Shopping centre private car-park sent threatening letter invoicing for £3000

Calvinm

Coupon-mad wrote: »

We already showed you both those threads, and PKandF's thread too. Please slow down and read the other threads Umkomaas and I already posted & linked, as well as Robin of Loxley's post.

It would be good if the beleaguered staff all got together and followed the same plan.

These are easy to beat at POPLA, and should also be relatively easy to defend if a small claim arises, because:

- the signage is pants - no unambiguous terms about staff parking
- there is no 'restricted zone' on the signage
- there is no evidence that the driver wasn't a customer (they seem to be assuming that a car that's on a staff list can't possibly be driven to the shops by another authorised driver of that car).

But - quite apart from the conditions and boundaries of each car park not being clearly stated on the signs - they don't know who was driving on each occasion. That's a position to protect.

The keeper can't be held liable unless CP Plus have:

- issued a compliant NTK in time, every time, with the right Schedule 4 warnings & words about keeper liability
- made sure the terms and the parking charge are adequately displayed, prominently and unambiguously
- evidence of a contravention, yet there is no 'restricted zone' marked out on lines or signs
- evidence of who was driving, in the absence of POFA compliance.

Apologies, it's difficult to not get ahead of myself, there's just so much information to process! I've appealed to CP Plus directly about the most recent ticket, currently waiting for the evitable rejection so here's my draft of the POPLA appeal. I am still waiting to find out of the PCN's had clear mention of keeper liability each time, in the case it didn't, I will add that. I'm also still working on my draft to send to SCS Law with regards to requesting more evidence to make an informed decision (e.g. photographic evidence, evidence of the driver, etc). Is this a decent start?

---

Dear Sir/Madam
I am the registered keeper of the vehicle related to the parking charge notice XXXXXX/XXXXXX. I have researched the matter and contend that I am not liable for the parking chargeicon on the following grounds and would ask that each is considered:

1. Unclear, Inadequate and Non-Compliant Signage

2. Contract with the Landowner is not Compliant with the BPA code of Practice and No
Legal Status to Offer Parking or Enforce Charges

3. Unfair Terms

4. The operator has not shown that the individual who it is pursuing is in fact the driver who may have been potentially liable for the charge

Below are the detailed appeal points.

UNCLEAR, INADEQUATE AND NON-COMPLIANT SIGNAGE

There was no contract nor agreement on the 'parking charge' at all. It is submitted that the driver did not have a fair opportunity to read about any terms involving this huge charge, which is out of all proportion and not saved by the dissimilar 'ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis' case.
In the Beavis case, which turned on specific facts relating only to the signs at that site and the unique interests and intentions of the landowners, the signs were unusually clear and not a typical example for this notorious industry. The Supreme Court were keen to point out the decision related to that car park and those facts only:

[LINK]* I can't post links as a new user

In the Beavis case, the £85 charge itself was in the largest font size with a contrasting colour background and the terms were legible, fairly concise and unambiguous. There were 'large lettering' signs at the entrance and all around the car park, according to the Judges.

Here is the 'Beavis case' sign as a comparison to the signs under dispute in this case:

[LINK]

This case, by comparison, does not demonstrate an example of the 'large lettering' and 'prominent signage' that impressed the Supreme Court Judges and swayed them into deciding that in the specific car park in the Beavis case alone, a contract and 'agreement on the charge' existed.

Here, the signs are sporadically placed, indeed obscured and hidden in some areas. They are unremarkable, not immediately obvious as parking terms and the wording is mostly illegible, being crowded and cluttered. It is indisputable that placing letters too close together in order to fit more information into a smaller space can drastically reduce the legibility of a sign, especially one which must be read BEFORE the action of parking and leaving the car.

It is vital to observe, since 'adequate notice of the parking charge' is mandatory under the POFA Schedule 4 and the BPA Code of Practice, these signs do not clearly mention the parking charge which is hidden in small print. Areas of this site are unsigned and there are no full terms displayed - i.e. with the sum of the parking charge itself in large lettering - at the entrance either, so it cannot be assumed that a driver drove past and could read a legible sign, nor parked near one.

This case is more similar to the signage in POPLA decision 5960956830 on 2.6.16, where the Assessor Rochelle Merritt found as fact that signs in a similar size font in a busy car park where other unrelated signs were far larger, was inadequate:

''the signage is not of a good enough size to afford motorists the chance to read and understand the terms and conditions before deciding to remain in the car park. [...] In addition the operators signs would not be clearly visible from a parking space [...] The appellant has raised other grounds for appeal but I have not dealt with these as I have allowed the appeal.''

From the evidence I have seen so far, the terms appear to be displayed inadequately, in letters no more than an inch high, approximately. I put the operator to strict proof as to the size of the wording on their signs and the size of lettering for the most onerous term, the parking charge itself.

The letters seem to be no larger than .40 font size going by this guide:
[LINK]

As further evidence that this is inadequate notice, Letter Height Visibility is discussed here:
[LINK]
'
'When designing your sign, consider how you will be using it, as well as how far away the readers you want to impact will be. For example, if you are placing a sales advertisement inside your retail store, your text only needs to be visible to the people in the store. 1-2” letters (or smaller) would work just fine. However, if you are hanging banners and want drivers on a nearby highway to be able to see them, design your letters at 3” or even larger.''
...and the same chart is reproduced here:

[LINK]

''When designing an outdoor sign for your business keep in mind the readability of the letters. Letters always look smaller when mounted high onto an outdoor wall''.

''...a guideline for selecting sign letters. Multiply the letter height by 10 and that is the best viewing distance in feet. Multiply the best viewing distance by 4 and that is the max viewing distance.''

So, a letter height of just an inch, showing the terms and the 'charge' and placed high on a wall or pole or buried in far too crowded small print, is woefully inadequate in an outdoor car park. Given that letters look smaller when high up on a wall or pole, as the angle renders the words less readable due to the perspective and height, you would have to stand right in front of it and still need a stepladder (and perhaps a torch and/or magnifying glass) to be able to read the terms.

Under Lord Denning's Red Hand Rule, the charge (being 'out of all proportion' with expectations of drivers in this car park and which is the most onerous of terms) should have been effectively: 'in red letters with a red hand pointing to it' - i.e. VERY clear and prominent with the terms in large lettering, as was found to be the case in the car park in 'Beavis'. A reasonable interpretation of the 'red hand rule' and the 'signage visibility distance' tables above and the BPA Code of Practice, taking all information into account, would require a parking charge and the terms to be displayed far more transparently, on a lower sign and in far larger lettering, with fewer words and more 'white space' as background contrast. Indeed in the Consumer Rights Act 2015 there is a 'Requirement for transparency':

(1) A trader must ensure that a written term of a consumer contract, or a consumer notice in writing, is transparent.

(2) A consumer notice is transparent for the purposes of subsection (1) if it is expressed in plain and intelligible language and it is legible.

The Beavis case signs not being similar to the signs in this appeal at all, I submit that the persuasive case law is in fact 'Vine v London Borough of Waltham Forest [2000] EWCA Civ 106' about a driver not seeing the terms and consequently, she was NOT deemed bound by them.

This judgement is binding case law from the Court of Appeal and supports my argument, not the operator's case:

[LINK]

This was a victory for the motorist and found that, where terms on a sign are not seen and the area is not clearly marked/signed with prominent terms, the driver has not consented to - and cannot have 'breached' - an unknown contract because there is no contract capable of being established. The driver in that case (who had not seen any signs/lines) had NOT entered into a contract. The recorder made a clear finding of fact that the plaintiff, Miss Vine, did not see a sign because the area was not clearly marked as 'private land' and the signs were obscured/not adjacent to the car and could not have been seen and read from a driver's seat before parking.

So, for this appeal, I put this operator to strict proof of where the car was parked and (from photos taken in the same lighting conditions) how their signs appeared on that date, at that time, from the angle of the driver's perspective. Equally, I require this operator to show how the entrance signs appear from a driver's seat, not stock examples of 'the sign' in isolation/close-up. I submit that full terms simply cannot be read from a car before parking and mere 'stock examples' of close-ups of the (alleged) signage terms will not be sufficient to disprove this.

CONTRACT WITH THE LANDOWNER - NOT COMPLIANT WITH THE BPA CODE OF PRACTICE AND NO LEGAL STATUS TO OFFER PARKING OR ENFORCE CHARGES

I do not believe that the Operator has demonstrated a proprietary interest in the land, because they have no legal possession which would give CP Plus any right to offer parking spaces, let alone allege a contract with third party customers of the lawful owner/occupiers. In addition, CP Plus' lack of title in this land means they have no legal standing to allege trespass or loss, if that is the basis of their charge. I require CP Plus to demonstrate their legal ownership of the land to POPLA.

I contend that CP Plus is only an agent working for the owner and their signs do not help them to form a contract without any consideration capable of being offered. VCS-v-HMRC 2012 is the binding decision in the Upper Chamber which covers this issue with compelling statements of fact about this sort of business model.

I believe there is no contract with the landowner/occupier that entitles CP Plus to levy these charges and therefore it has no authority to issue parking charge notices (PCNs). This being the case, the burden of proof shifts to CP Plus to prove otherwise so I require that CP Plus produce a copy of their contract with the owner/occupier and that the POPLA adjudicator scrutinises it. Even if a basic contract is produced and mentions PCNs, the lack of ownership or assignment of title or interest in the land reduces any contract to one that exists simply on an agency basis between CP Plus and the owner/occupier, containing nothing CP Plus can lawfully use in their own name as a mere agent, that could impact on a third party customer.

UNFAIR TERMS

The charge that was levied is an unfair term (and therefore not binding) pursuant to the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999. In particular, Schedule 2 of those Regulations gives an indicative (and non-exhaustive) list of terms which may be regarded as unfair and includes at Schedule 2(1)(e) "Terms which have the object or effect of requiring any consumer who fails to fulfil his obligation to pay a disproportionately high sum in compensation." Furthermore, Regulation 5(1) states that: "A contractual term which has not been individually negotiated shall be regarded as unfair if, contrary to the requirement of good faith, it causes a significant imbalance in the parties' rights and obligations arising under the contract, to the detriment of the consumer" and 5(2) states: "A term shall always be regarded as not having been individually negotiated where it has been drafted in advance and the consumer has therefore not been able to influence the substance of the term."

THE OPERATOR HAS NOT SHOWN THAT THE INDIVIDUAL WHO IT IS PURSUING IS IN FACT THE DRIVER WHO MAY HAVE BEEN POTENTIALLY LIABLE FOR THE CHARGE

In cases with a keeper appellant, yet no POFA 'keeper liability' to rely upon, POPLA must first consider whether they are confident that the Assessor knows who the driver is, based on the evidence received. No presumption can be made about liability whatsoever. A vehicle can be driven by any person (with the consent of the owner) as long as the driver is insured. There is no dispute that the driver was entitled to drive the car and I can confirm that they were, but I am exercising my right not to name that person.

In this case, no other party apart from an evidenced driver can be told to pay. I am the appellant throughout (as I am entitled to be), and as there has been no admission regarding who was driving, and no evidence has been produced, it has been held by POPLA on numerous occasions, that a parking charge cannot be enforced against a keeper without a valid NTK.

As the keeper of the vehicle, it is my right to choose not to name the driver, yet still not be lawfully held liable if an operator is not using or complying with Schedule 4. This applies regardless of when the first appeal was made and regardless of whether a purported 'NTK' was served or not, because the fact remains I am only appealing as the keeper and ONLY Schedule 4 of the POFA (or evidence of who was driving) can cause a keeper appellant to be deemed to be the liable party.

The burden of proof rests with the Operator to show that (as an individual) I have personally not complied with terms in place on the land and show that I am personally liable for their parking charge. They cannot.

Furthermore, the vital matter of full compliance with the POFA was confirmed by parking law expert barrister, Henry Greenslade, the previous POPLA Lead Adjudicator, in 2015:

UNDERSTANDING KEEPER LIABILITY

“There appears to be continuing misunderstanding about Schedule 4. Provided certain conditions are strictly complied with, it provides for recovery of unpaid parking charges from the keeper of the vehicle.
There is no ‘reasonable presumption’ in law that the registered keeper of a vehicle is the driver. Operators should never suggest anything of the sort. Further, a failure by the recipient of a notice issued under Schedule 4 to name the driver, does not of itself mean that the recipient has accepted that they were the driver at the material time. Unlike, for example, a Notice of Intended Prosecution where details of the driver of a vehicle must be supplied when requested by the police, pursuant to Section 172 of the Road Traffic Act 1988, a keeper sent a Schedule 4 notice has no legal obligation to name the driver. [...] If {POFA 2012 Schedule 4 is} not complied with then keeper liability does not generally pass.''
Therefore, no lawful right exists to pursue unpaid parking charges from myself as keeper of the vehicle, where an operator cannot transfer the liability for the charge using the POFA.

SUMMARY

On the basis of all the points I have raised, this 'charge' fails to meet the standards set out in paragraph 19 of the BPA CoP and also fails to comply with basic contract law. There is no evidence that the driver of the car was an on-duty member of staff at the time the tickets were issued, the signage is ambigious and inadequate and there is no mention of restricted zones. For these reasons, the PCN should be dropped.

Umkomaas

Slow down!

Point #3. The UTCCR was superseded 2 years ago by the Consumer Rights Act 2015.

You really need to do your research before dashing anything out and hoping regulars spot any gaffes. You don’t want to be arguing obsolete points of law, otherwise the PPC will blow you out in bubbles - remember they are dealing with this stuff every day. You need to get it right to win at POPLA (or court in due course, where the law will be even more closely examined!).

And in the above context, it’s not very useful simply quoting various extracts from an Act in some kind of vacuum, you need to be relating how the actual parking event/parking charge/signage fails in relation to that Act.

In order to build in point #4, you will need a ‘No Keeper Liability’ point, and the actual reason(s) why CPP have not met the requirements of PoFA Schedule 4.

Have you been through the NEWBIES FAQ sticky, post #3’s template appeal points?

Calvinm

Umkomaas wrote: »

Slow down!

Point #3. The UTCCR was superseded 2 years ago by the Consumer Rights Act 2015.

You really need to do your research before dashing anything out and hoping regulars spot any gaffes. You don’t want to be arguing obsolete points of law, otherwise the PPC will blow you out in bubbles - remember they are dealing with this stuff every day. You need to get it right to win at POPLA (or court in due course, where the law will be even more closely examined!).

And in the above context, it’s not very useful simply quoting various extracts from an Act in some kind of vacuum, you need to be relating how the actual parking event/parking charge/signage fails in relation to that Act.

In order to build in point #4, you will need a ‘No Keeper Liability’ point, and the actual reason(s) why CPP have not met the requirements of PoFA Schedule 4.

Have you been through the NEWBIES FAQ sticky, post #3’s template appeal points?

After reading all of the sticky posts and the other threads related to my situation again, I realise that I should really be drafting a letter to write to SCS Law to gather more evidence for POPLA. I now see a few more things that I need to know (e.g. the contract CP Plus have with Meadowhall, any evidence they have proving the car was incorrectly parked or that the driver wasn't staff).

Apologies for the absolute pig-ear of my previous post, I thought the templates given were discouraged from being heavily edited due to how inarticulate the average person (e.g. myself) can be.

Below is the draft we intend to send to SCS Law in response to their LBC within the 30 days they said we before they take us to court about it. We have yet to hear back from CP Plus directly regarding our initial appeal through their website.

Is this on the right lines? Is it worth adding a part asking how their client adheres to POFA 2012? The NTK does mention how, 'in relation to Paragraph 8(2)(f)' they can chase the registered keeper as liable.

In addition to this, what is the cut-off point to apply to POPLA? The most recent NTK is about a ticket dated 07/10/11 (the date of the notice was 15/11/11). Does this mean that we cannot appeal through POPLA and, instead, have to tackle the whole list of parking tickets in court? Or is the time-frame to apply to POPLA from the result of the appeal to CP Plus directly?

---

Dear Sirs,

Thank you for your letter detailing the debt owed to CP Plus Ltd.

Before we are to proceed, your client must provide me with sufficient evidence supporting the validity of the PCNs issued. Both your letter and the NTK issued by CP Plus Ltd contain insufficient detail of the claim and any mention of what evidence your client intends to rely on is lacking, nor do they enclose copies of such evidence. Both the letters received do not explain anything beyond a presumption that the driver was on-duty staff, which fails to demonstrate the lawfulness of these issued notices.

This action on the part of your client is a clear breach of its pre-action obligations set out in the Practice Direction - Pre-Action Conduct, with which as solicitors you must surely be familiar (and with which your client, a serial litigator of small claims, must also be familiar). As you (and your client) must know, the Practice Direction binds all potential litigants, whatever the size or type of the claim. Its express purpose is to assist parties in understanding the claim and their respective positions in relation to it, to enable parties to take stock of their positions and to negotiate a settlement, or at least narrow the issues, without incurring the costs of court proceedings or using up valuable court time.

Nobody, including your client, is immune from the requirements and obligations of the Practice Direction. Your client cannot simply demand a large sum of money without considerable evidence supporting that not only the driver was indeed on-duty staff at the times the PCNs were issued and not a valid customer of Meadohwall Shopping Centre, but that CP Plus Ltd has written authorisation to claim these incurred costs.

I require your client to comply with its obligations by sending me the following information/documents:

1. a copy of the contract with the landowner under which they assert authority to bring the claim
2. a copy of any alleged contract with the driver
3. evidence that the driver was an on-duty staff member during the times the PCNs were issued
4. a plan showing where any signs were displayed and details of the signs displayed (size of sign, size of font, height at which displayed)
4. what the details of the claim are (where it is claimed the car was parked, for how long, how the monies being claimed arose and have been calculated, what contractual breach (if any) is being claimed)
9. If they have added anything on to the original charge, what that represents and how it has been calculated.

I am clearly entitled to this information under paragraphs 6(a) and 6(c) of the Practice Direction. I also need it in order to comply with my own obligations under paragraph 6(b).

If your client does not provide me with this information then I put you on notice that I will be relying on the cases of Webb Resolutions Ltd v Waller Needham & Green [2012] EWHC 3529 (Ch), Daejan Investments Limited v The Park West Club Limited (Part 20) – Buxton Associates [2003] EWHC 2872, Charles Church Developments Ltd v Stent Foundations Limited & Peter Dann Limited [2007] EWHC 855 in asking the court to impose sanctions on your client and to order a stay of the proceedings, pursuant to paragraphs 13 ,15(b) and (c) and 16.

Until your client has complied with its obligations and provided this information, I am unable to respond properly to the alleged claim and to consider my position in relation to it, and it is entirely premature (and a waste of costs and court time) for your client to issue proceedings. Should your client do so, then I will seek an immediate stay pursuant to paragraph 15(b) of the Practice Direction and an order that this information is provided.

Yours faithfully

Coupon-mad

Below is the draft we intend to send to SCS Law in response to their LBC within the 30 days they said we before they take us to court about it. We have yet to hear back from CP Plus directly regarding our initial appeal through their website.

Is this on the right lines?

Yes that looks good.

I would add #10 'Photographs to prove that the place where the car was parked was designated/marked our as a 'restricted area' and where/which sign(s) were, in relation to the car.

Is it worth adding a part asking how their client adheres to POFA 2012? The NTK does mention how, 'in relation to Paragraph 8(2)(f)' they can chase the registered keeper as liable.

Yes, ask them to state whether their client relies upon the POFA, and if not, ask for their evidence as regards who the individual party was (or who the multiple drivers were), who parked the car on each occasion.

And you could add at the end, that in the interests of saving court time and resolving the dispute, since an appeals process has started regarding the most recent PCN number xxxxxxxx you suggest that POPLA is used as the applicable ADR, and that any proceedings regarding the other PCNS - that appear to turn on the same facts and are all being pursued against you as registered keeper without any cause of action or merit - are put on hold until the outcome of that process.

Calvinm

Coupon-mad wrote: »

Yes that looks good.

I would add #10 'Photographs to prove that the place where the car was parked was designated/marked our as a 'restricted area' and where/which sign(s) were, in relation to the car.

Yes, ask them to state whether their client relies upon the POFA, and if not, ask for their evidence as regards who the individual party was (or who the multiple drivers were), who parked the car on each occasion.

And you could add at the end, that in the interests of saving court time and resolving the dispute, since an appeals process has started regarding the most recent PCN number xxxxxxxx you suggest that POPLA is used as the applicable ADR, and that any proceedings regarding the other PCNS - that appear to turn on the same facts and are all being pursued against you as registered keeper without any cause of action or merit - are put on hold until the outcome of that process.

Thank you, that's a relief! Really appreciate the suggestions about what to add, especially the last bit, would have never thought about that and some breathing room would be much appreciated. Just to point back to a question in my previous reply (I edited it in later so I'm not sure if you saw):

What is the cut-off point to apply to POPLA? The most recent NTK is about a ticket dated 07/10/11 (the date of the notice was 15/11/11). Does this mean that we cannot appeal through POPLA and, instead, have to tackle the whole list of parking tickets in court? Or is the time-frame to apply to POPLA from the result of the appeal to CP Plus directly?

Edit: I've just re-read the SCS Law LBC and the final note is "Our client does not consider that this matter is suitable for Alternative Dispute Resolution". I'm going to assume this is a meaningless statement without consequence? Of course they wouldn't want this to be disputed by a third party that might not benefit them.

RobinofLoxley

In addition to this, what is the cut-off point to apply to POPLA? The most recent NTK is about a ticket dated 07/10/11 (the date of the notice was 15/11/11). Does this mean that we cannot appeal through POPLA and, instead, have to tackle the whole list of parking tickets in court? Or is the time-frame to apply to POPLA from the result of the appeal to CP Plus directly

You are still in time to make a POPLA appeal as CP Plus haven't sent you a rejection letter yet to your appeal to them re that latest PCN.

From the issue of a NTK you have 28 days to appeal to the parking company. They should respond within 14 days and if they reject your appeal as well as inviting you to pay the charge they should offer you the opportunity to appeal to POPLA and give you a verification code to use. You then have 28 days to submit an appeal to POPLA.

You should familiarise yourself with the BPA's Code of Practice, which also contains a guide to POFA 2012 in appendix C.

http://www.britishparking.co.uk/write/Documents/AOS_Code_of_Practice_October_2015_update_V6..pdf

RobinofLoxley

Dear Sirs,

Thank you for your letter detailing the debt owed to CP Plus Ltd.

I wouldn't use that opening line in your response letter to SCS Law.

As far as you're concerned there is no debt owed.

Calvinm

RobinofLoxley wrote: »

You are still in time to make a POPLA appeal as CP Plus haven't sent you a rejection letter yet to your appeal to them re that latest PCN.

From the issue of a NTK you have 28 days to appeal to the parking company. They should respond within 14 days and if they reject your appeal as well as inviting you to pay the charge they should offer you the opportunity to appeal to POPLA and give you a verification code to use. You then have 28 days to submit an appeal to POPLA.

You should familiarise yourself with the BPA's Code of Practice, which also contains a guide to POFA 2012 in appendix C.

The LTK is regarding the most PCN so that's all fine then, thank you. We will be sending off our response to the LBC and will also be waiting eagerly for CPP to respond to our first appeal. I'll continue to familiarise myself with the BPA Code of Practice, it's so much to digest but hopefully I pick out things that are useful, especially when we get a response back from SCS re: the LBC. Thank you for the link!

I wouldn't use that opening line in your response letter to SCS Law.

As far as you're concerned there is no debt owed.

Edit: How would you recommend wording it? "Thank you for your letting detailing the issued PCNs from CP Plus Ltd"?

Castle

Coupon-mad wrote: »

Yes, ask them to state whether their client relies upon the POFA, and if not, ask for their evidence as regards who the individual party was (or who the multiple drivers were), who parked the car on each occasion.

Even if they comply with POFA they will still need to prove who the driver was; because the "restrictions" only apply to staff members.

Coupon-mad

RobinofLoxley wrote: »

I wouldn't use that opening line in your response letter to SCS Law.

As far as you're concerned there is no debt owed.

Good point.

How would you recommend wording it? "Thank you for your letting detailing the issued PCNs from CP Plus Ltd"?

Not 'thank you' either! How about:

I am responding to your letter purporting to be a Letter before Claim on behalf of CP Plus Ltd...

I've just re-read the SCS Law LBC and the final note is "Our client does not consider that this matter is suitable for Alternative Dispute Resolution".

Quote that back at them. Literally say 'Regarding your statement ''...{quote it}...'' I remind you of the regulations regarding ADR. Of course a parking 'ticket' dispute is suitable for ADR. That is precisely why POPLA exists, to give registered keepers an independent appeals process, which was the clear will of Parliament when the POFA 2012 was enacted.

Read this to understand and sound like you know what you are talking about:

http://constructionblog.practicallaw.com/are-you-trading-with-consumers-complying-with-the-new-adr-regulations-part-2/

A trader is obliged to give the required information under Regulation 19(2), not just blandly state 'we don't think this is suitable for ADR' - a statement that flies in the face of the 2015 regulations and will not be viewed favourably by the Courts.


Finish by saying this, which is similar to your draft but adds a bit more:

Until your client has complied with their obligations I cannot respond properly to the threatened claim and unwarranted demands, in order to make an informed decision and consider my position in relation to the matter. Should your client proceed with this outrageous claim, then I will seek an immediate stay pursuant to paragraph 15(b) of the Practice Direction and an order that this information is provided.