Hello all,
I would appreciate any advice on how to proceed with the following:
Driver entered the car park and exited later the same day, overstaying time paid for.
So far all correspondence from Euro Car Parks and DCB Legal has not been responded to.
Claim form (issue date 23/7/26) was received on 27/7/26 and has not yet been responded to.
I am the registered keeper of the vehicle with the V5C in my possession.
Notice to Keeper (front)Notice to Keeper (back)N1SDT Claim Form Current signage (note this is from 07/2026 so may have changed)This is the car park on Google Street View
Find local businesses, view maps and get driving directions in Google Maps.
Please let me know if any further information will assist, thanks very much!
[edit - NTK back scan added)
The rear of the Notice to Keeper, please
If you file an Acknowledgment of Service by 11 August you will have until 25 August to file a defence.
If the NtK is not compliant with PoFA 2012 (
An Act to provide for the destruction, retention, use and other regulation of certain evidential material; to impose consent and other requirements in relation to certain processing of biometric in...
) this can be your defence, hence why we need to see it all. You obviously haven’t identified the driver and know that you won’t.
Otherwise you ned to file some defence other than not wanting to pay.
It is our experience that DCB Legal discontinues court cases before having to pay the court fee, but that will be in a number of months.
If you file an Acknowledgment of Service by 11 August you will have until 25 August to file a defence.
If the NtK is not compliant with PoFA 2012 (https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2012/9/schedule/4) this can be your defence, hence why we need to see it all. You obviously haven’t identified the driver and know that you won’t.
Otherwise you ned to file some defence other than not wanting to pay.
It is our experience that DCB Legal discontinues court cases before having to pay the court fee, but that will be in a number of months.
From what I can tell, the NtK appears to comply with PoFA 2012? Though I am not an expert of course.
The original NtK mentions the stay being 12hrs 22 minutes - but does not say how much parking was paid for by the driver. Given the options available at the car park (4/12/24hrs) I would guess this would have been 12hrs, making it a 22 minute overstay, beyond the 10 minute grace period (if this applies).
The original fine was £100. While I understand there is no way to simply argue that this is excessive for 22 minutes of parking, it is a little ridiculous IMO.
The fine has since risen to £170 due to non-payment - I can't really think of any other possible defence to give other than the "abuse of process and double recovery" defence due to this being above £100 which courts appear to have deemed reasonable.
I'll file the AoS now, but in the meantime any advice would be greatly appreciated.
Just to note - it's not a
fine, it's originally an invoice for payment under the contract the driver entered into by reading the signs and by parking. The court claim is for breach of contract for not paying.
The grace period almost certainly applies, yes.
Be that as it may, the Supreme Court ruled that these invoices were proportionate and not excessive (
).
This defence has been repeatedly struck out by the courts more recently as being a boilerplate/template defence, and the defendant has been required to replace it with one that addresses the Particulars of Claim and specific points relevant to the claim.
You're copying something from 2024.
If you can come up with a more tailored defence then you should be able to achieve your objectives.
Ok have tried my best to come up with something non-boilerplate that addresses the points on the Claim Form (as posted above)
Response to particulars of claim:
1.The Defendant is the Registered Keeper of the vehicle with registration mark #####.
2. The Defendant confirms that, to the best of their recollection, the vehicle entered and exited the car park on the date supplied.
3. Paragraph 3 is denied. The Defendant was not the driver of the vehicle at the material time and is under no legal obligation to identify the driver to a private entity.
4. The Defendant accepts being pursued as the keeper of the vehicle, but is not able to confirm whether or not the Notice to Keeper was supplied within the mandatory 14-day window that applies where no parking ticket was given on the vehicle, due to not being in possession of a record of when the NtK entered the postal system via independent evidence.
Response to claimant claims:
1. The Claimant is claiming a principal sum of £170.00, representing the initial £100 parking charge artificially inflated by £70.00 described as debt collection costs. PoFA Schedule 4, Paragraph 4(5) explicitly caps the maximum sum recoverable from a registered keeper at the amount specified in the original Notice to Keeper (typically £100). The addition of arbitrary "debt collection fees" or "damages" represents double recovery, violates the Civil Procedure Rules, and constitutes an abuse of the court process.
2. The Defendant notes the 8% interest rate given but has not been provided with a calculation to show how this has been used to reach the £181.68 amount given at the “amount claimed”.
3. The Defendant notes that costs and court fees have been added to the amount claimed.
I think that's a better option, yes.
I would add that paragraph 4 is denied - the notice to keeper is NOT POFA compliant.
Remove point 2
I would add that paragraph 4 is denied - the notice to keeper is NOT POFA compliant.
Oh interesting, is it not?
I had a look through the info regarding PoFa but couldn't spot the non-compliance as a layperson.
Would really appreciate any clarification on what part is non-compliant, since that seems like an strong point of defence.
1. It is acknowledged that I was the Registered Keeper of the vehicle at the material time.
2. The Defendant was not the driver of the vehicle at the material time and I am under no legal obligation to identify the driver to a private entity and I will not be doing so under any circumstance.
3. That the Claimant's Notice to Keeper is not compliant with Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 Schedule 4 Paragraph 9(2) and therefore the Claimant is not able transfer liability for the alleged debt from the unknown driver onto myself the Defendant.
4. That, in view of the above, there is no legal route to liability and therefore the debt is denied in its entirety.
In my opinion the NtK is not compliant because;
1. It fails to convey the information required by paragraph 9(2)(b) - the notice never specifies the second part of the requirement - namely; "that the parking charges have not been paid in full"
2. It fails to state the mandatory wording and two limbed invite to the keeper required by 9(2)(e) - the notice must state that the creditor does not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver and invite the keeper—
(i)to pay the unpaid parking charges; or
(ii)if the keeper was not the driver of the vehicle, to notify the creditor of the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver and to pass the notice on to the driver.
The mandatory wording is not present. Nor is the two limbed invite.
This will never make it into Court. You are just going through a process here.
Ok great, this is very much appreciated!
I wasn't sure if I need to respond to the "claimant claims" as well as the "particulars of claim" (hence two sections in my original draft - however, given the points raised re: PoFA I'll just remove that bit and use the drafted defence you kindly provided, since that seems much more clear cut:
i.e. my entire defence will be:
1. It is acknowledged that I was the Registered Keeper of the vehicle at the material time.
2. The Defendant was not the driver of the vehicle at the material time and I am under no legal obligation to identify the driver to a private entity and I will not be doing so under any circumstance.
3. That the Claimant's Notice to Keeper is not compliant with Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 Schedule 4 Paragraph 9(2) and therefore the Claimant is not able transfer liability for the alleged debt from the unknown driver onto myself the Defendant.
4. That, in view of the above, there is no legal route to liability and therefore the debt is denied in its entirety.
Yes I am happy enough to follow the process along, will update on how it goes.
Find local businesses, view maps and get driving directions in Google Maps. 
Useful x 1
View List
Like x 1
View List