Email response effectiveness

FizzyCharlie

Hi all,

I've been through this process before, taken it all the way to court and won! This one is a little different and is also during the age of much expanded access to the specialist knowledge I think the 'legal' firms hold over many of us. What I'd like to ask is, has anyone succeeded in using AI to help in their defence? I've been using it recently to respond to Moorside Legal, largely to get them to provide me with as much detail as they can about their case. Below is the email I am looking to send next, I've asked Gemini to make it as detailed as possible. I'd be interested if anyone has any comments about whether it is effective or not;

Subject: Formal Dispute and Comprehensive Request for Evidential Disclosure - Parking Charge Claim

Dear [The Legal Firm],

I acknowledge receipt of your latest email, dated [Date of Their Latest Email], in response to my previous correspondence concerning the alleged parking charge (reference: [Parking Charge Reference Number]). I must reiterate, unequivocally, that the entirety of the alleged debt, encompassing both the purported initial parking charge and the additional £70, remains in absolute dispute.

Your previous response, while noted, regrettably failed to provide the specific, verifiable evidence and detailed legal justifications I explicitly requested. Instead, it largely reiterated prior assertions without addressing the fundamental legal deficiencies of your client's claim. Given this persistent lack of substantiation, I am compelled to expand upon my queries and demand precise, granular evidential disclosure on the following critical points. Your failure to provide comprehensive and verifiable answers to each of these demands will be construed as an inability to substantiate your client's claim, and will be treated as such in any future proceedings.

I. Re-Examination of Contract Formation and Signage Requirements: An In-Depth Scrutiny

You assert that a contract was formed by entering and parking the vehicle, with terms "clearly displayed at the entrance and in prominent places within the car park." This assertion requires far more than a blanket statement to be legally sound. The onus is on your client to prove, beyond doubt, that a legally binding contract was indeed formed.

1. Precision of the "Offer":

• Please provide the exact wording of the contractual offer as displayed on the signage at the point of entry to the site. This should include all terms and conditions, not merely the parking charge amount.

• What were the precise dimensions (height, width) of the sign(s) displaying these terms at the entrance?

• What was the specific font type and size used for the terms and conditions, particularly for the parking charge amount and any additional fees? Please provide a scale drawing or photographic evidence that allows for accurate measurement.

• What was the height of the bottom edge of the sign(s) from the ground level at the point of entry?

• What materials were used for the signage, and what measures were in place to ensure their legibility under all lighting conditions (daylight, dusk, night) and adverse weather (rain, fog)? Please provide evidence of regular maintenance and inspection logs for these signs.

1. Clarity of "Acceptance":

• Given the alleged contravention, please specify which exact term(s) of the contract were purportedly breached. Quote the precise wording from the signage.

• How was the "acceptance" of these specific terms communicated by the driver before the alleged breach occurred? Was there a clear opportunity for the driver to read, understand, and accept or reject the terms prior to committing to parking?

• If the terms were only visible once the vehicle had already entered the car park or committed to a parking manoeuvre, please explain the legal basis for asserting contract formation at that point, given the principle that an offer must precede acceptance.

1. "Prominent Places" and Visibility:

• You state signs were in "prominent places within the car park." Please provide a detailed, to-scale site plan of the entire parking area, clearly marking the precise location of every single sign that your client relies upon for contract formation. Each sign should be individually numbered on the plan.

• For each numbered sign, please provide multiple high-resolution, time-stamped, and geo-tagged photographs taken from various angles, including the perspective of a driver approaching and standing at each parking bay. These photographs must demonstrate the legibility of the entire text of the sign.

• What was the maximum distance from which the smallest print on the signs could be clearly read by a person with average eyesight?

• Please provide evidence that the signs were not obscured by vegetation, other vehicles, lighting poles, or any other physical obstructions at the time of the alleged contravention.

II. Deepening the Challenge on Keeper Liability and PoFA 2012 Compliance

My previous request for strict PoFA Schedule 4 compliance evidence remains outstanding and requires far greater detail than your general assertions.

1. Proof of Notice Service:

• Regarding the "Notice to Keeper" (NTK), please provide a copy of the Certificate of Posting or equivalent verifiable proof of postage from Royal Mail or your chosen postal service, specifically for the NTK sent to me, confirming the date of dispatch.

• If the NTK was sent via standard post, please explain how you can definitively assert its receipt within the statutory 14-day timeframe, given the absence of tracked delivery.

• Please provide the specific wording of the "warning to keeper" as it appeared on the NTK, and reference the exact paragraph of PoFA Schedule 4 it purports to satisfy.

1. The Initial Charge and PoFA 4(5) Limitation:

• You state the £70 additional charge "does not represent the cost of recovery." However, PoFA Schedule 4, Paragraph 4(5) is clear: "the creditor may not make a claim against the keeper for more than the amount of the unpaid parking-related charges as they stood when the notice to the driver was issued."

• Please provide irrefutable evidence that the initial parking charge, as first communicated (either via a Notice to Driver or the first Notice to Keeper), was solely the principal amount, and that the £70 was not included or implied at that initial stage.

• If the £70 was not part of the initial charge, please explain the legal mechanism by which it can be subsequently added and claimed from the keeper, given the explicit limitation in PoFA 4(5).

1. Identity of the Driver:

• While I maintain no obligation to name the driver, your claim rests on an alleged breach of contract by the driver. Please confirm whether your client has, through any means, identified the driver of the vehicle at the time of the alleged contravention. If so, please provide the basis for this identification.

III. The £70 Additional Charge: Unenforceability and Contradictions

Your justification for the £70 charge continues to be vague and contradictory.

1. Genuine Pre-Estimate of Loss (GPEOL) for £70:

• Despite your assertion that the £70 "does not represent the cost of recovery," for any charge to be enforceable under contract law (especially if not a genuine pre-estimate of loss, which the Beavis case allowed only for the initial charge under specific conditions), it must still serve a legitimate commercial interest and not be a penalty.

• Please provide a detailed, itemised breakdown of the actual costs incurred by your client that this £70 charge purports to cover. This should be a genuine pre-estimate of loss, not merely an arbitrary figure from an industry code.

• If it is truly "not the cost of recovery," please explain precisely what commercial interest this £70 charge serves that is distinct from the initial parking charge, and how this interest is protected by this specific sum.

• Please provide audited financial statements or other verifiable evidence demonstrating how this £70 figure was calculated to be "reasonable" in relation to the parking charge amount, especially when it effectively doubles the initial sum.

1. Accredited Trade Association (ATA) Codes vs. Statutory Law:

• You refer to the British Parking Association (BPA) and International Parking Community (IPC) Codes of Practice. While your client may be a member of an ATA, these are industry self-regulation codes, not statutory law.

• Please provide specific legal arguments and supporting case law that demonstrate how a provision within an industry-led Code of Practice, which allows for additional fees, can override or circumvent the clear legislative intent of the Parking (Code of Practice) Act 2019 to ban such fees.

• Please provide the specific clauses within the IPC Code of Practice that explicitly permit the levying of a £70 additional charge in the circumstances you describe, and explain how these clauses are legally binding upon me.

1. "Encourage Early Payment" vs. Penalty:

• The assertion that the £70 is "to encourage early payment" strongly suggests it is a deterrent or penalty, rather than a genuine pre-estimate of loss. Please reconcile this with the legal principle that penalties are generally unenforceable in contract law.

• How does the £70 "encourage early payment" in a manner that is proportionate and not punitive, especially when compared to the initial charge?

IV. Authority to Pursue and Data Handling Compliance

1. Landowner Authority:

• Please provide a certified true copy of the contract or agreement between your client, [The Parking Operator], and the landowner of the site where the alleged contravention occurred. This document must clearly demonstrate that [The Parking Operator] has the legal authority and proprietary interest to issue parking charges and to pursue them through legal means at that specific location.

• Please confirm that this contract was valid and in force on the date of the alleged contravention.

1. Chain of Authority for Debt Recovery:

• Please provide clear documentary evidence of the contractual chain of authority from the landowner to [The Parking Operator], and subsequently from [The Parking Operator] to [The Legal Firm], authorising your firm to act on their behalf in pursuing this specific alleged debt.

1. Data Protection and GDPR/DPA Compliance:

• Under what specific legal basis (e.g., legitimate interest, contractual necessity) did your client obtain my personal data (as the registered keeper) from the DVLA? Please cite the relevant Article(s) of the GDPR or section(s) of the Data Protection Act 2018.

• Please provide evidence that your client conducted a Legitimate Interests Assessment (LIA) if that was the basis for obtaining my data, and confirm that this assessment concluded that obtaining my data was necessary and proportionate.

• Please confirm that my data has been processed in full compliance with all principles of the GDPR/DPA, including data minimisation, accuracy, and storage limitation.

V. Conclusion and Warning

I reiterate that the alleged debt is disputed in its entirety. Your continued pursuit of this claim without providing the comprehensive and verifiable evidence requested above will be considered vexatious and an abuse of process. I remind you that costs recoverable in the Small Claims Court are severely limited, and any attempt to inflate these costs beyond what is genuinely and legally recoverable will be robustly challenged.

I expect a full, detailed, and evidence-backed response to each and every point raised in this email. Your failure to provide such a response will be taken as an clear indication that your client is unable to substantiate their claim, and I will consider this matter closed. Should you choose to initiate legal proceedings without addressing these critical points, this detailed dispute and your failure to provide the requested evidence will form the cornerstone of my defence, and I will seek all available costs and remedies.

I look forward to your prompt and thorough reply.

Yours faithfully,

The Keeper

Gr1pr

Nearly everyone here who replies will tell you to bin the ChatGPT or AI bots and do it properly,  in a way that the UJ justice system expects 

Few people will read an AI generated message,  neither will private parking companies or UK legal firms 

Its a roboclaim treadmill, based on the numbers game,  a game of chicken 

Ps, GPEOL died a death 10 years ago at the Supreme Court in London,  in the Beavis case 

kryten3000

FizzyCharlie said:

Hi all,

I've been through this process before, taken it all the way to court and won! This one is a little different and is also during the age of much expanded access to the specialist knowledge I think the 'legal' firms hold over many of us. What I'd like to ask is, has anyone succeeded in using AI to help in their defence? I've been using it recently to respond to Moorside Legal, largely to get them to provide me with as much detail as they can about their case. Below is the email I am looking to send next, I've asked Gemini to make it as detailed as possible. I'd be interested if anyone has any comments about whether it is effective or not;

Don't use computer generated letters.  I guessed it was auto generated before spotting you had asked Gemini for "help"

No one at Moorside will read this in full - I certainly didn't. It also has some errors (GPEOL for example).

Stick to the tried and tested template response and add your own words (not AI) about the failures.

(edited to add - I just realised that on here I present as an artificial life form.  To be clear, I am not really an android!)

Car1980

I get your angle, and why not experiment if you have the means? Why the hell should anyone pay anything on the basis of a contract that the other side refuse to hand over a copy of?

But remember your aims - to make it like it's not a court claim worth making (no parking company wants to sue a solicitor!), and to create evidence of unreasonableness. 

But don't go too far because you don't want to look like the unreasonable one.

FizzyCharlie

Thank you for the responses so far! I was pretty certain this approach had been tried before, so I'm glad I checked. I'm not great with writing, so it takes me ages to form an email worth reading, hence the help. Just for clarity, this email I generated was a response to what I received from them;

Our answers to your questions are as follows: 

• The additional charge which has been levied on your Parking Charge of £70 is the amount set out in both the British Parking Association and International Parking Community Codes of Practice as the amount which may be added to a Parking Charge when a Parking Charge remains unpaid and when further recovery is required. Our Client is a member of the International Parking Community which is a government approved Accredited Trade Association (ATA) for Private Parking. Our Client adheres to the ATA’s Code of Practice. The £70 does not represent the cost of recovery but is a reasonable amount in relation to the Parking Charge amount, in order to encourage early payment of the Parking Charge without the need for debt recovery. It is a fair amount set by our Client’s government-approved Accredited Trade Association Code of Practice. There are however also costs incurred by our client in relation to debt recovery services. 

• By entering and parking the vehicle on our client's private land, you agreed to enter into a contract with our client and to be bound by the terms and conditions of that contract. The terms and conditions were clearly displayed at the entrance and in prominent places within the car park. Due to your failure to comply with the terms and conditions, our client has issued the PCN therefore if we are instructed to issue a claim the reason would be for Unpaid parking charges/ breach of contract.

If I don't respond, am I just in the 'ignore, wait and see' stage?

Gr1pr

Correct,  but you should expect them to issue a court claim against you via MCOL in due course 

Coupon-mad provides the template response for a Letter of Claim,  meaning that you only needed to copy and paste it into an email,  which was not work and quicker too

If you read the same response that they sent you in many other threads here,  you would know what happens and when 

You would also know that we suggest reporting the legal company to HMRC with possible VAT concerns regarding the additional £70

Coupon-mad

You don't need to respond to their template response.

IMHO, chat GPT is only useful to write tweets and do maths equations. I stopped reading at the second stupidly long 'trying too hard' word which screamed AI immediately.

kryten3000

Completely template response.  Second paragraph claims "you agreed to enter into a contract" when they have no knowledge of who actually parked.