Free Traffic Legal Advice
Live cases legal advice => Private parking tickets => Topic started by: katmatt on April 22, 2025, 01:43:54 pm
-
The words "Date of issue" has an entirely subjective meaning - it could just mean the day that their printer spewed the document out - it could be the day that they generated the notice electronically on their computer using the data from DVLA plus photos etc.
Proof of posting is critical but even that doesn't prove the date it was served.
The NtK is massively non-POFA compliant anyway.
99% chance this never sees a court room so nothing to worry about.
-
Is it not down to them to prove?
They're responsible for for posting mail, not delivering it, so in answer to your question NO, it is not down to them to prove absolutely, the law presumes that the mail is delivered in the normal course of the post.
And as regards your 'proof',does this record the actual moment that the Royal Mail delivered to your address?
-
What does this mean?
9. Further, the Defendant did not receive the postal Notice to Keeper until 22 April 2025, and the Claimant is put to proof of the date on which the Notice was given for the purposes of Schedule 4.
IMO, without any evidence on your part the court would be more likely to accept their evidence i.e. a NTK with date of issue of Mon. 14th April than your mere assertion that it was not delivered until 22nd.
The NTK was delivered 22nd. All I have is a picture from that date which is when I received it. (and I guess this post on here but that seems unwise to share) How else would I prove it? Is it not down to them to prove?
-
What does this mean?
9. Further, the Defendant did not receive the postal Notice to Keeper until 22 April 2025, and the Claimant is put to proof of the date on which the Notice was given for the purposes of Schedule 4.
IMO, without any evidence on your part the court would be more likely to accept their evidence i.e. a NTK with date of issue of Mon. 14th April than your mere assertion that it was not delivered until 22nd.
-
All perfectly normal.
They are still hoping that you cave in and pay up.
Nothing to be worried about.
-
Looks like things are progressing as I received this email 2 days ago, getting a little nervous now
"Good Morning
Having reviewed the content of your defence, we write to inform you that our client intends to proceed with the claim.
In due course, the Court will direct both parties to each file a directions questionnaire. In preparation for that, please find attached a copy of the Claimant's, which we confirm has been filed with the Court.
Without Prejudice to the above, in order to assist the Court in achieving its overriding objective, our client may be prepared to settle this case - in the event you wish to discuss settlement, please call us on 0203 434 0433 within 7 days and make immediate reference to this correspondence.
If you have provided an email address within your Defence, we intend to use it for service of documents (usually in PDF format) hereon in pursuant to PD 6A (4.1)(2)(c). Please advise whether there are any limitations to this (for example, the format in which documents are to be sent and the maximum size of attachments that may be received). Unless you advise otherwise, we will assume not.
Kind Regards,
Litigation Support
DCB Legal Ltd"
-
Looks good.
-
Given we are not leaning on POFA. Is it even worth keeping the keeper liability section? Am I happy referring to the driver as unknown when I know full well who the driver was? It feels a bit weird doing this in a statement of truth. Additionally, the photo they have of the signage which suggests there way a payment machine available which the driver does not remember (hence moving the vehicle). So i'm going to remove app-only claim.
Fyi i have an extension via acknowledgement of service until 29/06/2026 so got a bit of time yet
Appreciate all the advice so far.
I've also refactored the defence so far - i know, it's still ai but it's hard not to lean on it when I'm out of my depth :( I've cleaned up the events as to be more towards the statement of truth, i was concerned they may have the driver briefly off site in surveillance which is why I added some detail here.
----
1. The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to the relief claimed, or to any relief. Save where expressly admitted, each allegation in the Particulars of Claim is denied.
2. It is admitted that the Defendant is the registered keeper of the vehicle registration mark [VRM] ("the Vehicle"). No admission is made as to the identity of the driver on 6 April 2025. The Defendant has never identified the driver to the Claimant or its agents, and the Claimant is put to strict proof of the driver's identity.
THE ALLEGED EVENT
3. The Claimant's own ANPR evidence records the Vehicle entering the site at Shoreditch High Street, London at 10:23:31 and leaving at 10:37:15 on 6 April 2025 a total time on site of under 14 minutes.
4. The Defendant's case as to the circumstances, without any admission as to who was driving, is as follows. The driver entered the site intending to park and pay. The bays were tight and time was spent maneuvering. On leaving the Vehicle, the driver sought to pay and attempted to use one of the mobile payment apps permitted by the Claimant's own signage, briefly walking a short distance from the Vehicle in the expectation of completing payment on the way to their destination. The app could not be made to work. Being unable to complete payment, the driver returned to the Vehicle within a minute or two and left the site promptly, parking elsewhere. The total time on site was under 14 minutes.
NO CONTRACT WAS FORMED
5. Any contract of the kind alleged would be formed by a driver accepting, by conduct, the terms offered on the Claimant's signage. The driver did not accept those terms. On the contrary, on discovering that the only payment method offered could not be used, the driver declined the terms and left. There was no acceptance and no consideration. No contract came into existence, and there is accordingly no charge capable of being recovered from any person.
6. The Claimant is, on its own notices, a member of the British Parking Association and bound by the applicable Code of Practice. The Code requires a consideration period during which a driver may enter, find a space, read the signage, decide whether to accept the terms, and if the driver does not accept them leave without becoming liable to a charge. That is precisely what the driver did. The entire period on site of under 14 minutes was occupied by manoeuvring, reading the terms, attempting and failing to pay, and leaving. The driver never remained beyond the consideration period and never entered into any period of parking under a contract.
LIABILITY AS DRIVER NOT ESTABLISHED
7. The Claim is brought primarily against the Defendant "as the driver". The Claimant is put to strict proof of the driver's identity, which it cannot provide: its ANPR images show only the Vehicle. A registered keeper may not be presumed or assumed to have been the driver. The Claimant's own first-stage appeal rejection confirms it does not know who the driver was.
POFA KEEPER LIABILITY (PLEADED IN THE ALTERNATIVE)
8. If, which is denied, a contract was formed with the driver, the Defendant as keeper still cannot be held liable unless the Claimant has strictly complied with all the conditions of Schedule 4 to the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. Partial or substantial compliance is insufficient. The Claimant is put to strict proof of full compliance with Schedule 4.
9. Further, the Defendant did not receive the postal Notice to Keeper until 22 April 2025, and the Claimant is put to proof of the date on which the Notice was given for the purposes of Schedule 4.
THE SUM CLAIMED
10. The sum of £170.00 is denied in any event. The parking charge was £100.00, as confirmed by the Claimant's own "Final Notification Letter" dated 1 July 2025, which states an outstanding balance of £100.00. The additional £70.00, described only as "damages" or "debt recovery costs", is an unparticularised mark-up that was never incurred.
11. In ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67 the Supreme Court held that the parking charge in that case was recoverable precisely because it already covered the operator's costs of running its operation, including recovery costs, and was not a separate loss. The added £70.00 is therefore double recovery and is not recoverable. It is also an unfair term under section 62 and Schedule 2 of the Consumer Rights Act 2015. The Court is invited to disallow it.
12. The claim for interest pursuant to section 69 of the County Courts Act 1984 is also denied. Interest under that section is discretionary and should be refused where the underlying claim is misconceived and the sum inflated.
PARTICULARS OF CLAIM
13. The Particulars of Claim are vague and fail to comply with CPR 16.4. They do not set out the signage terms relied upon, how or when any contract was formed, or any breakdown of the sum claimed. The Defendant reserves the right to amend this Defence on proper particularisation.
CONCLUSION
14. For the reasons above, no contract was formed and there is no sum due from the Defendant whether as driver or keeper. The Defendant invites the Court to dismiss the Claim and to award the Defendant the costs of defending it.
STATEMENT OF TRUTH
I believe that the facts stated in this Defence are true. I understand that proceedings for contempt of court may be brought against anyone who makes, or causes to be made, a false statement in a document verified by a statement of truth without an honest belief in its truth.
Signed: [NAME]
Defendant
Date: [DATE]
-
Fair comment.
My worry would be that the 'consideration period' is quite large.
But I take your point.
We both see different angles.
I doubt this will get to a hearing but it would be interesting if it did.
-
The original NtK is not PoFA compliant for several reasons - I would make that front and centre of the defence.
I would disagree.
The OP seems to have a meritorious defence on the basis that the driver parked, looked at the terms, was unable to accept them due to not being able to use the payment methods on offer, and promptly left.
This seems a much more straightforward argument than bringing the judge along on a technical argument about how the operator's notice does not contain the correct form of words for them to be able to recover unpaid charges from the keeper.
When one of your arguments is that no contract was formed in the first place, this means that there are no charges to recover in the first place, much less from the keeper! In this situation, leading with PoFA before leading with the circumstances of the alleged parking feels like putting the cart before the horse.
Start with why no contract was formed in the first place. Then move onto PoFA (if a contract was formed with the driver, which is denied, the defendant still cannot be liable as the keeper because...)
My view would be: don't pee the judge off leading with convoluted PoFA arguments when there's a straightforward defence based on the facts of the alleged event.
-
In my opinion, that defence is overly complex.
We can come up with something much more simple.
Don't pee the Judge off with subjective defence points generated by AI!
The original NtK is not PoFA compliant for several reasons - I would make that front and centre of the defence.
Give me 24 hours and I can come up with something.
-
From a very quick read:
It is trite law that a contract requires offer, acceptance and consideration; none of these elements is present.
None? Isn't your main argument that the driver rejected the offered contract upon discovering he did not have the means to pay, not that no contractual offer was made at all?
The Code requires operators to allow a driver a reasonable consideration period to find a space, read the signage and decide whether to accept the terms, and a further grace period in which to leave the site if the driver decides not to stay.
This misstates the code somewhat. A consideration period is the time allowed for a motorist to find a space, read the signage and decide whether to accept the terms, and leave if he does not accept them. A grace period only applies at the end of a permitted period of parking. You can't add them together to get 15 minutes of free parking. Here your argument would seem to be that the allowed consideration period was not, in the specific circumstances, sufficient.
8. The Claim is brought against the Defendant primarily "as the driver". That is denied
In #2, you say that "no admission is made as to the identity of the driver". Here, this wording suggests you deny being the driver. Remember that whatever you say in your defence must be true.
Any presumption of delivery in the ordinary course of post is rebuttable and is rebutted
Nothing preventing you stating this, but in the absence of evidence, then if it was sent 'in time', it's likely to be considered delivered on time on the balance of probabilities.
(b) The NTK fails to specify the "period of parking" as required by paragraph 9(2)(a) of Schedule 4, stating only ANPR camera entry and exit times, which (per paragraph 7 above and Jopson) are not the same thing.
Mentioning the inherent issue with ANPR in relation to the consideration period issue would seem relevant, but it feels like a stretch here. You seem to be trying to argue that ANPR entry and exit times are incapable of specifying a period of parking. I think you'd find few judges prepared to go along with that view, as it would potentially suggest that no operator that uses ANPR can comply with PoFA.
I'm also not sure that Jopson is a particularly relevant citation in regards to an argument about ANPR and PoFA, although it's a while since I've read it.
County Courts have repeatedly struck out or disallowed identical add-ons in claims issued by the Claimant's solicitors and others as an abuse of process (see e.g. Britannia Parking Group Ltd v Semark-Jullien [2020] and the line of authorities following it)
I'm not sure Britannia Parking Group Ltd v Semark-Jullien is a particularly good case to cite here, I'm fairly sure Britannia won that case on appeal...
INADEQUATE PARTICULARS OF CLAIM
They are quite vague, although given this is point #14 in your defence, a judge might take the view that you haven't been too disadvantaged by this, as you have managed to set out a fairly comprehensive defence, and appear to know most of the relevant facts.
As a final general point, the defence may be too long to fit onto the MCOL system.
-
I've received the court claim a week or so ago and given Claude Fable came out this week I thought I'd drop all in there to see what advice it could give.
Let me know if you have any specific feedback. I'll check through and see if there's any hallucinations or stuff that makes sense but it feels like a tight defense to me. But the wording of it all is very... solicitor-y (this is probably a good thing though?)
IN THE COUNTY COURT
CIVIL NATIONAL BUSINESS CENTRE
Claim No: NXXXXXXX
BETWEEN:
EURO CAR PARKS LIMITED (Claimant)
and
[DEFENDANT NAME] (Defendant)
_____________
DEFENCE
_____________
1. The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to relief in the sum claimed, or at all. Save where expressly admitted herein, each and every allegation in the Particulars of Claim is denied. The facts and matters set out below are within the Defendant's own knowledge except where otherwise indicated.
2. It is admitted that the Defendant is the registered keeper of the vehicle bearing registration mark [VRM] ("the Vehicle"). No admission is made as to the identity of the driver of the Vehicle on 6 April 2025, and the Defendant has at no time identified the driver to the Claimant or its agents. The Claimant is put to strict proof of the identity of the driver.
SUMMARY OF THE FACTS
3. The Claimant's own ANPR evidence, exhibited with its Notice to Keeper, records the Vehicle entering the site at Shoreditch High Street, London at 10:23:31 and leaving at 10:37:15 on 6 April 2025 a total period on site of under 14 minutes.
4. Without any admission as to the identity of the driver, the Defendant understands and avers the circumstances to be as follows: the driver entered the site intending to park and pay; the parking bays were tight and some minutes were spent manoeuvring into a space; upon alighting, the driver discovered that the site accepted only cashless/app payment; the driver attempted to use the payment app but it failed to load on their mobile telephone; being unable to pay, the driver returned to the Vehicle and promptly drove off the site, parking elsewhere. No period of parking under any purported contract ever commenced.
5. Accordingly, the driver never accepted any offer of parking terms alleged to have been made by signage. The driver did the precise opposite: on discovering that they could not comply with the terms, they declined them and left within minutes. It is trite law that a contract requires offer, acceptance and consideration; none of these elements is present. The Claimant is put to strict proof of the formation of any contract with the driver.
CONSIDERATION AND GRACE PERIODS
6. The Claimant is, as displayed on its own notices, a member of the British Parking Association ("BPA") Approved Operator Scheme and is bound by the BPA Code of Practice (and the applicable single Code of Practice for the private parking industry). The Code requires operators to allow a driver a reasonable consideration period to find a space, read the signage and decide whether to accept the terms, and a further grace period in which to leave the site if the driver decides not to stay. A total stay of under 14 minutes which on the facts comprised manoeuvring into a tight space, reading the terms, attempting and failing to make payment, and leaving falls within those periods. The charge was issued in breach of the Code of Practice, by which the Claimant's DVLA data access and operations are conditioned.
7. Further, ANPR entry and exit times do not record any "period of parking"; they record total time on site, including driving in, manoeuvring, attempting payment and queuing to exit. The Defendant relies on the persuasive appellate authority of Jopson v Homeguard Services Ltd (2016), in which it was held that a vehicle temporarily stopped is not "parked" for these purposes.
NO KEEPER LIABILITY UNDER THE PROTECTION OF FREEDOMS ACT 2012
8. The Claim is brought against the Defendant primarily "as the driver". That is denied and the Claimant is put to strict proof, which it cannot provide: its ANPR images depict only the Vehicle. A registered keeper cannot be presumed, inferred or assumed to have been the driver, and the Defendant relies on the Claimant's own first-stage appeal rejection correspondence, which confirms the Claimant does not know the driver's identity.
9. In the alternative, the Claimant pleads keeper liability pursuant to Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 ("POFA"). Keeper liability arises only where the operator has complied strictly with all conditions of Schedule 4; partial or substantial compliance is insufficient. The Claimant has not complied, in that:
(a) No notice to driver was given under paragraph 7 (no windscreen ticket was affixed); the Claimant relied solely on a postal Notice to Keeper ("NTK") dated 14 April 2025. By paragraphs 9(4)(b) and 9(5) of Schedule 4, such an NTK must be delivered to the keeper within the relevant period of 14 days beginning with the day after the alleged event that is, by 20 April 2025 at the latest. The NTK was not delivered to the Defendant until 22 April 2025, outside the relevant period. Any presumption of delivery in the ordinary course of post is rebuttable and is rebutted; and
(b) The NTK fails to specify the "period of parking" as required by paragraph 9(2)(a) of Schedule 4, stating only ANPR camera entry and exit times, which (per paragraph 7 above and Jopson) are not the same thing.
10. Accordingly the conditions of Schedule 4 are not met and the Defendant, as keeper, cannot be liable. The Claim discloses no cause of action against the Defendant in either capacity pleaded.
QUANTUM: ABUSE OF PROCESS AND DOUBLE RECOVERY
11. The sum claimed of £170.00 plus interest and costs is denied in any event. The parking charge alleged was £100.00, as confirmed by the Claimant's own "Final Notification Letter" dated 1 July 2025 stating an outstanding balance of £100.00. The additional £70.00, described only as "damages" and/or "debt recovery costs", is an unparticularised, unincurred and unrecoverable mark-up.
12. In ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67 the Supreme Court held that an £85 parking charge was enforceable only because it already covered the operator's costs of running its business, including recovery costs, and was not a recoverable loss. The further £70.00 therefore constitutes impermissible double recovery. County Courts have repeatedly struck out or disallowed identical add-ons in claims issued by the Claimant's solicitors and others as an abuse of process (see e.g. Britannia Parking Group Ltd v Semark-Jullien [2020] and the line of authorities following it), and such a charge is in any event an unfair term contrary to section 62 and Schedule 2 of the Consumer Rights Act 2015. The Defendant invites the Court to strike out or disallow this element of the Claim of its own motion.
13. The claim for interest is also defective: the Claimant's Letter of Claim demanded interest at "8% above base rate" purportedly pursuant to section 69 of the County Courts Act 1984, misstating the statutory provision. In any event, interest under section 69 is discretionary and ought to be refused where the underlying claim is misconceived and inflated.
INADEQUATE PARTICULARS OF CLAIM
14. The Particulars of Claim are vague, generic and fail to comply with CPR 16.4 and Practice Direction 16. They do not set out the wording of any signage terms relied upon, how and when any contract is said to have been formed or with whom, the "period of parking", any breakdown of the sum of £170.00, or the basis on which the Claimant (as opposed to the landowner) has standing to bring the Claim. The Defendant has been obliged to plead to a case that has not been properly set out, and reserves the right to amend this Defence upon proper particularisation.
STRICT PROOF REQUIRED
15. The Claimant is put to strict proof of: (i) its authority from the landowner to manage the land and to issue and litigate parking charges in its own name; (ii) the location, wording, size and legibility of the signage on 6 April 2025 and its compliance with the applicable Code of Practice; (iii) the formation of any contract with the driver; (iv) full compliance with Schedule 4 of POFA; and (v) each element of the sum claimed.
CONCLUSION
16. For the reasons set out above, the Claim is denied in its entirety and the Defendant invites the Court to dismiss the Claim, alternatively to strike it out as an abuse of process, and to award the Defendant his costs incurred in defending it.
STATEMENT OF TRUTH
I understand that proceedings for contempt of court may be brought against anyone who makes, or causes to be made, a false statement in a document verified by a statement of truth without an honest belief in its truth.
I believe that the facts stated in this Defence are true.
Signed: [NAME]
Defendant
Date: [DATE]
-
Well,
For the purpose of the Act; keeper means the person by whom the vehicle is kept at the time the vehicle was parked, which in the case of a registered vehicle is to be presumed, unless the contrary is proved, to be the registered keeper.
is completely untrue, for starters.
I would ignore, but work on your defence for the inevitable court claim, which DCB Legal will almost certainly discontinue eventually if defended.
In what way is the NtK not compliant with PoFA 2012? The statement has been made, but it will eventually be necessary to say why.
-
I did rebut it and was met with this email (copied from 2 posts ago)
"Dear ...,
We write in response to your correspondence received in our office.
We now respond to the same as follows.
Please find attached all relevant evidence we hold on the matter.
When parking on private land, the contractual terms of the site are set out on the signs. You are entering a contract, agreeing to the terms by parking, and staying on the site. Parking in breach of the terms as stipulated on the signage means that you are then breaking the terms of the contract.
The terms and conditions on the signs stated that parking was permitted for vehicles clearly displaying a valid permit/ticket, or otherwise a parking charge would be issued. The parking charge was issued correctly.
A Notice to Keeper was issued to you. A copy is attached. You were afforded the opportunity to; appeal the parking charge which you did however it did not yield the desired outcome. You were also afforded the opportunity to escalate the matter further.
A Reminder Notice was also issued to you. A copy is attached. This notice reiterated that payment was outstanding and confirmed that legal action may be taken, and additional costs incurred if the parking charge was not paid.
Schedule 4 (4)(1) of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (the Act) states The creditor has the right to recover any unpaid parking charges from the keeper of the vehicle. For the purpose of the Act; keeper means the person by whom the vehicle is kept at the time the vehicle was parked, which in the case of a registered vehicle is to be presumed, unless the contrary is proved, to be the registered keeper. The DVLA confirmed that you were the Registered Keeper at the time the parking charge was issued and as no transfer of liability has been received by our client, they have the right to recover the parking charge from you as the Keeper of the vehicle.
You now have 30 days from the date of this email to make payment of £170.00. Failure to make payment may result in a Claim being issued against you without any further reference.
Payment can be made via bank transfer to our designated client account:
Account Name: DCB Legal Ltd Client Account
Sort Code: 20-24-09
Account Number: 60964441
You must quote the correct case reference (...) when making payment. If you do not, we may be unable to correctly allocate the payment. If further action is taken by us as a result of an incorrect reference being quoted, you will be liable for any further fees or costs incurred.
Alternatively, you can contact DCB Legal Ltd on 0203 838 7038 to make payment over the telephone or online at"
-
Intercity125 gave you a response to send. You need to rebut the local.
-
Does there need to be any response to their last email (2 post ago) or should I just ignore until they "issue a claim against me"?
-
https://ibb.co/21MmXgc4
https://ibb.co/GQmXvBLm
-
Thanks for the copy! I didn't get round to re-uploading the original NTK so I use the above response which was met with this email
"Dear ...,
We write in response to your correspondence received in our office.
We now respond to the same as follows.
Please find attached all relevant evidence we hold on the matter.
When parking on private land, the contractual terms of the site are set out on the signs. You are entering a contract, agreeing to the terms by parking, and staying on the site. Parking in breach of the terms as stipulated on the signage means that you are then breaking the terms of the contract.
The terms and conditions on the signs stated that parking was permitted for vehicles clearly displaying a valid permit/ticket, or otherwise a parking charge would be issued. The parking charge was issued correctly.
A Notice to Keeper was issued to you. A copy is attached. You were afforded the opportunity to; appeal the parking charge which you did however it did not yield the desired outcome. You were also afforded the opportunity to escalate the matter further.
A Reminder Notice was also issued to you. A copy is attached. This notice reiterated that payment was outstanding and confirmed that legal action may be taken, and additional costs incurred if the parking charge was not paid.
Schedule 4 (4)(1) of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (the Act) states The creditor has the right to recover any unpaid parking charges from the keeper of the vehicle. For the purpose of the Act; keeper means the person by whom the vehicle is kept at the time the vehicle was parked, which in the case of a registered vehicle is to be presumed, unless the contrary is proved, to be the registered keeper. The DVLA confirmed that you were the Registered Keeper at the time the parking charge was issued and as no transfer of liability has been received by our client, they have the right to recover the parking charge from you as the Keeper of the vehicle.
You now have 30 days from the date of this email to make payment of £170.00. Failure to make payment may result in a Claim being issued against you without any further reference.
Payment can be made via bank transfer to our designated client account:
Account Name: DCB Legal Ltd Client Account
Sort Code: 20-24-09
Account Number: 60964441
You must quote the correct case reference (...) when making payment. If you do not, we may be unable to correctly allocate the payment. If further action is taken by us as a result of an incorrect reference being quoted, you will be liable for any further fees or costs incurred.
Alternatively, you can contact DCB Legal Ltd on 0203 838 7038 to make payment over the telephone or online at https://dcblegal.co.uk/response/pay-online/."
I'll reupload the NTK in a minute too
-
You could reply to the LBC with the following;
To whom it may concern,
Thank you for your Letter Before Claim which I recently received.
To be clear - the debt is denied in its entirety.
In this instance the driver is not known by your parking operator client and I am under absolutely no legal obligation to provide any driver details.
Furthermore, as your client's Notice to Keeper is not fully compliant with Protection of Freedoms Act (2012) there is no route available to keeper liability.
Liability is totally denied.
I am happy that this sets out my legal position.
I am sorry that I cannot help you further.
Best wishes,
xxxxxx xxxxxxxx
-
Could you repost the original NtK since the previous link as expired?
-
Took them nearly a year to get bored and send me a LoC, appreciate any feedback or response as to next steps here :)
https://ibb.co/0j7CgSJp
-
You've got the process the wrong way round. They send it to debt collectors first - if you don't pay up, the debt collectors eventually get bored and hand it back to Euro Car Parks, who then engage DCB Legal to kick off the legal process. It is at this point a LoC will arrive. Ignore the debt collectors.
-
I didn't receive a LoC instead they just sent it straight to debt collection it seems, unless i'm misunderstanding the letter.
https://imgur.com/a/TR7NLsZ
-
It's up to you whether you bother with a POPLA appeal. In this case, I wouldn't bother and justly the process drag on to the inevitable Letter of Claim (LoC), N1SDT Claim Form and, if you follow all the advice, an eventual strike out or discontinuation.
Come back when you receive an LoC from DCB Legal and we will advise on the response.
Others may suggest you try POPLA, for what it's worth. I'll leave it to them to provide advice and suggestions for that.
-
This slipped my mind and I've yet to submit an appeal, is there any advise based on their response?
-
Please start your own thread, mintnorio20, we cant cope with multiple cases on one thread. You will then get advice on the new thread.
-
Hey katmatt,
Any update on this? I've got the same PCN and wrote a similar response and they rejected my appeal too.
I'm not sure what to do next at this stage, either escalate to POPLA or just sit and wait?
-
There's been a response, it was rejected unsurprisingly
---
Date: 12/05/2025
Our Ref: XXXX
Unique POPLA Verification Code: XXXXX
Dear Mr XXXX,
Thank you for your letter of appeal. The details of the Parking Charge Notice are as follows:
Parking Charge Notice Number: XXXX
Date of Issue: 06/04/2025
Vehicle Registration Mark: XXXX
Time of Issue: 10:37:15
The Site: Shoreditch High Street - London
Breach of Terms and Conditions:
No valid pay and display/permit was purchased
Having carefully considered the supporting evidence provided by you, Euro Car Parks (ECP) have decided to reject your appeal for the following reasons:
The Site is operated by Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) system. ANPR cameras have captured an image of the vehicle registration mark LL13RNA entering and leaving The Site and calculated the duration of stay.
When purchasing a pay and display ticket or mobile payment session, payment is required for the full duration of your stay and for the full and correct vehicle registration mark. Signage at the site clearly details the terms and conditions that you must adhere to.
After checking the providers mobile payment and/or pay and display machine audit reports for your stay there are no transactions for the vehicle registration mark.
Euro Car Parks do not need to provide evidence of who was driving the vehicle, it is the registered keepers responsibility to inform of the full name and address within 28 days beginning with the day after the notice was given. If the full amount remains unpaid, under Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (the Act), Euro Car Parks have the right subject of the Act to recover from the keeper of the vehicle at the time it was parked so much of that amount which remains unpaid, therefore, the notice was issued correctly and remains payable.
if you were not the driveR, please provide a UK serviceable address with full name of the driver to col@eurocarparks.com , in order to process a change of liability on your behalf. If such information will not be provided, the notice will remain payable with you as Registered Keeper.
C1 MB
Any form of parking ticket or notice is issued under the law of trespass and Contract Law. A driver who is invited (or chooses) to park on private land and use the car parking facilities and pays a fee/s does so under a contract (signage) with the car park operator. The parking contract sets out the terms that apply to the parking service, including the price.
The contract (signage) clearly states the extra charges are that the driver will incur and have to pay if they decide to break the contract terms − for example, by parking longer than the time paid for or exceeding the maximum time limit applicable.
The parking charge notice has been issued correctly and remains payable.
Please use one of the following options below to make payment for the amount of £60.00: 1. Online: By visiting https://www.eurocarparks.com/pay-a-parking-charge/
1. Phone: Use the automated telephone service 0203 553 4559.
2. Post: Make your cheque payable to Euro Car Parks Limited (include a £2.50 handling charge for cheque processing) and post to Euro Car Parks Ltd, 30 Dorset Square, London, NW1 6QJ, quoting the PCN number on the reverse of the cheque.
The parking charge notice will be held for 14 days from the date of this letter to allow time to make payment.
You have now reached the end of our internal appeals procedure.
You can make an appeal to the Independent Appeals Service, POPLA (Parking on Private Land Appeals) using the unique POPLA Reference code provided above. Please note, should you decide to appeal to POPLA, or if you appeal to POPLA and your appeal is subsequently rejected, the option to pay the discounted amount will no longer be available and the Full Amount of the PCN will be due.
Please note - if the parking charge notice was issued in Scotland and or Northern Ireland, only The Driver can appeal to POPLA.
If you decide to appeal to POPLA, you will need to visit the website, www.popla.co.uk where further details of how to appeal (either online or by downloading the relevant forms) can be found. If the driver is unable to access the website, please use the contact us page at
https://www.popla.co.uk/contact. Please ensure that the POPLA Reference Number as noted above is quoted on all correspondence to POPLA. You have 28 days from the date of this letter to submit an appeal to POPLA. If you appeal to POPLA, the parking charge notice will be placed on hold.
Appeals may not be accepted if payment is made against the Parking Charge Notice, including any appeals logged via POPLA.
If you choose to ignore this letter, we will seek to recover the outstanding amount owed to us through the debt recovery process and procedure, this may lead to court action against you.
By law, we are also required to inform you that the Ombudsman Services (www.ombudsman services.org) provides an alternative dispute resolution service that would be able to assist with your appeal. Please note, we have not chosen to participate in their dispute resolution service and as such, should you wish to appeal then you must do so to POPLA, as detailed above.
Yours sincerely
PCN Coordinator
Parking Charge Notice Department
C1 MB
And attached was this image
https://imgur.com/a/oNrnJUs
-
Appreciate the quick response, I've appealed annoyingly their appeal website only allows for around ~100 words, so I had to attach a document with the full response and I just appealed with
"Please see attachment."
I'm sure they'll work it out! ;)
-
Easy one to deal with
as long as the unknown drivers identity is not revealed. There is no legal obligation on the known keeper (the recipient of the Notice to Keeper (NtK)) to reveal the identity of the unknown driver and no inference or assumptions can be made.
The NtK is not compliant with all the requirements of PoFA which means that if the unknown driver is not identified, they cannot transfer liability for the charge from the unknown driver to the known keeper.
Use the following as your appeal. No need to embellish or remove anything from it:
I am the keeper of the vehicle and I dispute your 'parking charge'. I deny any liability or contractual agreement and I will be making a complaint about your predatory conduct to your client landowner.
As your Notice to Keeper (NtK) does not fully comply with ALL the requirements of PoFA 2012, you are unable to hold the keeper of the vehicle liable for the charge. Partial or even substantial compliance is not sufficient. There will be no admission as to who was driving and no inference or assumptions can be drawn. ECP has relied on contract law allegations of breach against the driver only.
The registered keeper cannot be presumed or inferred to have been the driver, nor pursued under some twisted interpretation of the law of agency. Your NtK can only hold the driver liable. ECP have no hope at POPLA, so you are urged to save us both a complete waste of time and cancel the PCN.
When they reject the appeal, come back and we'll advise further.
-
Hi all,
I received a notice to keeper this morning as the driver of my vehicle briefly parked in a euro car park on Shoreditch High Street.
They said it took a bit of time to park as the spaces were quite tight and didn't realise until they got out that it was a cashless car park. The app was not loading on their phone so went decided to get back into the vehicle and leave to park elsewhere. According to Euro Car Parks this took 14 minutes from entry to exit.
Here are images of both sides of the PCN / NTK
https://imgur.com/a/qD7mgNn
and a link to the google street view of the car park unfortunately, we do not live in the area and cannot get any better photos.
https://www.google.com/maps/place/Shoreditch,+London/@51.5249874,-0.0774588,3a,89.8y,313.83h,70.32t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sBbvvGCdgaMhDdVH1Kqo3qw!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fcb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile%26w%3D900%26h%3D600%26pitch%3D19.683940941779184%26panoid%3DBbvvGCdgaMhDdVH1Kqo3qw%26yaw%3D313.8333731730183!7i16384!8i8192!4m6!3m5!1s0x48761ca4fbee1efd:0x799b6c9640d63bfd!8m2!3d51.5229106!4d-0.0777472!16zL20vMG5jM2g?entry=ttu&g_ep=EgoyMDI1MDQxNi4xIKXMDSoASAFQAw%3D%3D
I am yet to appeal or take any action so any guidance is appreciated.