Did you make the advised complaints to the ICO and British Parking Association?
Absolutely nothing to worry about. Even if they issue a claim, it is their loss once it gets struck out or discontinued. Respond to the LoC with the following to help@moorsidelegal.co.uk and CC yourself:
Subject: Response to your Letter of Claim Ref: [reference number]
Dear Sirs,
Your Letter Before Claim contains insufficient detail of the claim and fails to provide copies of the evidence your client places reliance upon, putting it in clear breach of the Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims.
As a supposed firm of solicitors, one would expect you to comply with paragraphs 3.1(a)–(d), 5.1 and 5.2 of the Protocol, and paragraphs 6(a) and 6(c) of the Practice Direction. These provisions exist to facilitate informed discussion and proportionate resolution. You may wish to reacquaint yourselves with them.
The Civil Procedure Rules 1998, Pre-Action Conduct and Protocols (Part 3), require the exchange of sufficient information to understand each other’s position. Part 6 clarifies that this includes disclosure of key documents relevant to the issues in dispute.
Your template letter refers to a “contract” yet encloses none. That omission undermines the only foundation upon which your client’s claim allegedly rests. It is not possible to engage in meaningful pre-litigation dialogue while you decline to furnish the very document you purport to enforce.
I confirm that, once I am in receipt of a Letter Before Claim that complies with para 3.1(a), I shall seek advice and submit a formal response within 30 days, as required. Accordingly, please provide:
1. A copy of the original Notice to Keeper (NtK) and any notice chain relied upon to assert PoFA 2012 liability.
2. A copy of the contract you allege exists between your client and the driver, being an actual photograph of the sign(s) in place on the material date (not a stock image), together with a site plan showing the sign locations.
3. The precise wording of the clause(s) allegedly breached.
4. The written agreement between your client and the landowner evidencing standing/authority to enforce and to litigate.
5. A breakdown of the sums claimed, identifying whether the principal sum is claimed as consideration or damages, and whether the £70 “debt recovery” add-on includes VAT.
I am entitled to this information under paragraphs 6(a) and 6(c) of the Practice Direction, and I require it to meet my own obligation under paragraph 6(b).
If you fail to provide the above, I will treat that as non-compliance with the PAPDC and Pre-Action Conduct and will raise a formal complaint to the SRA regarding your conduct. I reserve the right to place this correspondence before the Court and to seek appropriate sanctions and costs (including, where appropriate, a stay and/or other case management orders).
Until your client complies and provides the requested material, I am unable to respond properly to the alleged claim or to consider my position. It would be premature and a waste of costs and court time to issue proceedings. Should you do so, I will seek immediate case management relief pursuant to paragraph 15(b) of the Practice Direction and an order compelling provision of the above.
Please note, I will not engage with any web portal; I will only respond by email or post.
Yours faithfully,
[Your name]
What did you say in your email to NCP? As they hold an incorrect address for you, you MUST send a data rectification notice (DRN) to NCP DPO, instructing them to update your details with your current address for service and to erase your old address. The highlighted words are there for a reason, so use them.
Hopefully, you did not blab the drivers identity when you contacted NCP. As the location is not relevant land for the purposes of POFA because the airport is land that is under the statutory control of byelaws, they cannot transfer liability for the charge from the unknown driver to the known Keeper.
As it is too late to appeal, you can try and make a formal complaint, which should be accepted as an appeal under the PPSCoP section 11.2. Use the following as your complaint (assuming you didn't blab the drivers identity when you made contact with NCP):
Dear Sir/Madam,
I am writing to submit a formal complaint under Section 11.2 of the Private Parking Sector Code of Practice (PPSCoP), which must also be treated as an appeal against the validity of the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) issued by NCP in relation to Birmingham Airport.
I did not receive the original Notice to Keeper (NtK) as my DVLA keeper details had not yet been updated at the time. However, PPSCoP Clause 11.2 is clear:
"Where a parking operator receives a complaint that it considers to be or include an appeal against the validity of a parking charge, the parking operator must also treat it as an appeal for the purposes of applying the timescales in Clause 8.4..."
This complaint is therefore to be treated as an appeal unless and until it is clear that it is not relevant to the PCN.
No Keeper Liability – Land Not “Relevant” Under PoFA
I am the registered keeper of the vehicle. NCP cannot hold a registered keeper liable for any alleged contravention on land that is under statutory control. Birmingham Airport is not “relevant land” for the purposes of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA), and NCP is fully aware of this legal limitation.
If Birmingham Airport wished to enforce parking under its own bylaws, that would be a matter for the landowner. However, NCP is not the landowner.
The PCN does not purport to be a penalty under bylaws. The charge is clearly a contractual claim for NCP’s own profit, not a statutory fine.
The registered keeper cannot be presumed or inferred to have been the driver. There is no legal basis for NCP to pursue the keeper under a distorted interpretation of agency law. Your NtK can only hold the driver liable, and in the absence of driver identification, you have no lawful basis to pursue the keeper.
This complaint is submitted in writing and must be treated as an appeal under PPSCoP 11.2. The PCN is unenforceable against the Keeper due to the land being under statutory control. There is no admission as to the identity of the driver.
You are urged to cancel this PCN to avoid further wasted time and resources. Should you choose not to cancel, I require a full response addressing each of the points raised above, including:
• Confirmation of the date the NtK was actually posted (not just generated).
• Clarification of the legal basis on which you believe keeper liability applies.
• A copy of your contract with the landowner authorising enforcement at Birmingham Airport.
Yours faithfully,
[Your Full Name]
[Your Postal Address]
[Your Email Address]
[Date]