Free Traffic Legal Advice

The police force that seized it should have instructions on their website explaining how the registered keeper can get the vehicle back if it has been seized because it was being driven without insurance. I'm assuming that is the only reason why it was seized and it hasn't also been used in other criminal activity, and that it is roadworthy, taxed, and MOT'd.  He needs to move quickly though, there's quite a short timescale before police are entitled to sell or destroy a seized vehicle.

Just as an example this is the Met Police information for London.  https://www.met.police.uk/advice/advice-and-information/vr/vehicle-recovery/seized-vehicles/ But he needs to follow the instructions of whichever police force has his car.

The owner/registered keeper has to pay the seizure and storage fees but not any fines that might be imposed on the uninsured driver.

He needs to check his insurance policy as they don't all cover drving a vehicle that is being recovered after police seizure. It's possible to buy short term insurance policies specifically to cover this situation.

Looks like a public road so ask the local council why it is there. But even if for no reason at all it still won't make them liable for opening your car door into it.

It is my understanding that when sending goods, if you decline to pay extra for insurance (against the courier's negligence), you are deemed to have accepted the risk yourself) - or more specifically, there will be a term in the courier's contract which provides this.

The MSE site took legal advice about the 'parcel protection insurance' sold by delivery companies and posted this guide to it in 2024. The circumstances they describe aren't identical to yours but may be useful.

https://www.moneysavingexpert.com/reclaim/should-i-get-parcel-protection-insurance/

PayMyFuel letter is addressed to OP as the the Registered Keeper. It appears the OP in this case is also in the photograph as the driver but I am wondering what if PayMyFuel photographs did not evidence who was driving? Private Parking Companies have, in principle at least, the ability to shift the liability from the driver to the to the registered keeper in some circumstances but does any simlar right exist in non-payment of fuel cases like this?

The FAQs on their website include this statement but they give no indication of the legal basis for it:

"It wasn’t me that filled up, it was a family member, friend etc.
As the registered keeper, you are liable for any fines unless the party responsible volunteers to take responsibility for the case."

Quote

even visits by debt collectors to the property

I'm not aware of any examples of DCBL ever turning up in person to seek payment of disputed parking charge notices.

My point was that if the occupant of the address completely ignores all letters DCBL might turn up trying to find if the person they are looking for lives there (not to seek payment). They turned up at my daughter's looking for an ex-tenant for exactly that reason.

DCBL are allowed to contact the address and ask if the person they are trying to make contact with lives there and they can't be reported or sued for doing so if they only do it once.

If DCBL repeatedly contacted the address  that might be harrassment and action could be taken. But only if DCBL have been told the person doesn't live there.

However ignoring it might lead to more letters from DCBL and even visits by debt collectors to the property. so best not to ingnore it.

The person should send the letter back to DCBL stating simply that "XXXX [the name DCBL have put on their letter] does not live here. Please do not contact me again about this matter". Normally I'd just write 'return to sender' on the envelope and shove it back in a postbox but on this occasion it would be better that they send it back in a fresh envelope and put postage on it so that they can get a proof of posting at the post office to use as evidence if DCBL try to contact the address again.

"Saba is aware of this but purports to issue POFA notices because the legal title to the station car parks is held by a wholly owned and controlled TfL subsidiary rather than by TfL directly".

Ownership of legal title is surely irrelevant as POFA Sch 4 section 3 (1) (b) says [my bold]

"a parking place which is provided or controlled by a traffic authority"

"provided or controlled", not owned.

If TfL are asserting that the payment was due from and made by your sister then they couldn't logically use data protection law to refuse to disclose what she has asked because, according to TfL, it is your sister's own personal information!