Show Posts - jfollows

DCBL are powerless and useless debt collectors, and can be ignored.However, DCB Legal will likely issue a Letter of Claim followed by a county court claim which needs to be defended. For which the Notice to Keeper needs to be seen. Or is this is hire car or similar? Please give us details without identifying the driver.

http://www.ftla.uk/private-parking-tickets/read-this-first-private-parking-charges-forum-guide/If you can’t post the original Notice to Keeper, request it with a Subject Access Request for all personal information from Parkmaven.

Quote from: Dave65 on 04 Sep, 2026 10:15Also, PoFA 8(2) e is not there,  no invitation to the keeper to pay.Possible "frustration of contract".8(2)(e) only applies to a NtK issued after a Notice to Driver placed on the car. It’s probably 9(2)(e) that is not complied with.

Please read https://www.ftla.uk/private-parking-tickets/read-this-first-private-parking-charges-forum-guide/ carefully and post the documents that it asks for.You're not "bound" to pay anything and "Elliot v Loake" is an invalid point they make, which you'd find if you searched this forum, but you really need to give us some background here as well as copies of documents.You should appeal to the IAS knowing that it costs the parking company something like £23, even though it’s likely that the IAS will reject your appeal. I sugest you post a draft appeal here for comment.It is likely you will receive a county court claim to which you will need to file a defence, and again by searching the forum you will see that the majority of similar claims are discontinued if properly defended. We can provide advice on the defence in due course.It’s unlikely you will need to pay anything but it will take several months to work through the process until the case is discontinued, and you need to stay on top of the process until it is.

Quote from: Hiram on 04 Sep, 2026 11:08Hi all,Still looking for any help in responding to a POPLA pls. Thanks in advancePlease answerQuotePlease confirm that the driver was not revealed in the initial appeal?Preferably by posting your appeal wording.

So a simple approach would be to appeal to UKPE as the registered keeper stating that the notice does not comply with the requirements of PoFA 2012 (https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2012/9/schedule/4) to transfer liability to the registered keeper and the driver has not and will not be identified.There are many sample appeals on this forum if you search for them.If the appeal is rejected after "careful consideration" because it was "issued correctly" you use the POPLA code to appeal to POPLA in which you state the multiple failings of the NtK against the requirements of PoFA 2012 and you may find that your appeal to POPLA will be upheld. Even if not, you can use these points and the other ones in a defence to a court claim which is unlikely ever to actually reach court - the claimant will usually discontinue before having to pay the court fee.

You still haven’t posted anything, see http://www.ftla.uk/private-parking-tickets/read-this-first-private-parking-charges-forum-guide/ if you have overlooked it to date.You can’t “appeal” to Gladstones. A Letter of Claim needs only a short reply in which you can essentially say Quotethe defendant responding within a reasonable time – 14 days in a straight forward case and no more than 3 months in a very complex one. The reply should include confirmation as to whether the claim is accepted and, if it is not accepted, the reasons why, together with an explanation as to which facts and parts of the claim are disputedper https://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/procedure-rules/civil/rules/pd_pre-action_conduct#6.1It’s just a paper trail. Gladstones won’t reply. It’s not an appeal at this stage, and it’s not worth boiling the ocean in details at this point.Gladstones is not interested in any more. The claimant can accept an appeal and cancel, but now that they’ve invoked a legal process they won’t. Gladstones will likely issue a county court claim on behalf of the claimant, to which you can file a defence along the lines you’ve already stated.

There are multiple angles to contest this.

• The PCN is not compliant with the requirements of PoFA 2012 to transfer liability from the unknown driver to the registered keeper, provided the driver is not identified, for example because it does not specify a "period of parking" as required by the legislation. Plus other failures I'm sure.
• Promissory estoppel applies because the driver sought and obtained permission from the operator on the land to leave the site. Any claimed contractual obligation not to leave the site was over-ridden by this.
• Leaving the site is almost impossible to prove anyway.

See what other say before deciding on the best approach here.And stop identifying the driver when you post, or in any communication with the parking company. https://www.ftla.uk/private-parking-tickets/read-this-first-private-parking-charges-forum-guide/

Of course, it’s a matter of law.Your POPLA appeal is a good basis for a defence to a county court claim, if POPLA rejects it. POPLA is not a court and is often incompetent. A court can’t ignore appeal points because it finds them too difficult. In any case, it’s normal for court claims to be discontinued if properly defended; the reason they’re brought is because they either make people pay up or they get ignored, and if ignored the claimant will obtain a default judgment. In either case the bringing of the claim costs nothing other than the time of the people raising the forms.

Just for clarity, you need to file an Acknowledgment of Service or a defence by 4pm on 14 September, and if you file an AoS you have until 4pm on 28 September to file a defence.

No it isn’t.It’s a letter from a powerless debt collector trying to entice you into giving them money.

Firstly, Gemini don’t “do” court. Secondly, they’re not using the provisions of https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2012/9/schedule/4 to transfer liability from the driver to the registered keeper, so as long as the driver is not identified, the registered keeper can appeal as not being liable.A short appeal by the registered keeper on the basis of non-compliance and non-use of PoFA 2012 may well get them to cancel. If not, letters from debt collectors can be ignored because it’s our experience that they won’t progress this to a court claim.Search the forum for similar cases.

Nor 8(2)(a) either, unsurprisingly because the original NtD failed to include a mandatory “period of parking”, but I agree that by referring to paragraph 9 all the time they have completely failed to understand and comply with the legislation.A simple response as above makes sense to me also.

The original post referred to is https://www.ftla.uk/private-parking-tickets/stansted-express-set-down-parking-charge/msg121300/#msg121300The other appeal points are inadequate signage/disproportionate charge/good faith attempt to pay. These are all appeal points which can be used if substantiated. I don't see how quoting no GPEOL and Parking Eye/Beavis will work though.There may be other appeal points, such as no "period of parking", but the original poster should read https://www.ftla.uk/private-parking-tickets/read-this-first-private-parking-charges-forum-guide/ and post relevant documents for us to see first. Again, "period of parking" is just an example because it's only relevant if the driver hasn't been identified, so probably is irrelevant here.

Given that the driver has been identified, arguments about not being able to use PoFA 2012 to transfer liability from the driver to the registered keeper won’t fly. The whole point of the legislation is to transfer liability from an unknown driver, and it can’t be used at Stansted Airport, but that’s now beside the point.In our experience APCOA don’t “do” court, so the original poster can ignore debt collectors and the like because eventually APCOA will give up. But not before a number of letters with red ink and deliberately vague and scary terms such as “CCJ” arrive.