Having received your own N180 (make sure it is not simply a copy of the claimants N180), do not use the paper form. Ignore all the other forms that came with it. you can discard those. Download your own here and fill it in on your computer. You sign it by simply typing your full name in the signature box.
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/673341e779e9143625613543/N180_1124.pdf
Here are the answers to some of the less obvious questions:
• The name of the court is "Civil National Business Centre".
• To be completed by "Your full name" and you are the "Defendant".
• C1: "YES"
• D1: "NO". Reason: "I wish to question the Claimant about their evidence at a hearing in person and to expose omissions and any misleading or incorrect evidence or assertions.
Given the Claimant is a firm who complete cut & paste parking case paperwork for a living, having this case heard solely on papers would appear to put the Claimant at an unfair advantage, especially as they would no doubt prefer the Defendant not to have the opportunity to expose the issues in the Claimants template submissions or speak as the only true witness to events in question.."
• F1: Whichever is your nearest county court. Use this to find it: https://www.find-court-tribunal.service.gov.uk/search-option
• F3: "1".
• Sign the form by simply typing your full name for the signature.
When you have completed the form, attach it to a single email addressed to both dq.cnbc@justice.gov.uk and info@dcblegal.co.uk and CC in yourself. Make sure that the claim number is in the subject field of the email.
With an issue date of 23rd October, you have until 4pm on Tuesday 18th November to submit your defence. If you submit an Acknowledgement of Service (AoS) before then, you would then have until 4pm on Tuesday 2nd December to submit your defence.
You only need to submit an AoS if you need extra time to prepare your defence. If you want to submit an AoS then follow the instructions in this linked PDF:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/xvqu3bask5m0zir/money-claim-online-How-to-Acknowledge.pdf?dl=0
MCOL CPR16.4 only defence
Until very recently, we never advised using the MCOL to submit a defence. However, due to recent systemic failures within the CNBC, we feel that it is safer to now submit a short defence using MCOL as it is instantly submitted and entered into the "system". Whilst it will deny the use of some formatting or inclusion of transcripts etc. these can always be included with the Witness Statement (WS) later, if it ever progresses that far.
You will need to copy and paste it into the defence text box on MCOL. It has been checked to make sure that it will fit into the 122 lines limit.Quote1. The Defendant denies the claim in its entirety. The Defendant asserts that there is no liability to the Claimant and that no debt is owed. The claim is without merit and does not adequately disclose any comprehensible cause of action.
2. There is a lack of precise detail in the Particulars of Claim (PoC) in respect of the factual and legal allegations made against the Defendant such that the PoC do not adequately comply with CPR 16.4.
3. The Defendant is unable to plead properly to the PoC because:
(a) The contract referred to is not detailed or attached to the PoC in accordance with PD 16, para 7.3(1);
(b) The PoC do not state the exact wording of the clause (or clauses) of the terms and conditions of the contract (or contracts) which is/are relied on;
(c) The PoC do not adequately set out the reason (or reasons) why the claimant asserts the defendant has breached the contract (or contracts);
(d) The PoC do not state with sufficient particularity exactly where the breach occurred, the exact time when the breach occurred and how long it is alleged that the vehicle was parked before the parking charge was allegedly incurred;
(e) The PoC do not state precisely how the sum claimed is calculated, including the basis for any statutory interest, damages, or other charges;
(f) The PoC do not state what proportion of the claim is the parking charge and what proportion is damages;
(g) The PoC do not provide clarity on whether the Defendant is sued as the driver or the keeper of the vehicle, as the claimant cannot plead alternative causes of action without specificity.
4. The Defendant submits that courts have previously struck out materially similar claims of their own initiative for failure to adequately comply with CPR 16.4, particularly where the Particulars of Claim failed to specify the contractual terms relied upon or explain the alleged breach with sufficient clarity.
5. In comparable cases involving modest sums, judges have found that requiring further case management steps would be disproportionate and contrary to the overriding objective. Accordingly, strike-out was deemed appropriate. The Defendant submits that the same reasoning applies in this case and invites the court to adopt a similar approach by striking out the claim due to the Claimant’s failure to adequately comply with CPR 16.4, rather than permitting an amendment. The Defendant proposes that the following Order be made:
Draft Order:
Of the Court's own initiative and upon reading the particulars of claim and the defence.
AND the court being of the view that the particulars of claim do not adequately comply with CPR 16.4(1)(a) because: (a) they do not set out the exact wording of the clause (or clauses) of the terms and conditions of the contract which is (or are) relied on; and (b) they do not adequately set out the reason (or reasons) why the claimant asserts that the defendant was in breach of contract.
AND the claimant could have complied with CPR 16.4(1)(a) had it served separate detailed particulars of claim, as it could have done pursuant to PD 7C, para 5.2, but chose not to do so.
AND upon the Court determining, having regard to the overriding objective (CPR 1.1), that it would be disproportionate to direct further pleadings or to allot any further share of the Court’s resources to this claim (for example by ordering further particulars of claim and a further defence, with consequent case management).
ORDER:
1. The claim is struck out.
2. Permission to either party to apply to set aside, vary or stay this order by application on notice, which must be filed at this Court not more than 7 days after service of this order, failing which no such application may be made.
With an issue date of 23rd October, you have until 4pm on Tuesday 18th November to submit your defence. If you submit an Acknowledgement of Service (AoS) before then, you would then have until 4pm on Tuesday 2nd December to submit your defence.
You only need to submit an AoS if you need extra time to prepare your defence. If you want to submit an AoS then follow the instructions in this linked PDF:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/xvqu3bask5m0zir/money-claim-online-How-to-Acknowledge.pdf?dl=0
MCOL CPR16.4 only defence
Until very recently, we never advised using the MCOL to submit a defence. However, due to recent systemic failures within the CNBC, we feel that it is safer to now submit a short defence using MCOL as it is instantly submitted and entered into the "system". Whilst it will deny the use of some formatting or inclusion of transcripts etc. these can always be included with the Witness Statement (WS) later, if it ever progresses that far.
You will need to copy and paste it into the defence text box on MCOL. It has been checked to make sure that it will fit into the 122 lines limit.Quote1. The Defendant denies the claim in its entirety. The Defendant asserts that there is no liability to the Claimant and that no debt is owed. The claim is without merit and does not adequately disclose any comprehensible cause of action.
2. There is a lack of precise detail in the Particulars of Claim (PoC) in respect of the factual and legal allegations made against the Defendant such that the PoC do not adequately comply with CPR 16.4.
3. The Defendant is unable to plead properly to the PoC because:
(a) The contract referred to is not detailed or attached to the PoC in accordance with PD 16, para 7.3(1);
(b) The PoC do not state the exact wording of the clause (or clauses) of the terms and conditions of the contract (or contracts) which is/are relied on;
(c) The PoC do not adequately set out the reason (or reasons) why the claimant asserts the defendant has breached the contract (or contracts);
(d) The PoC do not state with sufficient particularity exactly where the breach occurred, the exact time when the breach occurred and how long it is alleged that the vehicle was parked before the parking charge was allegedly incurred;
(e) The PoC do not state precisely how the sum claimed is calculated, including the basis for any statutory interest, damages, or other charges;
(f) The PoC do not state what proportion of the claim is the parking charge and what proportion is damages;
(g) The PoC do not provide clarity on whether the Defendant is sued as the driver or the keeper of the vehicle, as the claimant cannot plead alternative causes of action without specificity.
4. The Defendant submits that courts have previously struck out materially similar claims of their own initiative for failure to adequately comply with CPR 16.4, particularly where the Particulars of Claim failed to specify the contractual terms relied upon or explain the alleged breach with sufficient clarity.
5. In comparable cases involving modest sums, judges have found that requiring further case management steps would be disproportionate and contrary to the overriding objective. Accordingly, strike-out was deemed appropriate. The Defendant submits that the same reasoning applies in this case and invites the court to adopt a similar approach by striking out the claim due to the Claimant’s failure to adequately comply with CPR 16.4, rather than permitting an amendment. The Defendant proposes that the following Order be made:
Draft Order:
Of the Court's own initiative and upon reading the particulars of claim and the defence.
AND the court being of the view that the particulars of claim do not adequately comply with CPR 16.4(1)(a) because: (a) they do not set out the exact wording of the clause (or clauses) of the terms and conditions of the contract which is (or are) relied on; and (b) they do not adequately set out the reason (or reasons) why the claimant asserts that the defendant was in breach of contract.
AND the claimant could have complied with CPR 16.4(1)(a) had it served separate detailed particulars of claim, as it could have done pursuant to PD 7C, para 5.2, but chose not to do so.
AND upon the Court determining, having regard to the overriding objective (CPR 1.1), that it would be disproportionate to direct further pleadings or to allot any further share of the Court’s resources to this claim (for example by ordering further particulars of claim and a further defence, with consequent case management).
ORDER:
1. The claim is struck out.
2. Permission to either party to apply to set aside, vary or stay this order by application on notice, which must be filed at this Court not more than 7 days after service of this order, failing which no such application may be made.
First, respond to the BPA fob-off with the following:QuoteSubject: Re: Euro Car Parks – Formal Complaint – PCN [insert reference]
FAO: AOS Investigations Team
Dear Sir/Madam,
Thank you for your response. I must respectfully point out serious flaws in your reasoning and conclusions.
This matter is now the subject of formal legal proceedings in the County Court. Nevertheless, your dismissal of the concerns raised reveals a fundamental misunderstanding of both the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA) and the Private Parking Single Code of Practice (Version 1.1, 17 February 2025) to which all BPA members are bound.
1. Your refusal to investigate fails to address the core complaint
You state that since I “have received a copy of the Notice to Hirer”, you will not investigate further. This fails to acknowledge the specific complaint:• that the original Notice to Hirer was never served, and that no appeal opportunity was offered.
The issue is not whether the document exists but whether it was lawfully served within the time and manner required by Schedule 4 Paragraph 14 of PoFA. The operator has produced no proof of service compliant with the Interpretation Act 1978, such as a certificate of posting or equivalent evidence.
2. You misrepresent the purpose of the Code
You assert that your remit excludes assessing whether the operator is “acting unlawfully”. That is not the complaint made. The complaint is that:• The operator pursued liability without properly serving a Notice to Hirer;
• The operator denied access to the appeals process;
• The operator escalated the charge to a debt collector without resolving a valid complaint.
These actions amount to direct breaches of the Private Parking Single Code of Practice v1.1, in particular:• Clause 8.4.1 (c) – requires operators to consider appeals received outside the normal 28-day period where exceptional circumstances exist (such as a missing NtH).
• Clause 8.4.9 – requires that when rejecting an appeal, the operator must give the option to appeal to the relevant Independent Appeals Service and must suspend enforcement or debt recovery until that appeal is determined.
• Clause 11.2 – requires any complaint that includes or may include an appeal to be treated as such until it is clear otherwise, and to be handled fairly and transparently.
The operator has disregarded all three of these mandatory requirements.
3. BPA’s failure to investigate supports abuse of process
Your refusal to investigate may now be relied upon by the Claimant as supposed evidence that the operator acted “reasonably” or “in accordance with the Code”, which is demonstrably false. This undermines the BPA’s stated role as an impartial regulatory body and facilitates misuse of DVLA keeper data contrary to the KADOE contract obligations referenced in Section 3 of the Code.
4. Next steps
I request that the BPA:1. Reconsider the complaint based on whether the Notice to Hirer was served, not merely issued;
2. Confirm whether Euro Car Parks was compliant with the Code when denying access to the independent appeals process; and
3. Provide a written position that can be disclosed to the court as part of my defence.
If you maintain your refusal to investigate, I will escalate this matter to both:• The DVLA’s Accredited Trade Association oversight function, and
• The Independent Complaints Assessor (ICA) for failure to discharge your investigatory obligations under the Code.
I look forward to your revised position.
Yours faithfully,
[Your Name]
[Your Address]
1. The Defendant denies the claim in its entirety. The Defendant asserts that there is no liability to the Claimant and that no debt is owed. The claim is without merit and does not adequately disclose any comprehensible cause of action.
2. There is a lack of precise detail in the Particulars of Claim (PoC) in respect of the factual and legal allegations made against the Defendant such that the PoC do not adequately comply with CPR 16.4.
3. The Defendant is unable to plead properly to the PoC because:
(a) The contract referred to is not detailed or attached to the PoC in accordance with PD 16, para 7.3(1);
(b) The PoC do not state the exact wording of the clause (or clauses) of the terms and conditions of the contract (or contracts) which is/are relied on;
(c) The PoC do not adequately set out the reason (or reasons) why the claimant asserts the defendant has breached the contract (or contracts);
(d) The PoC do not state with sufficient particularity exactly where the breach occurred, the exact time when the breach occurred and how long it is alleged that the vehicle was parked before the parking charge was allegedly incurred;
(e) The PoC do not state precisely how the sum claimed is calculated, including the basis for any statutory interest, damages, or other charges;
(f) The PoC do not state what proportion of the claim is the parking charge and what proportion is damages;
(g) The PoC do not provide clarity on whether the Defendant is sued as the driver or the keeper of the vehicle, as the claimant cannot plead alternative causes of action without specificity.
4. The Defendant submits that courts have previously struck out materially similar claims of their own initiative for failure to adequately comply with CPR 16.4, particularly where the Particulars of Claim failed to specify the contractual terms relied upon or explain the alleged breach with sufficient clarity.
5. In comparable cases involving modest sums, judges have found that requiring further case management steps would be disproportionate and contrary to the overriding objective. Accordingly, strike-out was deemed appropriate. The Defendant submits that the same reasoning applies in this case and invites the court to adopt a similar approach by striking out the claim due to the Claimant’s failure to adequately comply with CPR 16.4, rather than permitting an amendment. The Defendant proposes that the following Order be made:
Draft Order:
Of the Court's own initiative and upon reading the particulars of claim and the defence.
AND the court being of the view that the particulars of claim do not adequately comply with CPR 16.4(1)(a) because: (a) they do not set out the exact wording of the clause (or clauses) of the terms and conditions of the contract which is (or are) relied on; and (b) they do not adequately set out the reason (or reasons) why the claimant asserts that the defendant was in breach of contract.
AND the claimant could have complied with CPR 16.4(1)(a) had it served separate detailed particulars of claim, as it could have done pursuant to PD 7C, para 5.2, but chose not to do so.
AND upon the Court determining, having regard to the overriding objective (CPR 1.1), that it would be disproportionate to direct further pleadings or to allot any further share of the Court’s resources to this claim (for example by ordering further particulars of claim and a further defence, with consequent case management).
ORDER:
1. The claim is struck out.
2. Permission to either party to apply to set aside, vary or stay this order by application on notice, which must be filed at this Court not more than 7 days after service of this order, failing which no such application may be made.
Subject: Re: Euro Car Parks – Formal Complaint – PCN [insert reference]
FAO: AOS Investigations Team
Dear Sir/Madam,
Thank you for your response. I must respectfully point out serious flaws in your reasoning and conclusions.
This matter is now the subject of formal legal proceedings in the County Court. Nevertheless, your dismissal of the concerns raised reveals a fundamental misunderstanding of both the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA) and the Private Parking Single Code of Practice (Version 1.1, 17 February 2025) to which all BPA members are bound.
1. Your refusal to investigate fails to address the core complaint
You state that since I “have received a copy of the Notice to Hirer”, you will not investigate further. This fails to acknowledge the specific complaint:• that the original Notice to Hirer was never served, and that no appeal opportunity was offered.
The issue is not whether the document exists but whether it was lawfully served within the time and manner required by Schedule 4 Paragraph 14 of PoFA. The operator has produced no proof of service compliant with the Interpretation Act 1978, such as a certificate of posting or equivalent evidence.
2. You misrepresent the purpose of the Code
You assert that your remit excludes assessing whether the operator is “acting unlawfully”. That is not the complaint made. The complaint is that:• The operator pursued liability without properly serving a Notice to Hirer;
• The operator denied access to the appeals process;
• The operator escalated the charge to a debt collector without resolving a valid complaint.
These actions amount to direct breaches of the Private Parking Single Code of Practice v1.1, in particular:• Clause 8.4.1 (c) – requires operators to consider appeals received outside the normal 28-day period where exceptional circumstances exist (such as a missing NtH).
• Clause 8.4.9 – requires that when rejecting an appeal, the operator must give the option to appeal to the relevant Independent Appeals Service and must suspend enforcement or debt recovery until that appeal is determined.
• Clause 11.2 – requires any complaint that includes or may include an appeal to be treated as such until it is clear otherwise, and to be handled fairly and transparently.
The operator has disregarded all three of these mandatory requirements.
3. BPA’s failure to investigate supports abuse of process
Your refusal to investigate may now be relied upon by the Claimant as supposed evidence that the operator acted “reasonably” or “in accordance with the Code”, which is demonstrably false. This undermines the BPA’s stated role as an impartial regulatory body and facilitates misuse of DVLA keeper data contrary to the KADOE contract obligations referenced in Section 3 of the Code.
4. Next steps
I request that the BPA:1. Reconsider the complaint based on whether the Notice to Hirer was served, not merely issued;
2. Confirm whether Euro Car Parks was compliant with the Code when denying access to the independent appeals process; and
3. Provide a written position that can be disclosed to the court as part of my defence.
If you maintain your refusal to investigate, I will escalate this matter to both:• The DVLA’s Accredited Trade Association oversight function, and
• The Independent Complaints Assessor (ICA) for failure to discharge your investigatory obligations under the Code.
I look forward to your revised position.
Yours faithfully,
[Your Name]
[Your Address]
It looks like you’re in the usual process now.
Not being able to appeal isn’t huge because your appeal would have been rejected anyway. But you could still write to ECP for the record to state that you won’t be paying because, as hirer, their notice to hirer fails the requirements of PoFA 2012 to transfer liability from the driver to you.
Ignore DCBL/Debt Recovery Plus completely.
DCB Legal or someone may then issue a Letter of Claim, come back here when they do, but essentially you can reiterate that you’re not going to pay. You would win in court if it came to that. All their nonsense in the meantime is designed to make you give up or be frightened into paying.
ECP didn’t used to go to court anyway, so you may just have to put up with bluster until they give up.
Thank you for your advice!
Send the following formal complaint to the BPA:QuoteDear Sir/Madam,
I am writing to raise a formal complaint regarding Euro Car Parks Ltd (ECP) and their handling of a Parking Charge Notice issued against me as the Hirer of a vehicle. The PCN number is [insert number], and the date of the alleged contravention is 25/11/2024 at MFG Cricklewood.
ECP claims to have issued a Notice to Hirer (NtH) on 12/01/2025, but I never received this. The only correspondence I received was a Final Notification Letter dated 18/02/2025, by which time I had been denied the opportunity to appeal or escalate to POPLA.
I submitted a formal complaint directly to ECP on 21/03/2025, asking for proof of service in line with the Interpretation Act 1978. ECP has refused to assist further and instead directed me to a debt recovery agency. This is contrary to the requirements of the BPA Code of Practice, which obliges members to:• Provide a reasonable opportunity to appeal;
• Investigate and respond to complaints, even if the charge has been escalated;
• Ensure compliance with PoFA 2012, including service of a valid NtH within the required timescales.
I therefore request that the BPA investigate Euro Car Parks for:• Failing to serve the NtH in accordance with Schedule 4 of PoFA 2012;
• Denying me the right to appeal or escalate to POPLA;
• Attempting to enforce liability without establishing keeper/hirer responsibility;
• Refusing to handle a formal complaint.
I attach the correspondence for your review and request that you take appropriate enforcement action.
Yours faithfully,
[Your Full Name]
[Your Address]
It looks like you’re in the usual process now.
Not being able to appeal isn’t huge because your appeal would have been rejected anyway. But you could still write to ECP for the record to state that you won’t be paying because, as hirer, their notice to hirer fails the requirements of PoFA 2012 to transfer liability from the driver to you.
Ignore DCBL/Debt Recovery Plus completely.
DCB Legal or someone may then issue a Letter of Claim, come back here when they do, but essentially you can reiterate that you’re not going to pay. You would win in court if it came to that. All their nonsense in the meantime is designed to make you give up or be frightened into paying.
ECP didn’t used to go to court anyway, so you may just have to put up with bluster until they give up.
Dear Sir/Madam,
I am writing to raise a formal complaint regarding Euro Car Parks Ltd (ECP) and their handling of a Parking Charge Notice issued against me as the Hirer of a vehicle. The PCN number is [insert number], and the date of the alleged contravention is 25/11/2024 at MFG Cricklewood.
ECP claims to have issued a Notice to Hirer (NtH) on 12/01/2025, but I never received this. The only correspondence I received was a Final Notification Letter dated 18/02/2025, by which time I had been denied the opportunity to appeal or escalate to POPLA.
I submitted a formal complaint directly to ECP on 21/03/2025, asking for proof of service in line with the Interpretation Act 1978. ECP has refused to assist further and instead directed me to a debt recovery agency. This is contrary to the requirements of the BPA Code of Practice, which obliges members to:• Provide a reasonable opportunity to appeal;
• Investigate and respond to complaints, even if the charge has been escalated;
• Ensure compliance with PoFA 2012, including service of a valid NtH within the required timescales.
I therefore request that the BPA investigate Euro Car Parks for:• Failing to serve the NtH in accordance with Schedule 4 of PoFA 2012;
• Denying me the right to appeal or escalate to POPLA;
• Attempting to enforce liability without establishing keeper/hirer responsibility;
• Refusing to handle a formal complaint.
I attach the correspondence for your review and request that you take appropriate enforcement action.
Yours faithfully,
[Your Full Name]
[Your Address]
So, the rental company transferred liability from themselves to you, the Hirer. Once they have done that, they are no longer liable and are out of the picture.
However, ECP is then obliged to send you a Notice to Hirer (NtH). What you have show us is not an NtH but a reminder letter which does not conform to the requirements of PoFA.
I suggest you now send a formal complaint to ECP with the following:QuoteEuro Car Parks Limited
30 Dorset Square
London
NW1 6QJ
Sent as attachment to ECP contact webpage
Subject: Formal Complaint – No Notice to Hirer (NtH) Received
Dear Sir/Madam,
I am writing to formally complain (not appeal) about the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) referenced below, which I received as a Final Notification Letter dated 18/02/2025. This is the first correspondence I have received regarding this alleged contravention.
PCN Number: [Insert PCN Number]
Vehicle Registration: [Insert Registration]
Date of Alleged Contravention: 25/11/2024
Location: MFG - Cricklewood
Since this letter is addressed to me as the Hirer, the hire company must have transferred liability. However, under Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA), Euro Car Parks was required to issue me with a Notice to Hirer (NtH) within 21 days of receiving my details from the hire company.
To date, I have not received any such Notice to Hirer (NtH). Therefore, I require you to:1. Confirm whether a Notice to Hirer (NtH) was ever issued and, if so, provide a copy of it.
2. Provide proof of sending that complies with the Interpretation Act 1978, specifically evidence of proper service of the NtH.
3. Explain why I was not given an opportunity to appeal the PCN or provided with an opportunity to make a secondary appeal to POPLA.
If you cannot provide proof of sending a valid Notice to Hirer, then no liability has been established under PoFA, and I cannot be held responsible for this charge.
I expect a response within 14 days, failing which I will escalate this matter to the British Parking Association (BPA) and the DVLA for investigation and further action.
Yours faithfully,
[Hirer's Full Name]
[Hirer's Contact Information]
Use their contact page here: https://www.eurocarparks.com/enquiry/ where you can attach the letter as a PDF file and upload it.
Euro Car Parks Limited
30 Dorset Square
London
NW1 6QJ
Sent as attachment to ECP contact webpage
Subject: Formal Complaint – No Notice to Hirer (NtH) Received
Dear Sir/Madam,
I am writing to formally complain (not appeal) about the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) referenced below, which I received as a Final Notification Letter dated 18/02/2025. This is the first correspondence I have received regarding this alleged contravention.
PCN Number: [Insert PCN Number]
Vehicle Registration: [Insert Registration]
Date of Alleged Contravention: 25/11/2024
Location: MFG - Cricklewood
Since this letter is addressed to me as the Hirer, the hire company must have transferred liability. However, under Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA), Euro Car Parks was required to issue me with a Notice to Hirer (NtH) within 21 days of receiving my details from the hire company.
To date, I have not received any such Notice to Hirer (NtH). Therefore, I require you to:1. Confirm whether a Notice to Hirer (NtH) was ever issued and, if so, provide a copy of it.
2. Provide proof of sending that complies with the Interpretation Act 1978, specifically evidence of proper service of the NtH.
3. Explain why I was not given an opportunity to appeal the PCN or provided with an opportunity to make a secondary appeal to POPLA.
If you cannot provide proof of sending a valid Notice to Hirer, then no liability has been established under PoFA, and I cannot be held responsible for this charge.
I expect a response within 14 days, failing which I will escalate this matter to the British Parking Association (BPA) and the DVLA for investigation and further action.
Yours faithfully,
[Hirer's Full Name]
[Hirer's Contact Information]
Is the notice you receive addressed to you in your name or is it a copy of a reminder received by the Hire company? A reminder is useless to us for providing advice. We need to see the original Notice to Keeper (NtK) or the subsequent Notice to Hirer (NtH) if the Hire company have correctly transferred liability to you as the Hirer.
Normally, a Parking Charge Notice (PCN) issued to a leased/hired vehicle is a "Golden Ticket" because, as long as the drivers identity is not revealed, they cannot hold the Hirer liable as in 99.999% of cases involving hired/leased vehicles, the parking operator will not fully comply with all the requirements of PoFA to enable them to hold the Hirer liable.
So, before we continue, in whose name is that reminder notice? Did you receive anything at all before that notice? If so, show us but redact any persona details and the PCN number. Leave all dates and times visible.
No one who is here receiving advice and following it pays a penny to ECP.