Bank Park NTK - fine issued for driver not paying 23 minute stay - Burgess Hill Market Place Shopping Centre

Yes, they’re common.

They are trying to trick you into identifying the driver. You can ignore.

They will reject your appeal in a week or so, “after careful consideration” which is untrue, they always reject appeals because it’s only about the money.

Then you can appeal to the IAS who might uphold your appeal, but even if they don’t, we can advise and you will end up paying £0.

Thanks that makes sense, appreciate the response 👍

Guess I'll just keep trodding along then!

Okay team, appreciate the help as always.

Finally have received something else about this, a letter from HM Courts & Tribunal Service that they've made a money claim against me for the amount, the court fee, and the legal representative's costs. Now I have 5 days to respond to it... is this the bit I've been waiting for (ie is this "going to court")?

I will respond ASAP and attach the PoFA violation text where I can (I haven't gone through the entire reply form yet), but just wanted to check that this is again all part of the plan.

Thank you!

Please post rather than summarise.

You have 14+5 days from the date on the N1SDT form to submit a defence or Acknowledgment of Service. If you submit AoS you have 14 more days.

Your defence needs to respond to the Particulars of Claim on the N1SDT as well as the original Notice to Keeper.

Please post rather than summarise.

Sorry if this is a stupid question, but do you mean post the full received letter (minus personal details)?

You have 14+5 days from the date on the N1SDT form to submit a defence or Acknowledgment of Service. If you submit AoS you have 14 more days.

Your defence needs to respond to the Particulars of Claim on the N1SDT as well as the original Notice to Keeper.

Right so submitting the AoS immediately just buys me a bit more time to put together the defence before submitting it? I don't think I see any potential downside to doing so.

Yes I have all the bits to submit, I'll confirm here once I've collated them all together.

Thanks 🙏

Quote from: jfollows on August 15, 2026, 07:29:56 pm

Please post rather than summarise.

Sorry if this is a stupid question, but do you mean post the full received letter (minus personal details)?

Yes, it is.
If you want more advice you need to provide more details.
http://www.ftla.uk/private-parking-tickets/read-this-first-private-parking-charges-forum-guide/

Finally have received something else about this, a letter from HM Courts & Tribunal Service

??

The Code of Practice requires them to respond to your 'appeal' and to offer the opportunity of dispute resolution through their chosen method, in this case IAS.

Then after they've considered and responded you and you've exhausted their methods or them you, then you engage with Administrative Law, in this case a Letter of Claim to which you should respond.

All the above is missing??

Apologies all - I've been super stressed over this and a bunch of other things and obviously not handling it well! Really appreciate every bit of help you've all assisted so far.

Let me just bring you all up to speed, I think this is all the relevant info:

* To my knowledge they have provided all the correct documents from the NTK through to the money claim. There was a followup NTK, a debt recovery attempt from ZZPS, and a Letter Of Claim from DCB Legal.

* I've attached a link to the image of the Particulars of Claim against me -

* I've also gone and written up a draft defence, it's at the bottom of this message.

Please let me know if I've missed anything important, and if you have the time to spare give a read over the defence... use it? Toss it and start again? Thoughts?

As always, thank you thank you. Amazing work



DRAFT DEFENCE

1. The Defendant is the registered keeper of vehicle BT66PLN. It is denied that the Defendant is indebted to the Claimant in any sum.
 
2. The Particulars of Claim are inadequately particularised: £170.00 is claimed as "the total of the PC and damages" without identifying what the damages are or how they are calculated. The Defendant will seek permission to amend this Defence if the claim is properly particularised.
 
3. As to paragraph 2 of the Particulars of Claim, no notice was given to the driver at the time. The vehicle was recorded by automated number plate recognition, and the Claimant's Notice to Keeper, issued 13 December 2025, was received by the Defendant on 17 December 2025.
 
4. As to paragraph 3, the Defendant was not the driver of the vehicle on 29 November 2025 and it is denied that he was. The Defendant is under no obligation to identify the driver and declines to do so. The Claimant is put to strict proof of the driver's identity.
 
5. The Defendant was not present at the site and is unable to admit or deny the Claimant's allegations as to the signage, the terms said to have been displayed, or the conduct of the driver. The Claimant is put to strict proof that adequate notice of any terms was given so as to form a contract with the driver, and that any such term was breached.
 
6. As to paragraph 4, the Claimant cannot rely on Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. No notice to driver having been given, paragraph 9 applies. By paragraph 9(4)(b) the Notice to Keeper must be delivered within the relevant period, which by paragraph 9(5) is the period of 14 days beginning with the day after that on which the specified period of parking ended. The parking is alleged to have occurred on 29 November 2025, so that period expired on 13 December 2025.
 
7. The Notice to Keeper cannot have been posted before the date it bears, 13 December 2025, which was a Saturday. By paragraph 9(6) a notice sent by post is presumed to have been delivered, and so given, on the second working day after the day on which it is posted. The earliest date on which it can be treated as given is therefore 16 December 2025, and it was in fact received on 17 December 2025. On either date it was given outside the relevant period.
 
8. The condition in paragraph 6 of Schedule 4 is therefore not satisfied and no liability attaches to the Defendant as keeper.
 
9. Further and in the alternative, if any keeper liability arises, paragraph 4(5) of Schedule 4 limits the sum recoverable from the keeper to the amount specified in the Notice to Keeper, which is £100.00. The further £70.00 claimed as a debt recovery fee is therefore irrecoverable from the Defendant as keeper. It is denied in any event as representing no genuine loss to the Claimant and as double recovery.
 
10. The Defendant denies that any sum, interest or costs is due to the Claimant, whether as driver or as keeper, and invites the court to dismiss the claim. The Defendant reserves the right to seek costs under CPR 27.14(2)(g).
 
Statement of truth
I believe that the facts stated in this Defence are true. I understand that proceedings for contempt of court may be brought against anyone who makes, or causes to be made, a false statement in a document verified by a statement of truth without an honest belief in its truth.

Defence looks good.

No need to stress over this - you simply aren't liable.

And watch out for the deadline, you haven't shown us the date on the N1SDT form so only you know what 28+5 days from this date is, on which date by 4pm is the deadline for submission as long as you earlier submitted an AoS.

And watch out for the deadline, you haven't shown us the date on the N1SDT form so only you know what 28+5 days from this date is, on which date by 4pm is the deadline for submission as long as you earlier submitted an AoS.

Right yep my bad. Well at any rate it's tomorrow 4pm. I'm going to submit it later today after I check here and do another once over