DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Private parking tickets
*****************************************************
#Post#: 106426--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN for stall at roundabout at Bristol Airport, CCTV stills
show 23 secs
DIR By: InterCity125
Date: January 18, 2026, 2:14 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: Dave65 link ---
>
> This letter is from "Elms Legal" as a letter before claim and
they say they will pass it on to Elms Legal Ltd.
>
> Different Departments?
>
--- End Quote ---
It makes no difference - it's up to them to join the dots - they
cannot expect the defendant to do the donkey work when they are
the so called claimant.
They'd be idiots to take this to court.
#Post#: 107041--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN for stall at roundabout at Bristol Airport, CCTV stills
show 23 secs
DIR By: Patmoore
Date: January 22, 2026, 6:33 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Just Had this,..... They won't let up, will they!!!!!
VCS22897672
From: pat moore <pat.moore@hotmail.com>
Sent: 01 December 2025 15:19
To: debtassist <debtassist@elmslegal.co.uk>;
enquiries@elmslegal.co.uk; info <info@elmslegal.co.uk>; pat
moore <pat.moore@hotmail.com>
Subject: Subject: Formal Complaint & DMCC Notice – Your Ref:
VCS22897672
Dear Sirs,
Re: Your “URGENT: NOTIFICATION OF INSTRUCTION” dated 24
November 2025 – Vehicle Control Services Ltd (VCS) / Bristol
Airport – Alleged Parking Charge
I refer to your above letter in respect of an alleged
Parking Charge Notice issued by 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 seeks 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 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 but not
limited to:
Misleading actions (Section 227), 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.
Misleading omissions (Section 228), by failing to
explain the legal limitations on liability on airport land and
the true status and enforceability of the alleged debt.
Aggressive practices (Section 229), 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.
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 provide 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 – a step for which
I have already prepared a full defence and court bundle.
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,
Patrick Moore
From: debtassist <debtassist@elmslegal.co.uk>
Sent: 11 December 2025 10:01
To: 'pat moore' <pat.moore@hotmail.com>
Subject: RE: Subject: Formal Complaint & DMCC Notice – Your Ref:
VCS22897672
Good morning,
Thank you for your correspondence. Please note that as we act on
behalf of our client in this matter, we are not providing a
service to you. Therefore, your concerns do not fall within the
scope of our formal complaint’s procedure.
That said, we have noted the contents of your letter, and the
case has been reviewed in full to ensure that all matters you
have raised have been properly considered and responded to. Our
response below addresses each of the points you have raised and
clarifies our client’s position in full.
We remain satisfied that both our client’s actions and our
conduct fully comply with all relevant legislation and
professional obligations and would ask you note that CILEx
advise that all efforts must first be made to resolve issues
with the firm in the first instance.
The £70.00 debt recovery fee is allowed. The 2024 Private
Parking Code of Practice allows parking firms to add up to
£70.00 once a charge is overdue. The court confirmed this in
Vehicle Control Services Ltd v Percy, where the judge held that
these fees are lawful when they form part of the contract.
You say the Notice to Keeper does not comply with the Protection
of Freedoms Act (“POFA”). We are not relying on POFA and are not
claiming keeper liability under that law as in your appeal dated
22 April 2025 you confirmed that you were driving the vehicle at
the time of the contravention. Therefore, we are able to pursue
you as the driver, rather than as the registered keeper of the
vehicle. Please find attached a copy of your appeal for your
reference.
The area is clearly marked with “No Stopping” signs, and these
are enforced by Vehicle Control Services Ltd at Bristol Airport.
The rule is strict: stopping for any reason, except a genuine
emergency, breaks the terms. How long you stop doesn’t matter
legally.
This is supported by case law. In ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis, the
Supreme Court confirmed that someone is liable if they break
clearly displayed rules, no matter how long the breach lasts. In
airport cases, Vehicle Control Services Ltd v Ward confirmed
that even stopping for a moment counts as a breach. Similarly,
Vehicle Control Services Ltd v Crutchley confirmed that stopping
for just a few seconds is enough, and the reason for stopping is
legally irrelevant.
Your claims under the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers
Act 2024 are completely rejected. You were correctly informed
about the basis of the charge, the recoverable fee, your legal
liability, and your options to pay or challenge it. There has
been no misrepresentation, omission, or aggressive behaviour.
Using urgency in formal debt letters is legal and standard
practice.
Kind Regards
Emily Scriminger-Faulkner
Deputy Team Leader
ELMS Legal Limited
Christmas Opening Hours:
22 December – 09:00 – 17:30
23 December – 09:00 – 17:30
24 December – 09:00 – 16:30
25 December – Closed
26 December – Closed
29 December – 09:30 – 16:30
30 December – 09:30 – 16:30
31 December – 09:30 – 16:30
01 January – Closed
02 January – 09:00 – 17:30 (normal hours resume)
ELMS Legal Limited
Company Number: 9160334
Registered Office: 31 Handley Street, Sleaford, Lincolnshire,
NG34 7TQ
Telephone Number: 01529 406097
Authorised by CILEx Regulation for Civil Litigation.
Authorisation No: 2164466
Please be advised that we do not accept service of any court
documents via email; please serve any court documents to the our
registered office address above.
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE AND DISCLAIMER
This message is intended for the addressee only and may contain
information that is privileged and confidential.
If you are not the intended recipient, any dissemination,
distribution or copying of this communication and its
attachments is strictly prohibited. If you receive this
communication in error, please notify us immediately by
returning the original message and its attachments to us by
e-mail and post. Finally please delete the message and any
attachments from your system immediately.
Warning: Although the company has taken reasonable precautions
to ensure no viruses are present in this email, the company
cannot accept responsibility for any loss or damage arising from
the use of this email or attachments.
Please note that our staff are entitled to a safe and respectful
working environment. We have a zero-tolerance policy towards any
form of harassment, including sexual harassment, from clients,
debtors, advocates, service providers, members of the public and
members of the press (please note that this list is not
exhaustive). Any inappropriate conduct will be addressed
seriously and will result in further action.
Thank you.
From: pat moore <pat.moore@hotmail.com>
Sent: 15 December 2025 16:26
To: debtassist <debtassist@elmslegal.co.uk>
Subject: Re: Subject: Formal Complaint & DMCC Notice – Your Ref:
VCS22897672
Re: Your email of 11 December 2025 – Our Ref: VCS22897672
Dear Sirs,
Thank you for your reply. I do not accept your analysis of the
facts or the law, and my complaints to the CMA and CILEx
Regulation will proceed accordingly!
Your statement that you “are not providing a service to me” is
irrelevant under the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers
Act 2024. You are a business undertaking commercial practices
directed at me as a consumer by issuing payment demands. That
brings your conduct within the scope of the DMCC.
1. No contractual liability
Your client’s “no stopping at Bristol Airport” model cannot
create a contract. The signs are purely prohibitive and amount
only to a warning. They offer no licence, no facility, and no
consideration. A prohibition cannot be transformed into a
contractual term by attaching a charge to the forbidden act.
The purported term is also impossible to perform lawfully. A
motorist must be able to stop when required by traffic
conditions, mechanical issues, or basic safety. Treating an
unavoidable stall on a live roundabout as a contractual breach
is unreasonable, unsafe, and unfair within the meaning of the
Consumer Rights Act 2015.
The evidence shows the incident involved a brief, involuntary
stall of around 23 seconds, with no obstruction and no misuse of
any facility. To characterise this as acceptance of a £170
contractual charge is untenable.
2. Your reliance on the £70 add-on
Your email asserts that the 2024 Private Parking Code of
Practice “allows” a £70 uplift and that Vehicle Control Services
v Percy confirms this. That is a misstatement. The Code does not
provide statutory authority for debt-recovery uplifts, and the
courts’ consistent approach is that such additional sums are not
generally recoverable because they constitute double recovery.
Presenting them to a consumer as an automatically enforceable
contractual term is misleading.
3. Your interpretation of “liability regardless of duration”
You state that “how long you stop doesn’t matter legally”. That
is incorrect. Courts assess enforceability of terms by reference
to circumstances, necessity, proportionality, and fairness. A
business model that monetises unavoidable, momentary stops
caused by mechanical issues on an active approach road is
unlikely to survive judicial scrutiny.
4. Professional diligence
As regulated legal professionals, you are expected to advise
your client when their position is unsustainable. Instead, you
have chosen to endorse and pursue a claim based on signage
incapable of forming a lawful contract. Encouraging litigation
on the basis of an unenforceable or unfair term is inconsistent
with professional diligence.
5. Misleading and aggressive practices
Your first letter misstated the law on the £70 add-on, presented
the alleged debt as undisputed and fully enforceable, and used
urgent language to pressure payment. Your latest email repeats
the same inaccuracies. This will be placed before the CMA and
CILEx Regulation.
Position
For the avoidance of doubt:
• No contractual liability arises.
• The £70 add-on is not lawfully recoverable.
• Your correspondence engages the DMCC as a misleading and
aggressive commercial practice.
Accordingly, I require you to cease debt-recovery activity and
return the file to your client, Vehicle Control Services Ltd. If
VCS believe they have a viable cause of action, they may issue a
properly particularised county court claim, which will be
defended on the basis outlined above.
Please confirm whether you will now close your file or whether
you intend to continue acting in a debt-collection capacity. Any
further misleading or aggressive correspondence will simply be
added to the regulatory complaints and, if necessary, placed
before the court on the issue of conduct and costs.
Yours faithfully,
Patrick Moore
From: debtassist <debtassist@elmslegal.co.uk>
Sent: 19 December 2025 08:08
To: 'pat moore' <pat.moore@hotmail.com>
Subject: RE: Subject: Formal Complaint & DMCC Notice – Your Ref:
VCS22897672
Good Morning,
Please see attached a letter in response to your email.
Kind Regards
Phoebe Grundle
Deputy Accounts and IT Manager
ELMS Legal Limited
Christmas Opening Hours:
22 December – 09:00 – 17:30
23 December – 09:00 – 17:30
24 December – 09:00 – 16:30
25 December – Closed
26 December – Closed
29 December – 09:30 – 16:30
30 December – 09:30 – 16:30
31 December – 09:30 – 16:30
01 January – Closed
02 January – 09:00 – 17:30 (normal hours resume)
ELMS Legal Limited
Company Number: 9160334
Registered Office: 31 Handley Street, Sleaford, Lincolnshire,
NG34 7TQ
Telephone Number: 01529 406097
Authorised by CILEx Regulation for Civil Litigation.
Authorisation No: 2164466
Please be advised that we do not accept service of any court
documents via email and please serve any court documents to the
our registered office address above.
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE AND DISCLAIMER
This message is intended for the addressee only and may contain
information that is privileged and confidential.
If you are not the intended recipient, any dissemination,
distribution or copying of this communication and its
attachments is strictly prohibited. If you receive this
communication in error, please notify us immediately by
returning the original message and its attachments to us by
e-mail and post. Finally please delete the message and any
attachments from your system immediately.
Warning: Although the company has taken reasonable precautions
to ensure no viruses are present in this email, the company
cannot accept responsibility for any loss or damage arising from
the use of this email or attachments.
Please note that our staff are entitled to a safe and respectful
working environment. We have a zero-tolerance policy towards any
form of harassment, including sexual harassment, from clients,
debtors, advocates, service providers, members of the public and
members of the press (please note that this list is not
exhaustive). Any inappropriate conduct will be addressed
seriously and will result in further action.
Thank you.
From: pat moore <pat.moore@hotmail.com>
Sent: 21 December 2025 11:42
To: debtassist <debtassist@elmslegal.co.uk>
Subject: Re: Subject: Formal Complaint & DMCC Notice – Your Ref:
VCS22897672
Re: VCS22897672 – Your letter dated 19 December 2025
Dear Ms Grundle,
Thank you for your letter dated 19 December 2025.
I do not accept your analysis of either the law or the facts. My
complaints to the Competition and Markets Authority and to CILEx
Regulation are proceeding, and your latest correspondence will
be added to them.
No contractual liability
Your continued assertion that a binding contract arises from “No
stopping” signage misunderstands fundamental principles of
contract law. A contract requires an offer conferring some
permission or benefit capable of acceptance, together with
consideration. A sign stating “No stopping” does not offer any
facility, licence, or service. It is purely prohibitive in
nature and cannot be converted into a contractual term simply by
attaching a charge to the forbidden act.
At most, such signage sounds in trespass, for which only the
landowner may claim actual loss. It does not give rise to a
contractual obligation to pay a fixed sum.
Impossibility and unfairness
Further, the purported term is impossible and unenforceable in
its absolute form. A motorist must be able to stop when
compelled by traffic conditions, safety considerations, or
mechanical failure. This is a primary road safety obligation
reflected in the Highway Code and in general law.
The evidence shows that the vehicle stalled briefly due to a
mechanical event and remained stationary momentarily because it
was unable to move until the vehicle was safely restarted. This
was not a voluntary stop, nor the use of any facility. A term
which purports to penalise a motorist for an unavoidable and
safety-driven pause on a live approach road is plainly unfair
within the meaning of the Consumer Rights Act 2015 and is void
for impossibility.
Duration and proportionality
Your assertion that “duration is irrelevant” is incorrect.
Courts assess enforceability by reference to context, necessity,
proportionality, and fairness. A business model which monetises
momentary, unavoidable stops caused by mechanical or traffic
conditions on a live road is unlikely to withstand scrutiny.
Reliance on authorities and the £70 add-on
Your reliance on non-binding county court decisions does not
assist. Those cases are fact-specific and do not address the
scenario of an involuntary stop caused by mechanical failure in
live traffic. They do not override the statutory protections in
the Consumer Rights Act.
Your assertion that the £70 uplift is “lawful and recoverable”
is also disputed. Such sums are routinely disallowed as double
recovery. Presenting them to a consumer as automatically
enforceable is misleading.
Professional obligations
As a regulated litigation firm, you are not merely transmitting
your client’s position. You owe duties of professional judgment,
integrity, and diligence. You know, or ought to know, that a
term prohibiting all stopping of any kind whatsoever on a live
roundabout is at serious risk of being held unenforceable and
unfair. Endorsing and pursuing such a claim, while asserting
contentious legal positions as settled fact, raises obvious
regulatory concerns.
Position
My position is therefore clear:
No contract was formed.
Any purported term is void for impossibility and unfair
under the Consumer Rights Act 2015.
The £70 add-on is not lawfully recoverable.
Your correspondence will be relied upon as evidence of
misleading and aggressive commercial practices under the Digital
Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024 and of a failure of
professional diligence.
You state that the appropriate course is for the matter to be
determined by the court. I agree. Further correspondence serves
no purpose.
If your client believes it has a viable cause of action, it
should issue a properly particularised claim, which will be
defended in full. If not, you must cease debt-recovery activity
and close your file. I reserve all rights in relation to costs,
including consideration of non-party costs where appropriate.
Please confirm your client’s decision within 14 days. Any
further correspondence will simply be added to the regulatory
complaints and, if necessary, placed before the court on the
issue of conduct.
Yours faithfully,
Patrick Moore
From: debtassist <debtassist@elmslegal.co.uk>
Sent: 06 January 2026 17:27
To: 'pat moore' <pat.moore@hotmail.com>
Subject: RE: Subject: Formal Complaint & DMCC Notice – Your Ref:
VCS22897672
Good afternoon,
Thank you for your email.
I can confirm that we have liaised with Vehicle Control Services
Limited (“our client”) and have been advised that they wish to
proceed with this matter.
In compliance with the Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims, a
Letter Before Claim will be sent to you on 09 January 2026. This
will allow you 30 days in order to consider your options, after
which a claim will be issued through the court.
Kind Regards
Emily Scriminger-Faulkner
Deputy Team Leader
ELMS Legal Limited
ELMS Legal Limited
Company Number: 9160334
Registered Office: 31 Handley Street, Sleaford, Lincolnshire,
NG34 7TQ
Telephone Number: 01529 406097
Authorised by CILEx Regulation for Civil Litigation.
Authorisation No: 2164466
Please be advised that we do not accept service of any court
documents via email; please serve any court documents to the our
registered office address above.
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE AND DISCLAIMER
This message is intended for the addressee only and may contain
information that is privileged and confidential.
If you are not the intended recipient, any dissemination,
distribution or copying of this communication and its
attachments is strictly prohibited. If you receive this
communication in error, please notify us immediately by
returning the original message and its attachments to us by
e-mail and post. Finally please delete the message and any
attachments from your system immediately.
Warning: Although the company has taken reasonable precautions
to ensure no viruses are present in this email, the company
cannot accept responsibility for any loss or damage arising from
the use of this email or attachments.
Please note that our staff are entitled to a safe and respectful
working environment. We have a zero-tolerance policy towards any
form of harassment, including sexual harassment, from clients,
debtors, advocates, service providers, members of the public and
members of the press (please note that this list is not
exhaustive). Any inappropriate conduct will be addressed
seriously and will result in further action.
Thank you.
From: pat moore <pat.moore@hotmail.com>
Sent: 16 January 2026 10:55
To: debtassist <debtassist@elmslegal.co.uk>
Subject: Ref: VCS22897672 – Second Non Compliant Letter Before
Claim (09/01/2026)
FINAL RESPONSE & NOTICE OF CONTINUING NON‑COMPLIANCE
Dear ELMS Legal,
Re: Your Letter Before Claim dated 09 January 2026
I write in response to your second letter purporting to be a
Letter Before Claim under the Pre‑Action Protocol for Debt
Claims.
1. Acknowledgment
I acknowledge receipt of your letter dated 09 January 2026.
2. Repeated and Material Non‑Compliance with the Protocol
This second letter repeats the same fundamental defects as your
first letter of 21 August 2025. It remains non‑compliant
with the mandatory requirements of the Protocol:
Ignoring Pre-Action Correspondence: Your letter makes no
reference to the extensive pre-action correspondence between us
from September to December 2025 (enclosed in my comprehensive
court bundle, prepared in anticipation of proceedings). In that
correspondence, I:
Formally disputed the debt.
Provided detailed grounds for my defence (de minimis, no
breach of contract, disproportionate charge, unfair term under
the Consumer Rights Act 2015, inadequate signage).
Repeatedly requested key evidence (unredacted landowner
contract, full CCTV, contemporaneous signage), which your client
refused to provide.
Completed and returned the Reply Form on 19 September
2025.
Your client's failure to engage with these substantive points
and its refusal to provide evidence are documented and
demonstrate a failure to comply with the spirit and purpose of
the Pre-Action Protocol.
3. Notice of Reliance on Existing Court Bundle
Should your client issue proceedings, I will rely on my fully
prepared Court Bundle (indexed, paginated, and exceeding 90
pages). This bundle documents:
The factual circumstances of the 23‑second involuntary
stall
The confusing and materially altered construction zone
Your client’s procedural and evidential failures
My complete appeal history
The legal basis of my defence, including persuasive
authority such as VCS v Jones (March 2025)
4. Position on Liability
Liability is fully disputed. Your client has repeatedly failed
to comply with its pre‑action obligations. I will not be
making any payment.
5. Next Steps
If your client elects to issue a claim, I will:
File a robust Defence based on the bundle already in my
possession
Apply for sanctions under CPR 3 and the Practice Direction
on Pre‑Action Conduct due to your client’s persistent
non‑compliance
Seek my costs as a Litigant in Person
6. Final Position
Given the above, I consider the pre‑action phase
concluded. Any further correspondence that does not provide:
A full breakdown of the £170 sum, and
The key evidence repeatedly requested
will not receive a substantive response.
Yours faithfully,
Patrick Moore
debtassist<debtassist@elmslegal.co.uk>
​You​
Good morning,
Thank you for your email, the contents of which we note.
Please be advised that there is no requirement under the
Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims for a Letter of Claim to
refer to previous correspondence. The Protocol requires that a
compliant Letter of Claim is served containing the prescribed
information and enclosures, and we maintain that our Letter of
Claim dated 09 January 2026 complies fully with those
requirements.
For the avoidance of doubt, the outstanding balance is broken
down as follows:
£100.00 – Original Charge
£70.00 – Debt Recovery Costs
Total: £170.00
We further confirm that the additional £70.00 debt recovery fee
is lawful and recoverable. Part 9 of the Private Parking Sector
Single Code of Practice (2024) expressly permits parking
operators to add recovery fees of up to £70.00 once a charge
becomes overdue.
This position has also been confirmed by the courts. In Vehicle
Control Services Ltd v Percy, the court held that such fees are
lawful where they form part of the contractual terms. The sum
has not been misrepresented and forms part of the contractual
debt arising from non-payment of the PCN.
Vehicle Control Services Limited (“our client”) maintains that
the Charge was issued lawfully in accordance with the terms and
conditions clearly displayed on site. The location is
prominently signed with “No Stopping” signage enforced by our
client. The terms are strict: stopping for any reason other than
a genuine emergency constitutes a breach.
A contract is formed where a motorist uses private land subject
to clear and visible terms, including signage setting out the
applicable conditions. The “No Stopping” signage at Bristol
Airport is prominent and forms part of the contractual terms
governing use of the land.
In this case, the vehicle came to a standstill on a live
roundabout where stopping is expressly prohibited. This falls
squarely within the enforcement terms.
We reject your assertion that the terms are unfair or impossible
under the Consumer Rights Act 2015. The restrictions are
proportionate, commercially justified, and necessary to maintain
safety and the efficient operation of the airport road network.
You are referred to the authority of Vehicle Control Services
Ltd v Idle and Vehicle Control Services Ltd v Ward, in which the
court confirmed that “No Stopping” signage can form a binding
contract. The court held that by stopping, even briefly, a
motorist accepts the contractual terms and becomes liable for
the charge. The charge was held not to be a penalty.
The court further confirmed that a breach occurs at the moment
the vehicle is brought to a standstill. The duration of the stop
does not negate the breach. In Vehicle Control Services Ltd v
Crutchley, liability arose from a stop of no more than 30
seconds. Accordingly, the moment the vehicle stopped, it was in
breach of the advertised terms.
Your suggestion that a motorist may lawfully stop on a
roundabout is not accepted. The Highway Code makes clear that
drivers must keep moving once they have entered a roundabout
unless traffic conditions require otherwise. Rule 185 requires
drivers to keep moving if traffic allows, and Rule 184
emphasises that roundabouts are designed to maintain traffic
flow. A voluntary stop on a live roundabout is contrary to these
principles and presents an obvious safety risk. Our client’s
restrictions are therefore entirely consistent with established
highway safety guidance.
For completeness, please find attached the site information and
CCTV footage as requested. These documents have previously been
provided and are re-sent without admission that any further
disclosure was required at this stage.
With reference to your comments regarding the Reply Form, an
email was sent to you on 26/09/2025 confirming receipt of your
document. A further email was sent on 02/10/2025 requesting
clarification as to what further information you were seeking.
In response to your email of 09/10/2025, a further reply was
sent on 10/10/2025 addressing the points you had raised.
It is clear that the parties remain in dispute as to liability
and enforceability. Please note that the matter has been placed
on hold until 22 February 2026, after which our client reserves
the right to commence legal proceedings without further notice,
at which point the court will determine the issues you seek to
raise.
Kind Regards
Emily Scriminger-Faulkner
Deputy Team Leader
ELMS Legal Limited
ELMS Legal Limited
Company Number: 9160334
Registered Office: 31 Handley Street, Sleaford, Lincolnshire,
NG34 7TQ
Telephone Number: 01529 406097
Authorised by CILEx Regulation for Civil Litigation.
Authorisation No: 2164466
Please be advised that we do not accept service of any court
documents via email; please serve any court documents to the our
registered office address above.
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE AND DISCLAIMER
This message is intended for the addressee only and may contain
information that is privileged and confidential.
If you are not the intended recipient, any dissemination,
distribution or copying of this communication and its
attachments is strictly prohibited. If you receive this
communication in error, please notify us immediately by
returning the original message and its attachments to us by
e-mail and post. Finally please delete the message and any
attachments from your system immediately.
Warning: Although the company has taken reasonable precautions
to ensure no viruses are present in this email, the company
cannot accept responsibility for any loss or damage arising from
the use of this email or attachments.
Please note that our staff are entitled to a safe and respectful
working environment. We have a zero-tolerance policy towards any
form of harassment, including sexual harassment, from clients,
debtors, advocates, service providers, members of the public and
members of the press (please note that this list is not
exhaustive). Any inappropriate conduct will be addressed
seriously and will result in further action.
Thank you.
#Post#: 107042--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN for stall at roundabout at Bristol Airport, CCTV stills
show 23 secs
DIR By: Patmoore
Date: January 22, 2026, 6:35 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
SORRY, I seem to have posted the whole thread rather than just
the lat email!
Here it is. They will not let up will they?
From: pat moore <pat.moore@hotmail.com>
Sent: 16 January 2026 10:55
To: debtassist <debtassist@elmslegal.co.uk>
Subject: Ref: VCS22897672 – Second Non Compliant Letter Before
Claim (09/01/2026)
FINAL RESPONSE & NOTICE OF CONTINUING NON‑COMPLIANCE
Dear ELMS Legal,
Re: Your Letter Before Claim dated 09 January 2026
I write in response to your second letter purporting to be a
Letter Before Claim under the Pre‑Action Protocol for Debt
Claims.
1. Acknowledgment
I acknowledge receipt of your letter dated 09 January 2026.
2. Repeated and Material Non‑Compliance with the Protocol
This second letter repeats the same fundamental defects as your
first letter of 21 August 2025. It remains non‑compliant
with the mandatory requirements of the Protocol:
Ignoring Pre-Action Correspondence: Your letter makes no
reference to the extensive pre-action correspondence between us
from September to December 2025 (enclosed in my comprehensive
court bundle, prepared in anticipation of proceedings). In that
correspondence, I:
Formally disputed the debt.
Provided detailed grounds for my defence (de minimis, no
breach of contract, disproportionate charge, unfair term under
the Consumer Rights Act 2015, inadequate signage).
Repeatedly requested key evidence (unredacted landowner
contract, full CCTV, contemporaneous signage), which your client
refused to provide.
Completed and returned the Reply Form on 19 September
2025.
Your client's failure to engage with these substantive points
and its refusal to provide evidence are documented and
demonstrate a failure to comply with the spirit and purpose of
the Pre-Action Protocol.
3. Notice of Reliance on Existing Court Bundle
Should your client issue proceedings, I will rely on my fully
prepared Court Bundle (indexed, paginated, and exceeding 90
pages). This bundle documents:
The factual circumstances of the 23‑second involuntary
stall
The confusing and materially altered construction zone
Your client’s procedural and evidential failures
My complete appeal history
The legal basis of my defence, including persuasive
authority such as VCS v Jones (March 2025)
4. Position on Liability
Liability is fully disputed. Your client has repeatedly failed
to comply with its pre‑action obligations. I will not be
making any payment.
5. Next Steps
If your client elects to issue a claim, I will:
File a robust Defence based on the bundle already in my
possession
Apply for sanctions under CPR 3 and the Practice Direction
on Pre‑Action Conduct due to your client’s persistent
non‑compliance
Seek my costs as a Litigant in Person
6. Final Position
Given the above, I consider the pre‑action phase
concluded. Any further correspondence that does not provide:
A full breakdown of the £170 sum, and
The key evidence repeatedly requested
will not receive a substantive response.
Yours faithfully,
Patrick Moore
debtassist<debtassist@elmslegal.co.uk>
​You​
Good morning,
Thank you for your email, the contents of which we note.
Please be advised that there is no requirement under the
Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims for a Letter of Claim to
refer to previous correspondence. The Protocol requires that a
compliant Letter of Claim is served containing the prescribed
information and enclosures, and we maintain that our Letter of
Claim dated 09 January 2026 complies fully with those
requirements.
For the avoidance of doubt, the outstanding balance is broken
down as follows:
£100.00 – Original Charge
£70.00 – Debt Recovery Costs
Total: £170.00
We further confirm that the additional £70.00 debt recovery fee
is lawful and recoverable. Part 9 of the Private Parking Sector
Single Code of Practice (2024) expressly permits parking
operators to add recovery fees of up to £70.00 once a charge
becomes overdue.
This position has also been confirmed by the courts. In Vehicle
Control Services Ltd v Percy, the court held that such fees are
lawful where they form part of the contractual terms. The sum
has not been misrepresented and forms part of the contractual
debt arising from non-payment of the PCN.
Vehicle Control Services Limited (“our client”) maintains that
the Charge was issued lawfully in accordance with the terms and
conditions clearly displayed on site. The location is
prominently signed with “No Stopping” signage enforced by our
client. The terms are strict: stopping for any reason other than
a genuine emergency constitutes a breach.
A contract is formed where a motorist uses private land subject
to clear and visible terms, including signage setting out the
applicable conditions. The “No Stopping” signage at Bristol
Airport is prominent and forms part of the contractual terms
governing use of the land.
In this case, the vehicle came to a standstill on a live
roundabout where stopping is expressly prohibited. This falls
squarely within the enforcement terms.
We reject your assertion that the terms are unfair or impossible
under the Consumer Rights Act 2015. The restrictions are
proportionate, commercially justified, and necessary to maintain
safety and the efficient operation of the airport road network.
You are referred to the authority of Vehicle Control Services
Ltd v Idle and Vehicle Control Services Ltd v Ward, in which the
court confirmed that “No Stopping” signage can form a binding
contract. The court held that by stopping, even briefly, a
motorist accepts the contractual terms and becomes liable for
the charge. The charge was held not to be a penalty.
The court further confirmed that a breach occurs at the moment
the vehicle is brought to a standstill. The duration of the stop
does not negate the breach. In Vehicle Control Services Ltd v
Crutchley, liability arose from a stop of no more than 30
seconds. Accordingly, the moment the vehicle stopped, it was in
breach of the advertised terms.
Your suggestion that a motorist may lawfully stop on a
roundabout is not accepted. The Highway Code makes clear that
drivers must keep moving once they have entered a roundabout
unless traffic conditions require otherwise. Rule 185 requires
drivers to keep moving if traffic allows, and Rule 184
emphasises that roundabouts are designed to maintain traffic
flow. A voluntary stop on a live roundabout is contrary to these
principles and presents an obvious safety risk. Our client’s
restrictions are therefore entirely consistent with established
highway safety guidance.
For completeness, please find attached the site information and
CCTV footage as requested. These documents have previously been
provided and are re-sent without admission that any further
disclosure was required at this stage.
With reference to your comments regarding the Reply Form, an
email was sent to you on 26/09/2025 confirming receipt of your
document. A further email was sent on 02/10/2025 requesting
clarification as to what further information you were seeking.
In response to your email of 09/10/2025, a further reply was
sent on 10/10/2025 addressing the points you had raised.
It is clear that the parties remain in dispute as to liability
and enforceability. Please note that the matter has been placed
on hold until 22 February 2026, after which our client reserves
the right to commence legal proceedings without further notice,
at which point the court will determine the issues you seek to
raise.
Kind Regards
Emily Scriminger-Faulkner
Deputy Team Leader
ELMS Legal Limited
ELMS Legal Limited
Company Number: 9160334
Registered Office: 31 Handley Street, Sleaford, Lincolnshire,
NG34 7TQ
Telephone Number: 01529 406097
Authorised by CILEx Regulation for Civil Litigation.
Authorisation No: 2164466
Please be advised that we do not accept service of any court
documents via email; please serve any court documents to the our
registered office address above.
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE AND DISCLAIMER
This message is intended for the addressee only and may contain
information that is privileged and confidential.
If you are not the intended recipient, any dissemination,
distribution or copying of this communication and its
attachments is strictly prohibited. If you receive this
communication in error, please notify us immediately by
returning the original message and its attachments to us by
e-mail and post. Finally please delete the message and any
attachments from your system immediately.
Warning: Although the company has taken reasonable precautions
to ensure no viruses are present in this email, the company
cannot accept responsibility for any loss or damage arising from
the use of this email or attachments.
Please note that our staff are entitled to a safe and respectful
working environment. We have a zero-tolerance policy towards any
form of harassment, including sexual harassment, from clients,
debtors, advocates, service providers, members of the public and
members of the press (please note that this list is not
exhaustive). Any inappropriate conduct will be addressed
seriously and will result in further action.
Thank you.
#Post#: 107051--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN for stall at roundabout at Bristol Airport, CCTV stills
show 23 secs
DIR By: InterCity125
Date: January 23, 2026, 2:33 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Yes - same old nonsense.
Obviously, they only quote cases which favour them - we have
plenty of cases where Judge's have found the terms unlawful and
unenforceable.
The most compelling comment in those emails is this, "Vehicle
Control Services Ltd v Crutchley confirmed that stopping for
just a few seconds is enough, and the reason for stopping is
legally irrelevant." - that was a really stupid thing to write
as it shows that VCS feel that the term can be applied in a
blanket fashion whenever they fancy it - she's basically just
confirmed how unfair the term is by specifying that there is no
defence for a driver in any circumstance.
You've done everything you can for now - they are just trying to
pressure you.
They will carry on playing their well worked game but they won't
want this being heard in a court room.
*****************************************************
Page 4 of 4
DIR Previous Page