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.
It's not going to make any difference to the IAS decision. In the vast majority of IAS decisions, they are going to back their brother parking firms. The IAS is a kangaroo court.Thanks.
However, an IAS decision is not binding. The majority of these cases are won after a county court claim is issued, with the vast majority being discontinued.How likely would be a county court claim after IAS reject my appeal? Does it involve physically going to the court at any point or is there a chance of CCJ been raised while a challenge is still ongoing?
As my lease is about to end, I am thinking to not complain as of now. But would note this for future.
That is a bit silly. You are entitled to compensation for any breach of your GDPR.
They have dobbed you in it with the IAS, so that is not going to end successfully for you. You can easily fight this all the way through the eventual county court claim but I suspect, based on your response above, that you are going to try and settle for the mugs discount.
As my lease is about to end, I am thinking to not complain as of now. But would note this for future.
That is a bit silly. You are entitled to compensation for any breach of your GDPR.
They have dobbed you in it with the IAS, so that is not going to end successfully for you. You can easily fight this all the way through the eventual county court claim but I suspect, based on your response above, that you are going to try and settle for the mugs discount.
As my lease is about to end, I am thinking to not complain as of now. But would note this for future.
Quote
Someone else could have been driving under their own cover, under temporary cover, as a garage/valet/breakdown operative, or unlawfully (which you cannot assume to be the case).
Subject: Complaint & rectification notice – inaccurate identification of “driver” re PCN [PCN ref], VRM [VRM]
To: penalties@octopusev.com
Cc: customerservice@octopusev.com; data-protection@octopusev.com
From: [Hirer’s full name], Hirer of vehicle [VRM]
Date: [insert]
Dear Penalties Team / Data Protection Officer,
Re: National Parking Control Ltd – PCN [ref]; vehicle [VRM]; event date [dd/mm/yyyy]
I am the hirer. Your letter dated [date] (headed “Notice of Representation”) appears in the operator’s evidence. It contains serious errors that prejudice my appeal:• You misdescribe a private parking charge as a “fine/offence.”
• You state that I was the driver despite having no first-hand knowledge.
• You purport to transfer liability while ignoring the hire-vehicle regime in PoFA Sch 4 paras 13–14.
Why your “driver” assertion is inaccurate and unreasonable
The vehicle is insured under the lease and, as you know, only the hirer is named by default unless a nominated driver is added. That administrative fact does not evidence who was driving at the material time. Someone else could have been driving under their own cover, under temporary cover, as a garage/valet/breakdown operative, or unlawfully (which you cannot assume to be the case). In short, you had no evidential basis to assert I was the driver.
This is a breach of UK GDPR:• Accuracy (Art 5(1)(d)) – you disclosed inaccurate personal data by asserting I was the driver.
• Data minimisation (Art 5(1)(c)) – naming a “driver” was unnecessary to the stated purpose.
• Fairness/lawfulness (Art 5(1)(a)) – the “fine/offence” language is misleading.
What I require
Please action the following:1. Rectification (within 48 hours): confirm you do not know who the driver was; correct your records; and notify the operator that any suggestion I was the driver, and any references to “fine/offence,” are withdrawn as inaccurate. Please copy me.
2. Explanation (within 7 days): tell me exactly what you relied upon to label me the “driver” (templates, policies, staff guidance, or an inference from insurance), and the lawful basis for each disclosure made about me in this matter. Provide copies of all communications you sent to the operator.
3. Assurance (within 7 days): confirm your templates and staff guidance will be corrected so that future correspondence (a) refers to “hirer,” not “driver,” unless evidenced, and (b) does not describe private charges as “fines/offences.”
I reserve all rights, including seeking compensation under Article 82 UK GDPR / s.168 DPA 2018 and escalating to the ICO, should your error cause loss or further prejudice. Nothing in this complaint admits the identity of the driver.
Yours faithfully,
[Name]
Quote. Saying “timestamped photos advise how long the vehicle was observed” is not proof of a continuous period outside any consideration/grace allowance or proof of parking rather than a brief stop. The operator should produce the observation log and a continuous sequence; they have not.
PCN [ref] – VRM [VRM] – Comments on Operator Evidence (rebuttal)
1. Status. I am the hirer, not the “keeper”. For a hire vehicle the operator must comply strictly with PoFA Sch 4 paras 13–14. Their evidence contains no para 13(2) enclosures.
2. Warden ticket + same-day notice. The operator says a warden ticket was issued 30/07/2025 and a “Notice to Keeper (Non-ANPR)” was sent the same day. That sequence is incompatible with PoFA for a warden (NtD) case. In any event, with a hire vehicle, the operative notice is a Notice to Hirer that also satisfies paras 13–14. It doesn’t.
3. Hire-vehicle documents missing (fatal). To transfer liability to a hirer the operator must serve a Notice to Hirer enclosing (i) a copy of the hire agreement and (ii) a statement of liability signed by the hirer (para 13(2)), within the para 14 timeframe. These documents are absent. Therefore no hirer liability arises.
4. Burden of proof. The operator’s line “we have not received anything to state [the hirer] was not driving” is irrelevant. There is no obligation to identify the driver. The operator must either prove the driver or comply with PoFA. It has done neither.
5. Octopus EV letter. The operator relies on a third-party letter that mislabels the charge as a “fine/offence” and asserts I was the “driver”. Octopus was not present; this is inaccurate hearsay and is not proof of driver identity. It cannot remedy PoFA defects.
6. Signage – ambiguity and inconsistency. The sign provided states:“You must park wholly within a marked bay. No parking on roadways / yellow lines / paved / hatched or landscaped areas.”
(a) The entire car park surface is paved, including marked bays. The phrase “no parking on … paved … areas” renders the terms ambiguous/contradictory.
(b) The ticket alleges parking on a “pavement”, yet the sign never uses that word and gives no clear boundary between a permitted marked bay and any allegedly prohibited paved area. Ambiguous terms are construed against the drafter; they cannot found a charge.
7. Contract vs prohibition. The operator pleads a contractual charge, but its wording is essentially prohibitive with no clear offer for the area complained of. If the area is prohibited, it cannot create a contract by “breach”. If it is contractual, the terms are unclear and not capable of acceptance with informed consent.
. Saying “timestamped photos advise how long the vehicle was observed” is not proof of a continuous period outside any consideration/grace allowance or proof of parking rather than a brief stop. The operator should produce the observation log and a continuous sequence; they have not.
9. Authority. The operator asserts the charge is “based in Contract”. They must show contemporaneous landowner authority permitting enforcement and proceedings in their own name. None has been exhibited.
Conclusion: Driver identity is unproven; PoFA hire-vehicle requirements are not met (paras 13–14 and timing/sequence); the signage is ambiguous/internally inconsistent for the alleged location; standing is unproven; and the third-party letter is not evidence of the driver. The appeal must be allowed.
Please confirm that as the lessee, you can insure the vehicle for other drivers? For example, you spouse or partner or other family members? Octopus have no idea who the driver is unless, under the terms of the lease agreement, you are the sole permitted driver of the vehicle.
You are not saying the driver is "unknown". We are saying that the driver is "unknown" to the operator. All you are saying, as the Hirer, is that you decline to identify the driver and there is no legal obligation on you to do so to an unregulated private parking firm.
You're not the registered keeper, but you were keeping the vehicle at the relevant time in your capacity as the hirer. As long as your actual appeal makes clear the capacity in which you are appealing that should be fine.
Wouldn't the "unknown driver" aspect be enough to challenge instead of including all these other points?There's a famous saying about this - "Don't put all your eggs in one basket".
So you appeal to the IAS with the following:QuoteI am the hirer of the vehicle referenced in PCN [number]. I deny any liability for this parking charge and appeal in full.
The parking operator bears the burden of proof. It must establish that a contravention occurred, that a valid contract was formed between the operator and the driver, and that it has lawful authority to operate and issue Parking Charge Notices (PCNs) in its own name. Crucially, if the operator wishes to hold the hirer liable under Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA), it must comply with the strict conditions set out in Paragraphs 13 and 14. It has not done so.
I therefore require the operator to provide the following:1. Strict proof of compliance with Paragraph 14(5) of PoFA. The Notice to Hirer must contain all the prescribed information. The operator’s notice fails to do so.
2. Strict proof of compliance with Paragraph 13(2) of PoFA. The operator must have included:• A copy of the hire agreement.
• A statement of liability signed by the hirer.
These documents were not provided. Without them, the operator cannot transfer liability to the hirer. I am under no legal obligation to identify the driver and I decline to do so. Unless the operator can establish the identity of the driver, it has no lawful basis to pursue this charge.
3. Strict proof of clear, prominent, and adequate signage that was in place on the date in question, at the exact location of the alleged contravention. This must include a detailed site plan showing the placement of each sign and legible images of the signs in situ. The operator must demonstrate that signage was visible, legible, and compliant with the IPC Code of Practice that was valid at the time of the alleged contravention.
4. Strict proof of a valid, contemporaneous contract or lease flowing from the landowner that authorises the operator to manage parking, issue PCNs, and pursue legal action in its own name. I refer the operator and the IAS assessor to Section 14 of the PPSCoP (Relationship with Landowner), which clearly sets out mandatory minimum requirements.
5. Strict proof that the enforcement mechanism (e.g. ANPR or manual patrol) is reliable, synchronised, maintained, and calibrated regularly. The operator must prove the vehicle was present for the full duration alleged and not simply momentarily on site, potentially within a permitted consideration or grace period.
6. The IAS claims that its assessors are “qualified solicitors or barristers.” Yet there is no way to verify this. Decisions are unsigned, anonymised, and unpublished. There is no transparency, no register of assessors, and no way for a motorist to assess the legal credibility of the individual supposedly adjudicating their appeal. If the person reading this really is legally qualified, they will know that without strict proof of landowner authority (VCS v HMRC [2013] EWCA Civ 186), no claim can succeed. They will also know that clear and prominent signage is a prerequisite for contract formation (ParkingEye v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67), and that hirer liability under PoFA is only available where strict statutory conditions are met.
If the assessor chooses to overlook these legal requirements and accept vague assertions or redacted documents from the operator, that will speak for itself—and lend further weight to the growing concern that this appeals service is neither independent nor genuinely legally qualified.
In short, I dispute this charge in its entirety and require full evidence of compliance with the law, industry codes of practice, and basic contractual principles. The operator has failed to establish liability, and unless they can identify the driver, they—and the IAS—have no jurisdiction to pursue this matter further.
I am the hirer of the vehicle referenced in PCN [number]. I deny any liability for this parking charge and appeal in full.
The parking operator bears the burden of proof. It must establish that a contravention occurred, that a valid contract was formed between the operator and the driver, and that it has lawful authority to operate and issue Parking Charge Notices (PCNs) in its own name. Crucially, if the operator wishes to hold the hirer liable under Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA), it must comply with the strict conditions set out in Paragraphs 13 and 14. It has not done so.
I therefore require the operator to provide the following:1. Strict proof of compliance with Paragraph 14(5) of PoFA. The Notice to Hirer must contain all the prescribed information. The operator’s notice fails to do so.
2. Strict proof of compliance with Paragraph 13(2) of PoFA. The operator must have included:• A copy of the hire agreement.
• A statement of liability signed by the hirer.
These documents were not provided. Without them, the operator cannot transfer liability to the hirer. I am under no legal obligation to identify the driver and I decline to do so. Unless the operator can establish the identity of the driver, it has no lawful basis to pursue this charge.
3. Strict proof of clear, prominent, and adequate signage that was in place on the date in question, at the exact location of the alleged contravention. This must include a detailed site plan showing the placement of each sign and legible images of the signs in situ. The operator must demonstrate that signage was visible, legible, and compliant with the IPC Code of Practice that was valid at the time of the alleged contravention.
4. Strict proof of a valid, contemporaneous contract or lease flowing from the landowner that authorises the operator to manage parking, issue PCNs, and pursue legal action in its own name. I refer the operator and the IAS assessor to Section 14 of the PPSCoP (Relationship with Landowner), which clearly sets out mandatory minimum requirements.
5. Strict proof that the enforcement mechanism (e.g. ANPR or manual patrol) is reliable, synchronised, maintained, and calibrated regularly. The operator must prove the vehicle was present for the full duration alleged and not simply momentarily on site, potentially within a permitted consideration or grace period.
6. The IAS claims that its assessors are “qualified solicitors or barristers.” Yet there is no way to verify this. Decisions are unsigned, anonymised, and unpublished. There is no transparency, no register of assessors, and no way for a motorist to assess the legal credibility of the individual supposedly adjudicating their appeal. If the person reading this really is legally qualified, they will know that without strict proof of landowner authority (VCS v HMRC [2013] EWCA Civ 186), no claim can succeed. They will also know that clear and prominent signage is a prerequisite for contract formation (ParkingEye v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67), and that hirer liability under PoFA is only available where strict statutory conditions are met.
If the assessor chooses to overlook these legal requirements and accept vague assertions or redacted documents from the operator, that will speak for itself—and lend further weight to the growing concern that this appeals service is neither independent nor genuinely legally qualified.
In short, I dispute this charge in its entirety and require full evidence of compliance with the law, industry codes of practice, and basic contractual principles. The operator has failed to establish liability, and unless they can identify the driver, they—and the IAS—have no jurisdiction to pursue this matter further.
I had attached the screenshot of the options available, this was one of them, none of the others made sense to me. Think you couldn't/didn't see the screenshot to ask this perhaps. I am attaching it here again.I will select "I was not aware that I had incurred a charge" option and use the text you kindly shared above.
Before you proverbially blow both feet off... what do you mean by the above?
You only appeal as the "Hirer" or "Other". You are denying any liability as the Hirer.Indeed, above the "reason" drop-down there was another dropdown where I could choose keeper, Hirer or driver. I chose Hirer.
Is the notice you have shown us a Notice to Hirer (NtH) addressed to you or is it a copy of the Notice to Keeper (NtK) that was sent to the lease company? Unless it is an NtH addressed and issued to to you, you cannot do anything.The NtH I attached was indeed addressed to me. The NtK must have been sent to the leasing company earlier, they must have responded by providing my details and they also informed me about this as well but the original NtK was never sent to me by anyone.
I will select "I was not aware that I had incurred a charge" option and use the text you kindly shared above.
You can appeal along the lines ofQuoteDear Sirs,They only have one shot at getting the Notice to Hirer right. They didn’t. They never do. Lots of people fall for it and pay up.
I have received you Notice to Hirer [(PCN number)] for Vehicle Registration Mark [VRM]. I am the hirer of the vehicle. There is no obligation for me to name the driver at the time and I will not be doing so.
To hold me liable for the charge as the hirer of the vehicle, you must meet the conditions specified in Paragraph 14 of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (“the Act”). I note from your correspondence that you have failed to meet these conditions. These failures include (but are not limited to):
A failure to serve a Notice to Hirer containing all the information required by 14(5) of the Act.
A failure to include the additional documents mentioned by 13(2) of the Act.
As a result of this, you are unable to recover the specified charge from me, the hirer. As I do not have liability for this charge, I am unable to help you further with this matter. I therefore look forward to your confirmation that the charge has been cancelled.
Dear Sirs,They only have one shot at getting the Notice to Hirer right. They didn’t. They never do. Lots of people fall for it and pay up.
I have received you Notice to Hirer [(PCN number)] for Vehicle Registration Mark [VRM]. I am the hirer of the vehicle. There is no obligation for me to name the driver at the time and I will not be doing so.
To hold me liable for the charge as the hirer of the vehicle, you must meet the conditions specified in Paragraph 14 of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (“the Act”). I note from your correspondence that you have failed to meet these conditions. These failures include (but are not limited to):
A failure to serve a Notice to Hirer containing all the information required by 14(5) of the Act.
A failure to include the additional documents mentioned by 13(2) of the Act.
As a result of this, you are unable to recover the specified charge from me, the hirer. As I do not have liability for this charge, I am unable to help you further with this matter. I therefore look forward to your confirmation that the charge has been cancelled.
Did NPC also send youQuote(a)a statement signed by or on behalf of the vehicle-hire firm to the effect that at the material time the vehicle was hired to a named person under a hire agreement;?
(b)a copy of the hire agreement; and
(c)a copy of a statement of liability signed by the hirer under that hire agreement.
No?
Then they are not compliant with the requirements of PoFA 2012 (https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2012/9/schedule/4) to hold you, the hirer, responsible for the liabilities of the driver, whom you are under no obligation to identify.
(a)a statement signed by or on behalf of the vehicle-hire firm to the effect that at the material time the vehicle was hired to a named person under a hire agreement;?
(b)a copy of the hire agreement; and
(c)a copy of a statement of liability signed by the hirer under that hire agreement.
(2)The conditions are that—
(a)the creditor has within the relevant period given the hirer a notice in accordance with sub-paragraph (5) (a “notice to hirer”), together with a copy of the documents mentioned in paragraph 13(2) and the notice to keeper;