SCS for parking with permit!

Dear Sirs,
Thank you for sending me additional information about this.

Your reply does not take us any further. I am still not in possession of sufficient detail of the claim. Your letter again fails to clarify what evidence your client intends to rely on, nor does it provide copies of such evidence.
For example, your client must have photographic evidence, which I am entitled to see.

Your client is in breach of its obligations pursuant to the Protocol for Debt Claims - 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 Protocol binds all potential litigants, whatever the size or type of the claim. No party is immune to its provisions. In fact one might argue that compliance with it is even more important in a small claim against a litigant in person. Its express purpose is to assist parties in understanding the claim and their respective positions in relation to it, to enable them 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. Your client cannot deny me this opportunity.

I require your client to comply with its obligations by sending me the following documents:
1. a clear explanation of the cause of action
2. why it is pursuing me as the keeper
3. whether it is relying on the provisions of Schedule 4 of POFA 2012
4. photographic evidence related to the supposed claim
5. a copy of the contract with the landowner under which it asserts authority to bring the claim (already requested in the previous correspondence, but ignored)
6. a copy of any alleged contract with the driver and how its terms were communicated to the driver (ie a copy of any signage and a plan of where it was displayed in relation to where the car was parked)
7. If your client has added anything on to the original charge, an explanation of what that represents and how it has been calculated.
8. Photographic evidence of the parking on which the claim is based

I am clearly entitled to this information under paragraph 9 of the Protocol. I require it to deal with my own obligations to respond to the alleged claim under paragraph 9 of Protocol. None of this information will be difficult for your client to provide - it is obliged by its membership of BPA to make and keep such records.

If your client does not provide me with this information then paragraphs 13-16 of the Practice Direction - Pre-Action Conduct (which continue to apply, as set out in the Protocol) are applicable and 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 (paragraphs 13 ,15(b) and (c) and 16 of the Practice Direction).

Unless your client complies with its obligations and provides this information, I am unable to respond properly to the alleged claim or to consider my position in relation to it, as I am entitled to do, and as I am obliged to do pursuant to the Protocol. Until then, 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.

The claim has no merit whatsoever, for two reasons:

1. Outwith POFA, there is no 'keeper liability', hence I cannot be held liable for any parking charge. Your client has no cause of action against me and must take it up with the driver, and should have done so in a timely manner, establishing on the day who that party was, if they felt there was a parking charge due.

2. In any event, the driver was authorised to park by the landowner - the car's VRN is in fact registered with the land owner, who has issued a legitimate permit for the car to access and park in the staff car park area. This alone nullifies any claim. Your client should already know this, but could easily check the position with the landowner. I expect it to do so now, and to cease writing to me requiring me to pay a "charge" which I am not obliged to pay.

The continual letters requiring me to pay monies for which I am not liable are causing me ongoing distress and inconvenience and I reserve all my rights in respect of a counterclaim for harassment and/or breaches of my data protection rights.

Should your client proceed, I put you on notice that, having spelled out to it that the claim has no merit, I will seek full indemnity costs pursuant to Rule 27.14(2)(g) on the basis that your client should, and did, know that the claim was entirely baseless.