Free Traffic Legal Advice
Live cases legal advice => Private parking tickets => Topic started by: shahcar on August 10, 2026, 08:50:40 pm
-
Your response seems fine to me, but it will essentially be ignored.
You will in due course receive a county court claim, for which the details will be more relevant, because courts don’t ignore things.
Your response to the LoC is essentially a paper trail to show that you understand and are complying with the process. Little more than that. Don’t get too exercised about it.
-
I have got a few days to respond to the LOC.
I appreciate any comments.
-
I have written this to respond to the LOC.
Please tell me your comments.Thank you
Dear Sir/Madam,
I am writing in response to your Letter of Claim regarding an alleged debt stemming from a Parking Charge Notice (PCN) issued by Parking & Property Management Ltd. I formally dispute the entirety of this alleged debt. I am the registered keeper of the vehicle, and liability is completely denied.
Your client cannot transfer liability to me as the registered keeper because the Notice to Keeper (NTK) fails to comply with the requirements of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (POFA). Accordingly, keeper liability has not been established, and I do not accept that I am liable for the alleged charge.
Your client’s claim relies entirely on Automatic Number Plate Recognition(ANPR) camera data, which merely records images of a vehicle passing a boundary line. This data fails to provide any evidence of actual parking. I deny liability on the absolute grounds that the vehicle was never parked. The vehicle was in continuous motion for the entire duration, with the driver inside, navigating the property at Parkwood.
The ANPR timestamps therefore do not establish the duration of any parking event. They merely indicate the times at which the vehicle passed the relevant entry and exit camera points. If your client alleges that a parking contract was formed and subsequently breached, it must provide evidence establishing the actual parking event relied upon, rather than simply relying on the vehicle's passage between ANPR camera locations.
Under the International Parking Community (IPC) Code of Practice, operators must provide a mandatory Consideration Period to allow drivers to enter a site, read the terms and signage, and exit safely if they choose not to park. The time spent driving around the property clearly falls within a reasonable period of consideration and navigation. Because the vehicle never came to a rest in a bay, no contract was ever formed, and no breach occurred.
Pursuant to the Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims under the Civil Procedure Rules, I request that you provide the following essential documentation within 30 days of this letter:
•Conclusive, date-and-time-stamped photographic evidence proving that the vehicle was stationary and parked in a designated bay, rather than merely moving around or exiting.
•A copy of the contract or written authority from the landowner at Parkwood permitting Parking & Property Management Ltd to issue charges and bring legal action.
•A full, transparent breakdown of the sum claimed, as arbitrary "debt collection/solicitor fees" represent unlawful double recovery under consumer protection laws.
If you proceed to issue county court proceedings without providing proof of actual parking, I will robustly defend the claim and bring this letter to the court's attention regarding your unreasonable conduct.
Yours faithfully,
-
Ive actually tested 2(e)(ii) and won in court on that point alone against PCM
-
The Letter of Claim is not from a debt collector, it will be from a solicitor. You respond simply to add to the paper trail so that in the unlikely event this ever comes to court you can show you have followed the protocols and tried to avoid this getting to court.
Don’t go overboard with your response, see https://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/procedure-rules/civil/rules/pd_pre-action_conduct#6.1
the defendant responding within a reasonable time – 14 days in a straight forward case and no more than 3 months in a very complex one. The reply should include confirmation as to whether the claim is accepted and, if it is not accepted, the reasons why, together with an explanation as to which facts and parts of the claim are disputed
The defence needs to address the Particulars of Claim on the N1SDT claim form you will receive and can point out how pathetic they are if true, and should also address any other material matters claimed on the Notice to Keeper. The defence need not refer to the Letter of Claim unless it makes a point with which you disagree which is different from the PoC and the NtK.
Do not look for a boilerplate/template defence, because the courts are increasingly striking these out. It needs to be your defence appropriate to your circumstances.
-
Hi,
If they proceed to Court, should the Defense be based on the response to the LOC or these two are separate? What’s the point of responding to the LOC as these debt collector don't care? Thanks
-
The act is very specific in saying that the NTK must state the words - not imply or otherwise.
However, not sure this has actually been tested at the court - when challenged the Parking Cos normally discontinue - there is always a first time of course. At this stage you have nothing to lose - there is no other route of appeal where you are now, so you might as well throw everything at it to show you are not going to be a push over.
-
I can see in the original PCN those matters have been mentioned and asked me to tell them the name and address of the driver and the PCN says this has been sent to me under the paragraph 9-2-f of POFA.
Can I still say they cannot transfer the liability to keeper?
-
Here are the requirements:
9(1)A notice which is to be relied on as a notice to keeper for the purposes of paragraph 6(1)(b) is given in accordance with this paragraph if the following requirements are met.
(2)The notice must—
(a)specify the vehicle, the relevant land on which it was parked and the period of parking to which the notice relates;
(b)inform the keeper that the driver is required to pay parking charges in respect of the specified period of parking and that the parking charges have not been paid in full;
(c)describe the parking charges due from the driver as at the end of that period, the circumstances in which the requirement to pay them arose (including the means by which the requirement was brought to the attention of drivers) and the other facts that made them payable;
(d)specify the total amount of those parking charges that are unpaid, as at a time which is—
(i)specified in the notice; and
(ii)no later than the end of the day before the day on which the notice is either sent by post or, as the case may be, handed to or left at a current address for service for the keeper (see sub-paragraph (4));
(e)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;
(f)warn the keeper that if, after the period of 28 days beginning with the day after that on which the notice is given—
(i)the amount of the unpaid parking charges specified under paragraph (d) has not been paid in full, and
(ii)the creditor does not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver,
the creditor will (if all the applicable conditions under this Schedule are met) have the right to recover from the keeper so much of that amount as remains unpaid;
(g)inform the keeper of any discount offered for prompt payment and the arrangements for the resolution of disputes or complaints that are available;
(h)identify the creditor and specify how and to whom payment or notification to the creditor may be made;
(i)specify the date on which the notice is sent (where it is sent by post) or given (in any other case).
(3)The notice must relate only to a single period of parking specified under sub-paragraph (2)(a) (but this does not prevent the giving of separate notices which each specify different parts of a single period of parking).
(4)The notice must be given by—
(a)handing it to the keeper, or leaving it at a current address for service for the keeper, within the relevant period; or
(b)sending it by post to a current address for service for the keeper so that it is delivered to that address within the relevant period.
(5)The relevant period for the purposes of sub-paragraph (4) is the period of 14 days beginning with the day after that on which the specified period of parking ended.
At least 2 (e) and (f) is missing.
-
At what ground shall I say that they failed the NTK to comply with Protection of Freedoms Act? How did they fail it? As I understood if they meet the condition they can do it.
Thanks
-
You can't take any action - only wait for a court claim, and this will form part of the defence.
Reply to the LOC should be along the lines of denying liability as keeper, there being no ability to transfer liability due to failings in the NTK to comply with Protection of Freedoms Act. It looks to me like the not parked line is also relevant as the sign says Terms and lists effectively 3, one of which is parking without permit, then it says charge payable if you break terms. I.e. no charge if not parked. Draft something up, and post it for comments.
-
When you say "The NTK is not compliant with POFA to transfer liability to the keeper" what action can I take against them?
Is there any template here to respond to LoC?
Thanks
-
Hi,
Here is the LoC https://ibb.co/99XKjC2D
and the sign https://ibb.co/4wByLnBL
The LoC is like 10 pages plus a 3-page response form.
I have asked from the parking company for proof of my car parked there which they did not. There were 2 people in car who would testify the car was in the move all the time.
I have not given the drivers ID.
The sign says to park you need permit but that car never has been parked there and they are just referring to the ANPR pictures.
Could you please guide me how to respond to the LoC please?
Thanks
-
Please also post the Letter of Claim.
The NTK is not compliant with POFA to transfer liability to the keeper; hopefully you haven't given the driver's ID away in the appeals to date. It also refers repeatedly to 'parking' but as you say, no parking took place. Any chance you get pics of the signs at the location? Not on street view, and a rubbish lorry is blocking the entrance - but the signs do appear to say Residents Only.
Not much you can do just now if you intend to dispute at court but you should reply to the LOC setting out your position.
-
Hi,
Thank you for the reply.
Here is the original PCN. https://ibb.co/kVqz96sf
Looking forward hearing from you
-
Can we please see the original PCN? Redact only personal info. Leave dates and location visible.
-
Hi.
My car was used to train someone in a residential area in London with parking controlled area.
I have received PCN as NTK. The Parking & Property management Ltd said car was there for 17 minutes although I think it was much less than that. They 15 minutes would have been OK but that 2 minutes made the PCN.
I have asked the proof of parked car which they didn't provided as the car has never parked there. Just provided entry and exist of the car.
They have rejected my appeal and asked for £100.
Then BW-Legal came into picture asking £170 which I ignored till now that they have send "letter of claim".
May I get some advice please as how to proceed?
Many thanks