The fleet and line managers are incompetent feckwits! Here is the situation before we even consider the fact that this is a council vehicle and you were on a job at the time.
There are several significant legal and procedural issues. Here are the key points regarding the lawfulness and enforceability of the "parking charge" issued by Thorpe & Co Solicitors:
1. No Accredited Trade Association (ATA) Membership
• Thorpe & Co is not a member of any Approved Operator Scheme (AOS) under the British Parking Association (BPA) or International Parking Community (IPC).
• This means they cannot obtain keeper details from the DVLA for parking enforcement purposes. If they did obtain data from the DVLA for this purpose, they likely misrepresented the reason for their request, which could amount to a Data Protection Act 2018 (DPA) and UK GDPR breach.
• As a solicitor's firm, they might have obtained DVLA data through an alternative means (e.g., a legitimate legal enquiry or other indirect source), but this does not authorise them to pursue a parking charge in the same way as an ATA-approved private parking operator.
2. Unlawful Threats of Legal Costs
• The letter states: "if proceedings are issued, we will be looking to you for the Court fees and our legal costs."
• This is misleading. In the Small Claims Track (under CPR 27.14), legal costs are not normally recoverable except in exceptional circumstances (e.g., unreasonable behaviour). The threat of legal costs appears designed to intimidate rather than reflect actual litigation risks.
3. Questionable Contract Formation
• The sign at the location attempts to create a contractual agreement whereby a person who parks agrees to pay £200 per day or part thereof.
• However, for a contract to be enforceable:
• The terms must be clearly displayed and prominent at the time of parking.
• The £200 charge must be a genuine pre-estimate of loss or commercially justifiable. Given the Supreme Court decision in ParkingEye v Beavis [2015], a charge may be enforceable if it serves a legitimate interest and is not penal in nature.
• The language on the sign suggests trespass rather than a contractual agreement. If they are alleging trespass, only the landowner (or someone with proprietary interest) can sue for actual damages suffered. £200 per day appears arbitrary and punitive rather than a reasonable estimate of loss.
4. Trespass Claim Requires Loss
• If Thorpe & Co is arguing trespass rather than a contractual breach:
• A trespass claim must be pursued by the landowner, and damages must reflect actual loss suffered (which would typically be minimal unless there was genuine obstruction or disruption).
• Damages for trespass would likely be nominal (£1-£20), not a fixed penalty-style charge of £200 per day.
5. Misrepresentation and Breach of the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) Code of Conduct
• SRA Code of Conduct: As solicitors, they must not engage in misleading or abusive conduct in their communications. The language in their letter appears designed to intimidate rather than accurately reflect the law.
• Possible Misrepresentation of Authority: They suggest that they have the right to enforce a penalty-style charge, but private firms cannot issue fines or penalties, only enforceable contractual charges.
6. Possible Breach of the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 (CPUTR)
• The letter could constitute an unfair commercial practice by:
• Misleading the recipient about legal consequences.
• Failing to provide clear and honest information about their rights.
• Imposing a penalty rather than a genuine contractual charge.
7. £200 Charge Likely Unenforceable
• The amount does not align with other parking charges typically deemed enforceable in court (e.g., £50–£100 with a discount for early payment).
• In Beavis, the Supreme Court upheld an £85 charge, but only because it was part of a properly managed, ATA-approved, and clearly signposted scheme. Here, Thorpe & Co:
• Are not part of an ATA.
• Have no independent appeals process.
• Cannot rely on PoFA 2012 to hold the keeper liable.
8. Potential for Formal Complaints
• Complaint to the SRA: The firm could be reported for using their position as solicitors to make misleading legal threats.
• Complaint to the ICO: If they obtained keeper details from the DVLA without lawful reason, this may be a data protection breach.
• Complaint to Trading Standards: If the demand constitutes an unfair trading practice.
This charge is legally dubious on multiple fronts.
Now, let's consider that the vehicle is a council-owned fleet vehicle and that the PCN is addressed to the council as the registered keeper—the situation raises further serious legal and procedural concerns.
1. Wrongly Addressed "PCN" – Keeper Liability Cannot Apply
• The PCN was issued to the Council (fleet owner), not the driver.
• Thorpe & Co has no authority under PoFA 2012 to hold the keeper (Council) liable.
• The Council has no legal obligation to name the driver or pay the charge.
• Any claim must be against the actual driver, which they have no legal means of obtaining unless the Council voluntarily discloses it.
2. Late Issuance – Unreasonable Delay
• The alleged incident occurred in September 2024.
• The "PCN" was only received by the council's fleet manager on 30th January 2025 (over four months later).
• If this were a legitimate PCN under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA), it would be invalid due to excessive delay. Even in a contractual claim, such a long delay weakens their case as it could be considered an abuse of process.
3.No Contractual Agreement or Consent
• The driver states they did not see the sign.
• To form a contract, there must be clear and prominent signage, and the driver must have had an opportunity to accept or reject the terms.
• The fact that the driver was only there for 6 minutes further undermines the claim, as they may not have had sufficient time to locate and read any signage.
• The £200 charge appears penal and disproportionate for such a short stay.
4. Potentially Unlawful Access to DVLA Data
• Since Thorpe & Co is not a member of an ATA (e.g., BPA or IPC), they are not authorised to request keeper data from the DVLA for parking enforcement.
• If they obtained the council’s keeper details without lawful reason, this could amount to a breach of data protection laws (UK GDPR and the Data Protection Act 2018).
• The Council should formally challenge how Thorpe & Co obtained the registered keeper's details.
5. Council Vehicles on Official Business – Statutory Defence
• The vehicle was on official council business, dealing with an incident where no public parking was available.
• Public authorities have statutory rights to use the highway and access areas when performing essential duties.
• If the council has a parking exemption policy for its fleet vehicles, they may refuse to pay on this basis.
6. Trespass Argument Still Fails
• If Thorpe & Co is claiming trespass, they can only claim actual losses (which would be minimal).
• A £200 charge is punitive and would not hold up in court.
• Given the short duration (6 minutes) and the fact that the car park was not full, there is no measurable loss.
7. Misrepresentation and Potential Professional Misconduct
• As solicitors, Thorpe & Co are held to strict ethical standards under the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) Code of Conduct.
• The threats of legal costs in Small Claims Court are misleading, which could be reported to the SRA.
This what should have happened if you weren't managed by feckwits:
1. The Council’s Response to Thorpe & Co
The Council (as the keeper) should respond, not the driver. The response should:
•Refuse to name the driver, as there is no legal obligation to do so.
•Challenge how Thorpe & Co obtained the keeper's details and demand proof that they accessed DVLA records lawfully.
•Reject any liability, stating:
• The "PCN" is a non-compliant and unenforceable private demand.
• The charge is punitive and disproportionate.
• The vehicle was on official council business dealing with an incident.
• The driver was only present for 6 minutes, meaning there was no opportunity to read and accept any contract.
• No actual loss was suffered by Thorpe & Co.
• Warn them that a complaint will be made to the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) if they continue with misleading demands.
2. Council Complaint to the DVLA
• The Council should formally complain to the DVLA that Thorpe & Co may have unlawfully obtained their data for parking enforcement purposes without being an ATA member.
• If Thorpe & Co misrepresented their request to the DVLA, this could be a serious data protection breach.
3. Complaint to the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA)
• The SRA regulates solicitors and has strict rules about misleading or unethical behaviour.
• The threats of legal costs, the misleading use of trespass claims, and the questionable data access should be reported.
• If the SRA investigates and finds wrongdoing, Thorpe & Co could face disciplinary action.
4. Complaint to the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO)
• If the DVLA confirms that Thorpe & Co obtained the keeper’s details without proper authority, the Council should report a data protection breach to the ICO.
5. If Threatened with Court Action
• If Thorpe & Co persists in demanding payment, the Council should formally deny any debt and refuse to engage further.
• If court action is threatened, the Council should demand that Thorpe & Co provides strict proof of how a contract was formed.
• Given the short duration of parking, unclear signage, and lack of contract formation, a court would likely dismiss the claim.
The PCN is unenforceable. Thorpe & Co cannot hold the keeper liable, and their claim of a £200 charge for 6 minutes is excessive and punitive. The Council should reject the charge outright and demand proof of how their data was obtained. Thorpe & Co's conduct raises serious concerns about data protection, misleading legal threats, and professional misconduct, which should be escalated to the SRA, DVLA, and ICO.
However, given that you have now been left to deal with this, there are a few potential ways forward. Let’s break it down into what you can do now, how to push it back onto the council, and what to do if you must respond directly.
1. Try to Get the Council to Take Responsibility Again
a) Are you a Trade Union Member?
• If you are a member of a union (e.g., Unison, GMB, Unite), you should immediately contact your local rep and explain the situation.
• The union can argue that:
• This is a work-related matter and the driver should not personally be dealing with it.
• The council (as the vehicle keeper) received the notice and should handle it.
• The fleet manager is failing in their duty by offloading it onto an employee.
• Possible outcome: The union pressures the council to take back responsibility and handle the dispute on behalf of the driver.
b) If No Trade Union Membership
• You can still formally write to the fleet manager and your own line manager (with HR copied in, if possible), stating:
• The PCN is addressed to the Council, not you personally.
• You are not the vehicle owner, and council policy should determine how to handle fleet vehicle disputes.
• It is not your responsibility to deal with legal matters involving a council-owned vehicle.
• If the council wants to name you as the driver, they must do so formally and in writing.
• This creates a paper trail showing that the fleet manager’s decision was unreasonable.
2. If You Have to Handle it Personally
If you are forced to deal with it, you should:
a) Ignore it Until You Are Personally Contacted• Right now, Thorpe & Co has only sent the notice to the council.
• Unless you personally receive a demand in your name, you have no legal obligation to respond.
b) Do Not Identify Yourself to Thorpe & Co• If you contact Thorpe & Co, you must not confirm you were driving.
• Thorpe & Co has no legal way to force you to confirm that you were the driver.
• If the council has already handed over your details, Thorpe & Co may write to you directly—but even then, you can still challenge it.
c) Challenge the Demand on Multiple GroundsIf you receive a direct demand, you can write back, rejecting liability on the following bases:
1. No Contract was Formed• The sign was small and not clearly visible.
• You were only there for 6 minutes, not enough time to read or accept any "contract".
• There was no opportunity to agree to any terms before leaving.
2. Charge is Punitive and Disproportionate• A £200 charge for 6 minutes of parking is excessive and would likely be unenforceable in court.
• There is no evidence of any actual loss suffered by Thorpe & Co.
3. No Legal Authority to Issue PCNs• Thorpe & Co is not an ATA-approved parking operator.
• They cannot access DVLA data for parking enforcement purposes, which raises serious data protection concerns.
4. The Vehicle was on Official Business• The vehicle was a council fleet vehicle dealing with an incident.
• The driver parked legally to avoid obstructing a public road.
• If necessary, the driver can request a written statement from their manager confirming the reason for the stop.
3. What if Thorpe & Co Threatens Court Action?•If they issue empty legal threats, you should not be intimidated.
•If they actually file a claim, you can robustly defend it, arguing:
• No contract was formed.
• The charge is excessive and punitive.
• The vehicle was in use for council business.
• Thorpe & Co has no legal authority to issue PCNs.
• Given the weakness of their case, it's unlikely they would pursue a claim, but if they did, the driver has a strong defence.
If you are a Union Member1. Contact the union rep and push for the council to take back responsibility.
2. Escalate within the council if necessary.
If You Are Not in a Union1. Formally refuse responsibility in writing to the fleet manager.
2. Refuse to engage with Thorpe & Co unless directly contacted.
3. If contacted, reject liability using the arguments above.
Let me know what you intend to do and I can provide some help with advice and draft letters etc.