A County Court Judgment (CCJ) does not just happen—it follows a clear legal process. If someone gets a Parking Charge Notice (PCN) from a private parking company, here's what happens step by step:1. Parking Charge Notice (PCN) Issued• The parking company sends a letter (Notice to Keeper) demanding money.
• This is not a fine—it’s an invoice for an alleged breach of contract.
2. Opportunity to Appeal• The recipient can appeal to the parking company.
•If rejected, they may be able to appeal to POPLA (if BPA member) or IAS (if IPC member).
• If an appeal is lost or ignored, the parking company demands payment.
3. Debt Collection Letters• The parking company might send scary letters or pass the case to a debt collector.
• Debt collectors have no power—they just send letters and can be ignored.
• No CCJ happens at this stage.
4. Letter Before Claim (LBC)• If ignored for long enough, the parking company (or their solicitor) sends a Letter Before Claim (LBC).
• This is a warning that they may start a court case.
• The recipient has 30 days to reply before a claim is filed.
• No CCJ happens at this stage.
5. County Court Claim Issued• If ignored or unpaid, the parking company may file a claim with the County Court.
• The court sends a Claim Form with details of the claim and how to respond.
• The recipient has 14 days to respond (or 28 days if they acknowledge it).
• No CCJ happens at this stage.
6. Court Process• If the recipient defends the claim, a judge decides if they owe money.
• If the recipient ignores the claim, the parking company wins by default.
• No CCJ happens yet unless the recipient loses and ignores the court.
7. Judgment & Payment• If the court rules that money is owed, the recipient has 30 days to pay in full.
• If they pay within 30 days, no CCJ goes on their credit file.
• If they don’t pay within 30 days, the CCJ stays on their credit file for 6 years.
Conclusion
CCJs do not appear out of thin air. They only happen if:• A parking company takes the case to court.
• The person loses or ignores the case.
• The person fails to pay within 30 days.
If you engage with the process (appeal, defend, or pay on time), no CCJ happens.
I thought it might be helpful to provide some context regarding the Adjudicator's Decision, so I've attached a screenshot to this post. As expected, the appeal has been dismissed.Thoughts are that it’s a lot of twaddle and lies, dressed up as if it were the opposite, with the intention of frightening you into paying up because you’re frightened to take it to court.
I wanted to ask what I should expect next. I'm particularly concerned about the possibility of court involvement, as I've never been through any court procedure before. I'm also worried about the potential costs if the case is lost - I'm not even sure what to expect in that regard.
As mentioned earlier in Smart Parking reply to my appeal, "...PC will be passed to debt recovery" so I wonder what are the possibilities of this case landing in court.
I'd appreciate hearing your thoughts, and thank you all again for your support.
(https://i.imgur.com/ZKkT1Lr.png)
I'm just chiming in to say I have the EXACT same scenario as OP, with a Smart Parking PCN issued on the exact same day as OP and for a contravention on the exact same day as OP (different location).Please open your own thread if you want some advice.
I used the template in this thread to say they are outside of the 14 days and they have also upheld the fine with an almost identical response (laughably suggesting that the 14 days starts from the moment they get the owners details from the DVLA!?)
I dont mind appealing to IAS, but I really do not have the emotional resources to go to court over it.
To: foi@dvla.gov.uk
Subject: Freedom of Information Request – AOS Membership History for Smart Parking Ltd
Dear Sir or Madam,
FREEDOM OF INFORMATION REQUEST
Under the Freedom of Information Act 2000, I am writing to request the following information:
Please confirm the exact date on which Smart Parking Ltd (Company Number SC138255) ceased to be an Accredited Operator under the British Parking Association (BPA) Approved Operator Scheme (AOS), and the date on which it became an Accredited Operator under the International Parking Community (IPC) AOS.
If there was any period during which Smart Parking Ltd held no AOS accreditation, please confirm the dates of that gap.
This information is being requested to determine the applicable Code of Practice and appeals procedure relevant to a Parking Charge Notice issued by the company.
If any part of this request is exempt, please state the exemption relied upon under the Act.
Yours faithfully,
b789
will be interesting to see if they start using Gladstone rather than DCB LegalI've seen them issue a couple of Letter of Claims using BW Legal recently.
I need to do a bit more research on this situation.
I need to do a bit more research on this situationHappy to lend a hand with that. Off the top of my head I can't think of any examples where a company has jumped ship between an appeal being made and the operator responding!
I am submitting a formal complaint against Smart Parking Ltd, a BPA Accredited Operator Scheme member with DVLA KADOE access, for breaching the BPA/IPC Private Parking Single Code of Practice (PPSCoP) after obtaining my personal data.
While Smart Parking may have had reasonable cause at the time of their KADOE request, their subsequent misuse of my data—through conduct that contravenes the PPSCoP—renders that use unlawful. The PPSCoP forms an integral part of the DVLA’s governance framework for data access by private parking firms. Continued access is conditional on compliance.
The DVLA, as data controller, is obliged under UK GDPR and the Data Protection Act 2018 to investigate and take enforcement action when data is misused following release. This complaint is not about whether the data was obtained lawfully at the outset, but whether its subsequent use breached the terms under which it was provided.
I have prepared a supporting statement setting out the nature of the breach and the Operator’s actions, and I request a full investigation into this matter. I have attached the supporting document.
Please acknowledge receipt and confirm the reference number for this complaint.
SUPPORTING STATEMENT
Complaint to DVLA – Breach of KADOE Contract and PPSCoP
Operator name: Smart Parking Ltd
Date of PCN issue: 12/05/2025
Vehicle registration: [INSERT VRM]
I am submitting this complaint to report a misuse of my personal data by Smart Parking Ltd, who obtained my keeper details from the DVLA under the KADOE (Keeper At Date Of Event) contract.
Although Smart Parking may have had reasonable cause to request my data initially, their subsequent use of that data is unlawful due to a serious breach of the BPA/IPC Private Parking Single Code of Practice (PPSCoP). This Code forms part of the regulatory framework that governs the use of DVLA data by private parking firms.
The KADOE contract clearly states that data must only be used to pursue an unpaid parking charge in accordance with the applicable Code of Practice. Where the Code is breached, any continued use of keeper data ceases to be lawful.
In this case, Smart Parking Ltd breached Section 8.1.1(d) of the PPSCoP, which states:"The parking operator must not serve a notice which in its design and/or language: state the keeper is liable under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 where they cannot be held liable."
Smart Parking issued a Notice to Keeper dated 12/05/2025 for an alleged contravention on 27/04/2025. This notice was deemed delivered (given) on 14/05/2025, beyond the 14-day relevant period set by PoFA Schedule 4, Paragraph 9(4)(b). Despite this, the notice falsely asserted that the Keeper is liable under PoFA 2012, referencing Paragraph 9(2)(b). This is misleading and in direct violation of the PPSCoP.
By falsely invoking PoFA to assert Keeper liability where it does not apply, Smart Parking have unlawfully processed my personal data for a purpose outside the bounds of both the KADOE contract and the DVLA’s data governance framework. This is not a minor or technical error — it represents a deliberate or negligent failure to comply with the standards required for continued access to DVLA data.
I am therefore requesting that the DVLA investigate this serious breach, and take appropriate enforcement action, which may include:• Confirming that a breach has occurred
• Requiring corrective action or sanctioning the operator
• Suspending or revoking KADOE access if appropriate
I have retained a copy of the NtK as evidence and am happy to provide further information upon request.
Name: [INSERT YOUR NAME]
Date: [INSERT DATE]
Here's an appeal you can use as the keeper:Makes sense, thanks a lot!
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2012/9/contentsAppeal on the basis of the late service of the NtKThank you! Didn't realize they had only up to 14 days to inform the registered keeper.
Appeal on the basis of the late service of the NtKThank you! Didn't realize they had only up to 14 days to inform the registered keeper.