreme.
#Post#: 100525--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN for stall at roundabout at Bristol Airport, CCTV stills
show 23 secs
DIR By: b789
Date: December 1, 2025, 8:56 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Whilst I wouldn't normally advise responding to any debt
recovery letter, in this case, Elms are clearly in breach of the
DMCC and they should be reported to the CMA and I would suggest
you email the following to Elms and CC yourself:
--- Quote ---
> Subject: Your reference VCS22897672 – Notice of complaint
under the DMCC and request to return file to client
>
> Dear Sirs
>
> I refer to your “URGENT: NOTIFICATION OF INSTRUCTION” dated 24
November 2025 in respect of an alleged Parking Charge Notice
issued by Vehicle Control Services Ltd (“VCS”) at Bristol
Airport on 28 March 2025.
>
> For the avoidance of doubt, I do not accept that any
contractual liability exists. The allegation arises from a
brief, involuntary stall of around 23 seconds at a live
roundabout while I was attempting to locate a pre-booked
meet-and-greet facility. The signage relied upon is wholly
prohibitive (“No stopping”) and offers no contractual licence or
consideration to motorists. At most, any complaint would sound
in trespass (for which only the landowner could claim actual
loss). VCS also seek an additional £70 “costs” on top of the
£100 parking charge, a sum which is not recoverable in law.
>
> In those circumstances, the “debt” you are seeking to recover
is disputed, is not legally owed, and is based on a speculative
airport “no stopping” charge on non-relevant land which cannot
give rise to keeper liability under the Protection of Freedoms
Act 2012.
>
> Notwithstanding the above, your letter presents the sum of
£170 as a recoverable contractual debt and uses urgent and
intimidating language that is plainly designed to pressurise
payment. In my view this conduct amounts to unfair commercial
practices within the meaning of Part 4, Chapter 1 of the Digital
Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024 (“DMCC”), including:
>
> 1. Misleading actions, by giving the false impression that
there is a valid contractual right to recover £170 from me when
no such right exists and the £70 add-on is not recoverable.
>
> 2. Misleading omissions, by failing to explain the legal
limitations on liability on airport land and the true status and
enforceability of the alleged debt.
>
> 3. Aggressive practices, by deploying an “URGENT” heading,
repeated “Action Required” wording and implied threats of
further costs in circumstances where the existence of any debt
is highly questionable, thereby exerting undue pressure on a
consumer.
>
> 4. A failure to meet the standard of professional diligence
reasonably to be expected of a CILEx-regulated legal business
dealing with consumers in a highly technical area of law.
>
> A commercial practice which is misleading, aggressive, or
contrary to professional diligence, and which is likely to cause
the average consumer to take a transactional decision they would
not otherwise have taken (such as paying an unenforceable
parking charge), is prohibited and unlawful under the DMCC.
>
> I therefore put you on notice that:
>
> a) I am submitting a formal complaint to the Competition and
Markets Authority regarding your letter and your firm’s role in
the wider practice of pursuing unenforceable airport
“no-stopping” parking charges as alleged contractual debts. I
will be providing the CMA with copies of your letter, the
underlying VCS documentation and a summary of why the alleged
debt is not legally recoverable.
>
> b) I am also submitting a complaint to CILEx Regulation on the
basis that your conduct appears to breach your regulatory duties
of integrity, transparency and professional diligence when
dealing with consumers. If any of the individuals responsible
for this matter are also solicitors regulated by the Solicitors
Regulation Authority, I reserve the right to raise the same
concerns with the SRA.
>
> c) A separate complaint will be made to the CMA concerning
VCS’s own conduct and business model in issuing such charges at
Bristol Airport on a prohibitive signage basis.
>
> You will be aware that the CMA now has direct civil
enforcement powers under the DMCC and can decide for itself
whether a commercial practice is unfair and, if so, impose
significant financial penalties, require redress for affected
consumers and seek enforcement orders and undertakings. I will
be inviting the CMA to consider whether your standard
debt-recovery templates and your relationship with VCS form part
of a wider pattern of unfair commercial practices in the private
parking sector.
>
> In light of the above, I now require you to cease all
debt-recovery activity on this matter and to return the file to
your client, Vehicle Control Services Ltd, making it clear that
I deny any liability. If VCS genuinely consider that they have a
viable cause of action, they are at liberty to issue a properly
particularised county court claim which will be robustly
defended.
>
> Please note that any further misleading or aggressive
correspondence from your firm will be treated as further
evidence of unfair commercial practices under the DMCC and may
be relied upon in any court proceedings, regulatory complaints
or costs applications regarding unreasonable conduct.
>
> I look forward to your written confirmation that you have
closed your file and referred the matter back to your client.
>
> Yours faithfully
>
> [Name]
> [Address]
> [Email]
--- End Quote ---
*****************************************************
Page 2 of 4
DIR Previous Page
DIR Next Page