Free Traffic Legal Advice

Live cases legal advice => Private parking tickets => Topic started by: gimpel on February 17, 2025, 01:05:55 pm

Title: Re: National Parking Contol ignores Transfer of liability up to court now
Post by: jfollows on June 20, 2025, 08:04:09 am
Good news, the dubious tactics we see all the time again - threaten court but discontinue or don’t pay the court fee.

They knew that a court would have thrown out their case, but their tactics are designed to frighten people into paying.
Title: Re: National Parking Contol ignores Transfer of liability up to court now
Post by: gimpel on June 19, 2025, 08:51:32 pm
Thanks all for your help I did manage to get through to them over the phone after trying multiple times and waiting ages

They have confirmed that they didn't pay and court is cancelled :D  :D  :D

He told me that they have written to me on the 16th and it will be sent to me by post when they send post next time

THANKS for you help
Title: Re: National Parking Contol ignores Transfer of liability up to court now
Post by: b789 on June 19, 2025, 05:36:29 pm
On what date did you receive the order? Do you still have the envelope it came in? Does it have a postmark or barcode on it?

This is an impossibly short notice. Even assuming the order was posted the same day it was made, Wednesday 4th June, it would be deemed served on Friday 6th June. That would give the parties no working days to prepare and submit their bundles.

In this case, I would hazard a bet that DCB Legal has already thrown in the towel and discontinued. When you check with the court, although I think you'll be redirected to the CNBC national customer support team, which will be about as useful as a poke in the arm with a sharp stick.

I advise you to email the following to enquiries.edmonton.countycourt@justice.gov.uk and CC in yourself. Use the following for the email subject field: Subject: URGENT – Request for Status Update on Claim [Claim Number] – Hearing 23 June

Quote
Dear Sir or Madam,

I am the defendant in the above claim, which has been listed for hearing on 23 June 2025 at Edmonton County Court.

I am writing to ask whether the claimant has paid the hearing fee by the due date of 13 June, and whether the claim is still proceeding. I have not received any Notice of Discontinuance or any hearing bundle from the claimant.

Could you please confirm:

• Has the claimant paid the hearing fee?
• Has the claim been discontinued or struck out?
• Is the hearing on 23 June still going ahead or has it been vacated?

Thank you for your assistance. I would be grateful for a prompt reply as the hearing date is fast approaching and the allocation order is dated 4th June which arrived after the bundles deadline of 9th June.

Yours faithfully,

[Your full name]
[Your address]
[Your contact email and phone number]
[Claim Number]
Title: Re: National Parking Contol ignores Transfer of liability up to court now
Post by: gimpel on June 19, 2025, 01:27:36 pm
I received this letter less than 14 days before the court
Title: Re: National Parking Contol ignores Transfer of liability up to court now
Post by: DWMB2 on June 19, 2025, 01:26:39 pm
So - first things first, the order sets out that a hearing fee must be paid by the claimant by 13th June. That date has now passed - have you contacted the court to find out if the fee has been paid?

The order also sets out that anything you intend to rely on (witness statements etc.) must be sent to all parties 14 days before the hearing. Has this been done?

Title: Re: National Parking Contol ignores Transfer of liability up to court now
Post by: gimpel on June 19, 2025, 01:24:24 pm
Sorry for the double post earlier my browser was playing up
Title: Re: National Parking Contol ignores Transfer of liability up to court now
Post by: gimpel on June 19, 2025, 01:23:54 pm
Please see attached

[attachment deleted by admin]
Title: Re: National Parking Contol ignores Transfer of liability up to court now
Post by: gimpel on June 19, 2025, 01:23:33 pm
Please see attached

[attachment deleted by admin]
Title: Re: National Parking Contol ignores Transfer of liability up to court now
Post by: gimpel on June 19, 2025, 01:23:05 pm
Please see attached

[attachment deleted by admin]
Title: Re: National Parking Contol ignores Transfer of liability up to court now
Post by: gimpel on June 19, 2025, 01:22:38 pm
Please see attached

[attachment deleted by admin]
Title: Re: National Parking Contol ignores Transfer of liability up to court now
Post by: gimpel on June 19, 2025, 01:17:19 pm
Nothing really besides court papers
Such as?

Sorry, but you want help but you leave a huge 3 month gap here, the details of the “papers” might be important.

You say you want help by next Monday but you’re not forthcoming with any details.

Basically I had a mediation and didn't agree to pay nothing only thing that they added ad mediation that they tried to send the ticket to the USA address I have provided I have not received any letter besides to say that mediation was not successful and it will go to court and then I received a court date I will attach that in my next post

I have not received anything else that I remember (could be something was sent but I only receive 50% of my post)
Title: Re: National Parking Contol ignores Transfer of liability up to court now
Post by: gimpel on June 19, 2025, 01:10:11 pm
Nothing really besides court papers
Such as?

Sorry, but you want help but you leave a huge 3 month gap here, the details of the “papers” might be important.

You say you want help by next Monday but you’re not forthcoming with any details.

Basically I had a mediation and didn't agree to pay nothing only thing that they added ad mediation that they tried to send the ticket to the USA address I have provided I have not received any letter besides to say that mediation was not successful and it will go to court and then I received a court date I will attach that in my next post

I have not received anything else that I remember (could be something was sent but I only receive 50% of my post)
Title: Re: National Parking Contol ignores Transfer of liability up to court now
Post by: gimpel on June 19, 2025, 01:02:38 pm
questioner for court details regular stuff nothing special
sorry double sent
Title: Re: National Parking Contol ignores Transfer of liability up to court now
Post by: jfollows on June 19, 2025, 12:51:16 pm
Nothing really besides court papers
Such as?

Sorry, but you want help but you leave a huge 3 month gap here, the details of the “papers” might be important.

You say you want help by next Monday but you’re not forthcoming with any details.
Title: Re: National Parking Contol ignores Transfer of liability up to court now
Post by: gimpel on June 19, 2025, 12:35:31 pm
Nothing really besides court papers
Title: Re: National Parking Contol ignores Transfer of liability up to court now
Post by: jfollows on June 19, 2025, 06:30:55 am
What documents have you received since 23 March?
Title: Re: National Parking Contol ignores Transfer of liability up to court now
Post by: gimpel on June 19, 2025, 12:37:18 am
Hi

I received a court date for this which is on the 23/06/25 can you please help me what to say by the court

Thanks
Title: Re: National Parking Contol ignores Transfer of liability up to court now
Post by: gimpel on March 23, 2025, 07:05:32 pm
Sorry for not replying yet just didn't have the time to right a proper response
I'll get back to this late at night or tomorrow morning
Title: Re: National Parking Contol ignores Transfer of liability up to court now
Post by: mickR on March 23, 2025, 04:18:59 pm
you could reply using an alias like...
Ivor Eagle
Title: Re: National Parking Contol ignores Transfer of liability up to court now
Post by: b789 on March 23, 2025, 04:05:28 pm
It's possibly a bit early to have moved on much with this case. I suggest you either try and contact @gimpel by PM or, as I have done above, use their username preceded by an "@" symbol which should automatically notify them at the email address they registered with that someone has mentioned them in a post.

@David_1234, if you have a similar (or not) case, you should start your own thread so that you can receive specific advice tailored to your situation.

Cases that reach litigation can take well over a year to reach their conclusion.
Title: Re: National Parking Contol ignores Transfer of liability up to court now
Post by: David_1234 on March 23, 2025, 03:42:26 pm
Do you have an update on this?

I've encountered a similar issue and am wondering if it's worth fighting it.
Title: Re: National Parking Contol ignores Transfer of liability up to court now
Post by: b789 on February 20, 2025, 05:46:08 pm
Please note that we comply with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (POFA).

With the address you have provided, we cannot conveniently contact the driver as we only have power to enforce within the UK.

This means that we are unable to take steps to enforce against the driver. According to POFA, if we are unable to take steps to enforce against the driver of the vehicle, we have the right to recover any unpaid parking charges from the keeper of the vehicle (Schedule 4 Para 4(1)).

The dumb bint has referred to para 4(4)(1) of PoFA. There is no paragraph 4(4)(1). Paragraph 4(4) only relates to:

Quote
Right to claim unpaid parking charges from keeper of vehicle:

The right under this paragraph may only be exercised after the end of the period of 28 days beginning with the day on which the notice to keeper is given.

She has completely ignored paragraph 5(1)(a) and (b):

Quote
Conditions that must be met for purposes of paragraph 4:

5(1) The first condition is that the creditor—

(a)has the right to enforce against the driver of the vehicle the requirement to pay the unpaid parking charges; but

(b)is unable to take steps to enforce that requirement against the driver because the creditor does not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver.

She only reinforces the bleedin' obvious that these firms are staffed by intellectually malnourished incompetents.

Just to let you know, I just mentioned this one to a judge and he thought it was joke until I explained that they had already initiated a claim.

For fun, you should send the following in response ( assuming that that is even a real persons name:

Quote
Subject: Formal Complaint Regarding NPC’s Unlawful Processing of Keeper Data and Failure to Adhere to PoFA

Dear Ms Sparrowhawk (if that is indeed your real name),

I am writing in response to your wholly inadequate and legally illiterate reply to my formal complaint regarding National Parking Control’s (NPC) flagrant breach of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA) and its continued misuse of DVLA keeper data in direct violation of its KADOE contract.

Your response is riddled with inaccuracies, a fundamental misunderstanding of PoFA, and a disturbing disregard for basic legal principles. Given your role as “Head of Customer Services,” one would expect at least a rudimentary comprehension of the law underpinning your company’s operations. Instead, you have cited non-existent provisions, ignored statutory obligations, and doubled down on NPC’s unlawful behaviour.

Let us dissect your errors one by one.

1. Failure to Adhere to PoFA and Unlawful Resubmission of the Notice to Keeper

Your email asserts that because NPC is “unable to conveniently contact the driver,” liability reverts to the keeper. This is an entirely fictitious assertion, devoid of any basis in PoFA.

PoFA Schedule 4, Paragraph 5(1) explicitly states that a creditor may only hold the keeper liable if they do not know both the name and a current address for service for the driver. I provided you with both the name and a valid, serviceable U.S. address for the driver, thereby discharging my liability.

You are seemingly under the delusion that a serviceable address must be in the UK. Nowhere in PoFA does such a requirement exist. Your refusal to accept an international address is nothing more than a convenient excuse to continue your harassment of the wrong party.

Furthermore, PoFA does not permit the reissuing of a Notice to Keeper once liability has been transferred. NPC’s decision to disregard the lawful transfer of liability and proceed against me is a flagrant abuse of process and will not go unchallenged.

2. Legal Violations & Misuse of Keeper Data

Your actions constitute clear breaches of your KADOE contract with the DVLA. By continuing to process my personal data and pursuing me for a charge I am not liable for, NPC has engaged in unlawful data processing.

As per the KADOE contract, registered keeper data may only be accessed and processed for legitimate enforcement purposes where liability for the parking charge exists. Given that I am not liable under PoFA, NPC’s continued retention and use of my data is both unlawful and a clear breach of your contractual obligations.

I will be escalating this to the DVLA’s compliance team, as NPC’s actions warrant an urgent review of whether you should retain access to keeper data at all.

3. Complete Fabrication of PoFA Provisions

You reference “Schedule 4, Paragraph 4(1)” in an attempt to justify NPC’s misconduct. No such provision exists. If you are going to attempt to use PoFA to defend your unlawful conduct, you might at least make the effort to cite an actual section of the statute.

Paragraph 4(4), which I assume is what you meant to reference, merely states that a parking operator’s right to claim against the keeper arises after 28 days if liability has not been transferred. Given that liability was transferred in accordance with PoFA, NPC never had the right to pursue me in the first place.

Your misrepresentation of PoFA demonstrates a staggering level of incompetence and reinforces why NPC’s conduct needs to be scrutinised by regulatory bodies.

4. NPC’s Reliance on the IPC as a Shield from Accountability

You suggest I take my complaint to the IPC. The very notion is laughable. As you are well aware, the IPC is an utterly discredited entity that functions more as a rubber stamp for its members than as a genuine regulator.

The Private Parking Single Code of Practice (PPSCoP) is quite clear in stating that PoFA must be adhered to. NPC has failed to do so, meaning this matter is for the DVLA, the ICO, and potentially the courts, not the IPC.

5. Formal Demands & Next Steps

NPC is now on notice that I will escalate this matter further unless the following actions are taken immediately:

1. Cease all unlawful processing of my data. You are in clear breach of PoFA and have no legitimate grounds to retain or use my personal information.
2. Confirm that you have cancelled this charge in full. Given that liability was transferred, there is no legal basis for pursuing this claim.
3. Provide an explanation for your blatant misinterpretation of PoFA. Your inability to grasp the basic tenets of the very law you are attempting to rely on raises serious concerns about NPC’s competence and integrity.
4. Discipline Ms Sparrowhawk for her demonstrable failure to comprehend statutory law. Assuming that she exists, her complete lack of understanding of PoFA suggests she is wholly unqualified for her role. If she is a fabricated persona, NPC’s decision to respond to legal complaints under a false name further underscores the deceitful nature of your operations.
5. Confirm that a full investigation has been launched into NPC’s misuse of keeper data. The DVLA will be informed of your actions, and unless corrective measures are implemented, your access to keeper data should be revoked.

Failure to comply with the above will result in immediate escalation to the DVLA, the ICO, my MP, and further legal scrutiny. Given that this matter is already subject to litigation, NPC’s continued misconduct will only serve to strengthen my position in court and increase the likelihood of costs being awarded against you for unreasonable behaviour. Your flagrant disregard for the law will not go unnoticed or unchallenged.

I expect a full written response within 7 days. If NPC fails to act, I will have no hesitation in pursuing all available legal and regulatory avenues to hold you to account.

Final Warning

NPC’s continued pursuit of this charge in defiance of PoFA and the KADOE contract is nothing short of vexatious litigation. Given that this claim has already been issued and defended in the county court, your ongoing misconduct will only serve to reinforce my position in proceedings. While I do not seek an immediate strike-out, I fully expect your legal representatives to discontinue before they have to pay the hearing fee, as is your standard modus operandi. However, such a late discontinuation will not prevent me from applying for a costs order against NPC for unreasonable behaviour, including your refusal to acknowledge a legally valid transfer of liability.

Your ignorance of the law will not shield you from the consequences of your actions. Consider this your final opportunity to correct your misconduct before I escalate this further.

Yours sincerely,

[Your Name]
Title: Re: National Parking Contol ignores Transfer of liability up to court now
Post by: b789 on February 20, 2025, 03:43:18 pm
As above. It's not worth wasting time replying to their flawed arguments.

Their argument would never stand up in court but they will let one of the incompetent bulk litigators progress it all the way to a court claim anyway. As long as it is defended with our advice, which if followed, will end up being struck out or discontinued before it ever gets as far as a hearing.

However, I would suggest that you send. formal complaint to the DVLA because NPC have breached their KADOE contract with the DVLA because of why they have continued to pursue you after you have complied with the requirements of PoFA to transfer liability.

The more complaints the DVLA receive about the abuses of the various operators, the more likely they will have to take action against them.
Title: Re: National Parking Contol ignores Transfer of liability up to court now
Post by: jfollows on February 20, 2025, 02:17:41 pm
Don’t.
DCB Legal may initiate court proceedings, but you defend this with help from here and they will withdraw before paying the fee. Come back for advice when they do.
Title: Re: National Parking Contol ignores Transfer of liability up to court now
Post by: gimpel on February 20, 2025, 02:14:31 pm
So what should I reply
Title: Re: National Parking Contol ignores Transfer of liability up to court now
Post by: jfollows on February 20, 2025, 01:38:02 pm
I think that’s called a lie,
Quote
5(1)The first condition is that the creditor—

(a)has the right to enforce against the driver of the vehicle the requirement to pay the unpaid parking charges; but

(b)is unable to take steps to enforce that requirement against the driver because the creditor does not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver.
and it’s their problem if the address is abroad. They have both the name and a current address.

Quote
4(1)The creditor has the right to recover any unpaid parking charges from the keeper of the vehicle.

(2)The right under this paragraph applies only if—

(a)the conditions specified in paragraphs 5, 6, 11 and 12 (so far as applicable) are met; and

(b)the vehicle was not a stolen vehicle at the beginning of the period of parking to which the unpaid parking charges relate.

(3)For the purposes of the condition in sub-paragraph (2)(b), the vehicle is to be presumed not to be a stolen vehicle at the material time, unless the contrary is proved.

(4)The right under this paragraph may only be exercised after the end of the period of 28 days beginning with the day on which the notice to keeper is given.

(5)The maximum sum which may be recovered from the keeper by virtue of the right conferred by this paragraph is the amount specified in the notice to keeper under paragraph 8(2)(c) or (d) or, as the case may be, 9(2)(d) (less any payments towards the unpaid parking charges which are received after the time so specified).

(6)Nothing in this paragraph affects any other remedy the creditor may have against the keeper of the vehicle or any other person in respect of any unpaid parking charges (but this is not to be read as permitting double recovery).

(7)The right under this paragraph is subject to paragraph 13 (which provides for the right not to apply in certain circumstances in the case of a hire vehicle).
Title: Re: National Parking Contol ignores Transfer of liability up to court now
Post by: gimpel on February 20, 2025, 12:02:26 pm
NPC replied the following

Good morning, 

 

Thank you for your email.

 

Please note that we comply with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (POFA).

With the address you have provided, we cannot conveniently contact the driver as we only have power to enforce within the UK.

This means that we are unable to take steps to enforce against the driver. According to POFA, if we are unable to take steps to enforce against the driver of the vehicle, we have the right to recover any unpaid parking charges from the keeper of the vehicle (Schedule 4 Para 4(1)).

 

We resent you the Notice to Keeper, which you did not reply to. As no response was received to this letter, the charge was passed onto DCBL after 42 days, who then proceeded with their 4-stage letter cycle. However, it has now been passed to DCB Legal who have been instructed to start court proceedings and, unfortunately, the charges have been escalated too far, and we are no longer willing to cancel or reduce it.

 

If you are unhappy with the outcome of your complaint, please refer this to the IPC, our Accredited Trade Association.

 

Regards,

 




Title: Re: National Parking Contol ignores Transfer of liability up to court now
Post by: b789 on February 19, 2025, 01:51:27 pm
DVLA – Complaint regarding NPC’s breach of the KADOE contract by continuing to process keeper data despite a valid transfer of liability.

Email this complaint to dataprotection@dvla.gov.uk and CC in yourself:

Quote
Subject: Formal Complaint – Breach of KADOE Contract by National Parking Control (NPC)

Complaints Team
DVLA
Swansea
SA6 7JL

By email to: dataprotection@dvla.gov.uk

Date: [Insert Date]

Dear Sir/Madam,

I am making a formal complaint regarding National Parking Control’s (NPC) misuse of DVLA keeper data, in breach of the Keeper at Date of Event (KADOE) contract. NPC has continued to process my personal data unlawfully, despite my full compliance with the transfer of liability process as set out in Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA).

Background of the Complaint

1. I received a Notice to Keeper for an alleged parking contravention at Montefiore Court, London, N16 5TY, dated 18/04/2024 for my vehicle VRM [VRM of the vehicle].
2. I immediately complied with their stated process to transfer liability to the actual driver, my brother, who was visiting from the USA, providing a valid and serviceable address in the United States.
3. NPC acknowledged receipt of my transfer of liability request via email.
4. Despite this, NPC:

• Reissued the same PCN to me, continuing to pursue me as the keeper.
• Instructed debt collectors (DCB Legal) to pursue me, despite having no lawful grounds to do so.
• Issued a County Court claim against me, despite my lack of liability under PoFA Schedule 4.

Breach of the KADOE Contract

1. Misuse of Keeper Data in Breach of PoFA Schedule 4

NPC had no legal right to continue processing my personal data after I provided the driver's details.

PoFA Schedule 4, Paragraph 5(1)(b):

"The creditor has the right to recover any unpaid parking charge from the keeper of the vehicle, but only if the following conditions are met—"

(b) The creditor does not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver.

I provided both the name and a valid serviceable address for the driver, meaning NPC no longer had any lawful basis to continue processing my data. Their actions are therefore a clear misuse of DVLA keeper data under the KADOE contract.

2. PoFA and the BPA/IPC Private Parking Single Code of Practice (PPSCoP) Do Not Require a UK-Based Serviceable Address

Nowhere in PoFA Schedule 4 or the PPSCoP does it state that the serviceable address must be in the United Kingdom.

The only requirement is that the parking operator is provided with a "current address for service". There is no geographical restriction on what qualifies as a serviceable address, meaning my provision of a valid U.S. address fully discharged my liability as the keeper.

NPC’s refusal to accept a lawful transfer of liability simply because the address is outside the UK has no legal basis, and its continued enforcement against me constitutes an abuse of its access to DVLA data.

3. Failure to Comply with the KADOE Contract’s Data Protection Obligations

The KADOE contract only permits parking operators to obtain and process keeper data for legitimate enforcement purposes. Continuing to pursue the keeper when liability has been transferred to the driver is not a legitimate purpose under PoFA.

NPC’s failure to act in accordance with PoFA and its continued processing of my personal data has resulted in:

• Unlawful processing of my personal data beyond what PoFA Schedule 4 permits.
• Harassment by debt collectors, despite NPC having no right to enforce the charge against me.
• A court claim being issued unlawfully, further misusing my data.

NPC’s continued access to DVLA data while disregarding its obligations under the KADOE contract raises serious concerns about their fitness to retain access to registered keeper information.

Formal Complaint Resolution Demands

I request that the DVLA:

1. Conduct an investigation into NPC’s misuse of keeper data and its non-compliance with the KADOE contract.
2. Confirm what enforcement action will be taken if NPC is found to have breached its obligations.
3. Clarify whether NPC has faced previous complaints or sanction points for similar misconduct.
4. Confirm what measures will be put in place to ensure that NPC cannot misuse DVLA keeper data in this manner again.

I expect a full response within 10 working days, failing which I will escalate the matter to my MP and the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) for further action.

Yours sincerely,

[Your Name]
[Your Address]
[Your Email]
Title: Re: National Parking Contol ignores Transfer of liability up to court now
Post by: b789 on February 19, 2025, 01:16:07 pm
To start, the formal complaint to NPC is fully allowed despite the alleged debt being under litigation in court. NPC is still obliged to respond under the complaint handling requirements of the PPSCoP.

The PPSCoP requires parking operators to handle complaints separately from debt collection and legal action. PPSCoP section 11.2 states that operators must have a clear and accessible complaints procedure and must acknowledge complaints within 14 days and provide a full response within 28 days. There is no exemption from this requirement just because litigation is ongoing.

The litigation does not override the requirement to address complaints. The court claim concerns the alleged debt, while the formal complaint concerns procedural breaches under PoFA, misuse of DVLA keeper data (KADOE breach), and failure to follow the PPSCoP. These are separate regulatory and compliance issues that NPC must address.

The complaint also puts NPC on notice of a potential KADOE investigation. The DVLA takes KADOE breaches seriously. If NPC ignores or dismisses the complaint, the matter can be escalated to the DVLA, which could affect NPC’s ability to access registered keeper data in the future.

NPC must acknowledge the complaint within 14 days, provide a full response within 28 days, justify their continued pursuit of the keeper despite receiving a valid transfer of liability, and explain why they continued processing your data despite the requirements of PoFA Schedule 4.

If NPC fails to respond properly or at all, this strengthens the case for escalation to the DVLA for KADOE breaches, a formal GDPR complaint to the ICO, and an unreasonable behaviour costs claim under CPR 27.14(2)(g) if they later discontinue the claim.

The complaint is fully justified and enforceable under the PPSCoP, and NPC is obliged to respond, even though the court claim is ongoing.

Here is a formal complaint to NPC that they will be bound to respond to. Save it as a PDF document and attach it to an email addressed to DPO@nationalparkingcontrol.co.uk and CC it to info@dcblegal.co.uk and to yourself:

Quote
Subject: Formal Complaint – Breach of PoFA Schedule 4 & KADOE Contract Non-Compliance

National Parking Control
Complaints Department
The Pinnacle
Station Way
Crawley
RH101JH

Delivered by email: DPO@nationalparkingcontrol.co.uk

Date: [Insert Date]

Dear Sir/Madam,

Re: Parking Charge Notice (PCN) [Insert PCN Number] – Formal Complaint Regarding Procedural Breaches

I am making a formal complaint regarding National Parking Control’s (NPC) unlawful pursuit of keeper liability, despite my full compliance with the transfer of liability process, in direct breach of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA) Schedule 4. Furthermore, your conduct in this matter is a clear breach of the Keeper at Date of Event (KADOE) contract with the DVLA, and I will be requesting a full investigation into your continued access to DVLA data.

Breach of PoFA Schedule 4 – Keeper Liability Ceases Once Driver Details Are Provided

Paragraph 5(1)(b) – Keeper liability only applies if the driver's name and address are unknown. PoFA explicitly states that the creditor may only hold the keeper liable if the creditor does not know both the name and serviceable address of the driver.

PoFA Schedule 4, Paragraph 5(1)(b):

"The creditor has the right to recover any unpaid parking charge from the keeper of the vehicle, but only if the following conditions are met—"

(b) The creditor does not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver.

Since I provided both the name and a serviceable address for the driver, NPC no longer has any legal right to hold me liable.

PoFA does not require the serviceable address to be in the UK

PoFA does not impose a geographical restriction on what qualifies as a "serviceable address." The only requirement is that the parking operator is provided with a "current address for service." I provided a valid and serviceable address in the United States, meaning NPC had no lawful basis to continue pursuing me.

NPC’s continued pursuit of keeper liability is an abuse of process

By continuing to pursue me despite acknowledging the transfer of liability, NPC has:

• Breached PoFA Schedule 4 by wrongly pursuing the keeper when the driver’s details had already been provided.
• Misused my personal data by continuing to process it unlawfully when I was no longer the liable party.
• Engaged in unreasonable behaviour by referring the matter to debt collectors and ultimately issuing a county court claim against an individual who cannot be held liable.

Breach of the KADOE Contract – Request for Investigation by the DVLA

Your failure to comply with PoFA Schedule 4 and the BPA/IPC Private Parking Single Code of Practice (PPSCoP) means that you have also breached the KADOE contract, which governs your access to DVLA data.

By unlawfully continuing to process my personal data and issuing a claim against me despite my transfer of liability, you have misused personal data obtained from the DVLA. I will be submitting a formal complaint to the DVLA Data Protection Team requesting a full investigation into whether NPC is fit to retain access to the DVLA database. If the DVLA finds that you have repeatedly breached the terms of the KADOE contract, this could result in NPC losing its ability to access registered keeper data entirely.

Formal Complaint Resolution Demands

I require NPC to take the following actions immediately:

1. Discontinue the county court claim against me and confirm this in writing.
2. Provide a full explanation as to why NPC unlawfully pursued the keeper despite acknowledging the transfer of liability.
3. Cease all further unlawful processing of my data and confirm in writing that my details will only be retained for the duration of any ongoing legal proceedings.
4. Provide a data protection audit detailing why my data was processed in breach of PoFA and the KADOE contract.

Failure to respond within 14 days will result in immediate escalation to:

• The DVLA, requesting an investigation into NPC’s misuse of keeper data under the KADOE contract.
• The Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) for GDPR violations regarding unlawful data processing.
• The IPC, highlighting multiple breaches of the Code of Practice.

NPC is now on notice that if you continue to pursue this claim, you may also face further legal consequences for your data protection failings and potential unreasonable behaviour costs under CPR 27.14(2)(g).

Yours sincerely,

[Your Name]
[Your Address]
[Your Email]

Once you receive a complaint reference number, you can raise a complaint with the IPC too.
Title: Re: National Parking Contol ignores Transfer of liability up to court now
Post by: gimpel on February 18, 2025, 10:25:01 pm
Yes please help me with this
Title: Re: National Parking Contol ignores Transfer of liability up to court now
Post by: b789 on February 18, 2025, 05:13:39 pm
The mediation is not part of the judicial process. Your only requirement is to "attend" the call. Do not enter into any discussion about the merits of your case with the mediator. They are not legally trained. There is no judge or lawyers involved at this stage.

You simply say that you are prepared to offer Ł0 or... are prepared to accept, say... Ł150 from the claimant in lieu of an application for costs for Ł219 due to their unreasonable behaviour.

As for the formal complaints, there is no reason to delay any of those. Are you prepared to make those complaints? If so, I can assist by drafting them for you. Let me know.
Title: Re: National Parking Contol ignores Transfer of liability up to court now
Post by: gimpel on February 18, 2025, 04:55:21 pm
Thanks for your reply
Will I earn anything from doing this now or I should wait until after mediation?
Title: Re: National Parking Contol ignores Transfer of liability up to court now
Post by: b789 on February 18, 2025, 02:21:39 pm
One other point... If/when NPC (via DCB Legal) discontinues before the hearing, you can still request costs for their unreasonable behaviour under CPR 27.14(2)(g). However, costs are not automatic in the small claims track, so you need to take specific steps to request them.

If they file a Notice of Discontinuance (N279) before the hearing, the claim against you is dismissed immediately, and no further action is required from you. However, you can still apply for costs by arguing that their litigation conduct was unreasonable.

Since the small claims track generally does not award costs, you must show that NPC acted unreasonably. To do this, you need to submit a Formal Costs Application to the court.

Even though the case is in small claims track, you can request:

• Litigant in Person costs: Ł19 per hour (as per CPR 46.5(4)(b))
• Postage, printing, and administrative costs
• Travel costs (if any hearing preparation was done)

For example, here is a typical costs calculation:

• Researching defence & legal arguments (5 hours @ Ł19/hr) = Ł95
• Writing and submitting defence (3 hours @ Ł19/hr) = Ł57
• Responding to debt collectors and complaint handling (3 hours @ Ł19/hr) = Ł57
• Postage, printing, and admin costs = Ł10
• Total: Ł219

To succeed in a costs application, you must show NPC’s conduct was unreasonable. Here’s how NPC’s actions fit:

1 Continuing to pursue the Keeper after acknowledging Transfer of Liability

• You provided the driver’s details, which legally ends Keeper liability under PoFA 2012, Schedule 4, Paragraph 5(1)(b).
• NPC knew they had no legal claim against you but still pursued court action.

2. Issuing a duplicate NtK for the same PCN

• This suggests a deliberate attempt to mislead or confuse the Defendant.

3. Harassment via debt collectors despite no Keeper liability

• DCB Legal confirmed the Transfer of Liability was on record, yet they continued collection efforts.

4. Filing a claim with no reasonable prospects of success

• NPC had no legal grounds to hold the Keeper liable, meaning the claim was doomed to fail from the start.

5. Discontinuing to avoid a strike-out or costs order

• If NPC only discontinues after realising they will lose, this strengthens the argument that their litigation conduct was unreasonable.
Title: Re: National Parking Contol ignores Transfer of liability up to court now
Post by: b789 on February 18, 2025, 02:02:29 pm
This is the legal position:

The operator (NPC) cannot legally pursue you as the Keeper after you have complied with the transfer of liability process and provided a valid serviceable address for the driver. The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA) Schedule 4 explicitly states that once the parking operator is notified of the driver’s identity and address for service, they lose the right to hold the Keeper liable.

You named your brother as the driver and provided a valid address for service in the USA. Once the transfer of liability was confirmed, NPC had no further legal basis to pursue you as the Keeper.

Since they acknowledged the transfer of liability (via email confirmation), NPC cannot simply disregard it because the driver is outside the UK. PoFA does not state that a transfer of liability is invalid if the driver is overseas. It only requires that a serviceable address is provided.

The reissuing of a new NtK with the same reference number after the transfer of liability suggests improper conduct and an attempt to mislead the court. Continuing to demand payment from you despite acknowledging the transfer is unreasonable behaviour and forms grounds for a costs order under CPR 27.14(2)(g) for their unreasonable conduct.

Having already transferred liability and received confirmation, NPC should be estopped from bringing a claim against you. This means they cannot keep changing their position after confirming the liability transfer.

If NPC wanted to enforce the charge, they should have pursued the driver in the USA. Their failure to do so does not justify pursuing the Keeper when liability has already been transferred.

It's a pity that you didn't come here before submitting your defence. Your defence raises valid points, but it needed clarity, structure, and legal references to maximise its impact. The court will be looking for a well-reasoned response that directly addresses the Particulars of Claim (PoC) and demonstrates why the claim has no cause of action against you.

The Particulars of Claim have serious issues, besides not complying with CPR 16.4. The Claimant states you are pursued as the driver (paragraph 3 of PoC). However, you were not the driver, and you transferred liability correctly. The burden of proof is on the Claimant to prove you were driving.

The Claimant cannot pursue you under PoFA because you named the driver and provided a valid serviceable address. PoFA 2012, Schedule 4, Paragraph 5(1)(b) states that once the Keeper provides the driver’s details, keeper liability ceases.

The Claimant had the driver’s details and failed to pursue him. Their decision to ignore the transfer of liability and continue to chase you is unreasonable.

The Claimant reissued a second NtK for the same PCN, which is irregular and suggests an attempt to mislead. The claim for Ł170 includes an unlawful added sum (typically a false 'damages' or 'debt recovery fee'). This has been ruled abusive in multiple cases (Excel v Wilkinson [2022], Britannia v Semark-Jullien [2020]).

You could submit an amended defence. However, this would cost Ł303, although you could get those costs back if you are successful. The problem is that this is never likely to ever get to a hearing because DCB Legal with discontinue the claim before they have to pay the hearing fee. There is no doubt about that.

However, assuming you are the first person on the planet where DCB Legal don't discontinue a single PCN claim that is defended, no matter how feebly, these arguments can be included in your Witness Statement when the court orders one.

Even though the claim is now in litigation, you can still take actions to put pressure on CPM and DCB Legal, particularly by exposing their procedural failings and unreasonable behaviour. Consider these options:

1. Formal Complaint to NPC

Even though NPC is an IPC member and the IPC complaints process is worthless, a formal complaint to NPC is still strategically useful because:

• It forces NPC to respond (or fail to respond), proving they are non-compliant.
• It documents their breach of the Private Parking Single Code of Practice (PPSCoP).
• It provides evidence for the DVLA complaint, demonstrating that NPC ignored their obligations under the KADOE contract.
• If the case does ever go to a hearing, it shows you acted reasonably and in good faith, while CPM acted unreasonably.

2. DVLA complaint:

Parking firms obtain Keeper details from the DVLA’s KADOE system, which requires them to act in compliance with PoFA and PPSCoP rules. Your complaint should highlight:

• CPM’s misuse of DVLA data by continuing to pursue you after acknowledging the driver details.
• Their attempt to mislead the court by issuing a second NtK.
• Their use of a debt collector (DCBL) to harass you despite already transferring liability.

A DVLA complaint can be particularly damaging to CPM because if they are found to have breached BPA rules, they could lose access to the DVLA database.

3. Complaint to the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA)

DCB Legal is regulated by the SRA, and you can report them for:

• Knowingly pursuing an unmeritorious claim.
• Ignoring evidence of a valid liability transfer.
• Using litigation as a harassment tactic.

The SRA takes a dim view of law firms using the court system to harass people when they know their case is baseless. A well-worded complaint could cause internal reviews at DCB Legal, which might prompt them to discontinue the case faster.

4. Data Protection Complaint to CPM

You can send a Subject Access Request (SAR) under the UK GDPR, demanding:

• All data they hold on you, including internal notes/emails.
• All correspondence regarding the Transfer of Liability.
• Any communication between CPM and DCB Legal.

This forces them to expose any evidence that contradicts their claim and wastes their time responding. If they fail to comply, you can escalate to the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO).

5. Pre-Action Conduct Complaint to DCB Legal

Although the case is already in litigation, you can still send a formal complaint to DCB Legal, putting them on notice that their claim is abusive, vexatious, and unreasonable.

Demand an explanation as to why they are pursuing you despite a valid Transfer of Liability. Threaten a wasted costs order for unreasonable behaviour (CPR 27.14(2)(g)). Warn them that you will escalate complaints to the BPA, DVLA, and SRA.

Would you like assistance in drafting those complaints?
Title: Re: National Parking Contol ignores Transfer of liability up to court now
Post by: gimpel on February 18, 2025, 01:23:52 pm
I want to keep to my words that I made a transfer of liability and they never rejected it
Title: Re: National Parking Contol ignores Transfer of liability up to court now
Post by: gimpel on February 18, 2025, 01:23:00 pm
I answered this pre court case when I received first letter from court

Hi

I received this PCN and I made a Transfer of Liability
straight away as my brother was driving the car the company never
responded to the transfer of liability

I did receive a email confirming my transfer of liability request

And I can prove that my brother was on my insurance from that day

I used my other car which I had then

Instead of replying National Parking Control decided to send a
debt collector named DBCL (or similar)

When I received the debt collectors letter I called them up and
tod them that I made a transfer of liability request and received
n reply they checked and saw that I am right and told me they are
going to sort it and I can just ignore it

Therefor I do believe I don't owe anything

[attachment deleted by admin]
Title: Re: National Parking Contol ignores Transfer of liability up to court now
Post by: b789 on February 18, 2025, 01:15:38 pm
PLease show us the email confirming the transfer of liability.

Also, please show us EXACTLY what you put in as your defence.
Title: Re: National Parking Contol ignores Transfer of liability up to court now
Post by: gimpel on February 18, 2025, 11:59:27 am
Hi I've got a confirmation email saying they received my transfer of liability

[attachment deleted by admin]
Title: Re: National Parking Contol ignores Transfer of liability up to court now
Post by: b789 on February 17, 2025, 06:12:27 pm
READ THIS FIRST - Private Parking Charges Forum guide (https://www.ftla.uk/private-parking-tickets/read-this-first-private-parking-charges-forum-guide/)

Please show us the N1SDT Claim Form you received from the CNBC. Redact only your personal details, the claim number, the MCOL password and the VRM of the vehicle. Leave everything else visible, especially all dates and times.

The Particulars for Claim (PoC) are very important for us to review. Also, what EXACTLY did you submit as your defence?

Do you have this in writing?

Quote
"...they checked and said I am right they can see it on system and they are unsure why it wasn't dealt with i can ignore it and they will deal with it."

Is DCB Legal the claimants solicitor?

When you've answered the above questions, we can provide bespoke advice on how to proceed. Suffice it to say, that if your defence is half way decent and you follow our advice, you won't be paying a penny to NPC as they will discontinue before they have to pay the hearing fee, several months down the line.
Title: Re: National Parking Contol ignores Transfer of liability up to court now
Post by: gimpel on February 17, 2025, 04:54:32 pm
Yes
Thanks for correcting
Title: Re: National Parking Contol ignores Transfer of liability up to court now
Post by: Dave65 on February 17, 2025, 03:00:13 pm
Just to clarify, you refer to Mediation and yet you say you have received a CCJ.

Do you mean you have received a County Court claim?
Title: National Parking Contol ignores Transfer of liability up to court now
Post by: gimpel on February 17, 2025, 01:05:55 pm
Hi

I received a ticket whilst my brother of the USA drove my car
I made a transfer of liability to his address I received a email confirming
NPC never replied like two month later I received the same ticket as a new ticket with the same reference number I decided to ignore as I already made a transfer of liability

A few month later I received a DCBL letter I called them up and told them that I made a transfer of liability and never received a reply they checked and said I am right they can see it on system and they are unsure why it wasn't dealt with i can ignore it and they will deal with it

Afterwards I received multiple letters and calls from DCBL I told them what they have said but they answered that its not their business they have a collection to make

I received a CCJ which I replied now Mediation is planned for 27/02/25
anything I can do or know?