Free Traffic Legal Advice

One last one....promise!!

I have tried to make the points sound more legal and bulleted them but am concerned it is now too long. If possible, could you give this a quick read and recommend any changes. I am then filing to court. Many thanks again.

1. It is acknowledged that I was the Registered Keeper of the vehicle at the material time.

2. The vehicle driver is not known to the Claimant and, as this is a contract dispute, I will not be identifying the driver under any circumstance as the law does not require it.

3. The Claimant appears to be relying on Protection of Freedoms Act (2012)(PoFA) in order to transfer liability from the unknown driver to myself.

4. In order to invoke 'keeper liability' using PoFA the Claimant must demonstrate that their Notice to Keeper (NtK) is compliant with Schedule 4 of PoFA - in this instance the NtK is not compliant as it was served well beyond the 14 day period required by the legislation.

5. As a result, with the driver unknown and no option of keeper liability, there is no legal route to liability in this matter.

6. Liability is therefore denied entirely.

Further defence points which the Court should be aware of;

7.  Inadequate Signage and Failure to Provide Adequate Notice of Parking Terms
•   The signage at the site was inadequate to bring the terms and conditions of the recently introduced parking scheme to the attention of motorists. The system began operation on the 29 February of 2024 and we arrived on the 24 March of 2024.

•   In particular, there was insufficient clear and prominent signage informing visitors that invited guests of the landowner (Exmouth Rugby Football Club) required to register their vehicle details in order to qualify for free parking.

•   Had such information been displayed prominently at the entrance and throughout the site, we would have complied with the registration requirement and no parking charge would have arisen.

•   On the date in question, approximately 30 or more Parking Charge Notices were issued to members of our touring party alone. These vehicles were parked in various locations throughout the car park and were operated by different individuals.

•   It is reasonable to infer from the unusually high number of charges issued that day that there was a systemic failure in the communication of the parking terms, rather than widespread negligence on the part of visitors.

•   The volume of charges issued to legitimate visitors is indicative of signage that was insufficiently clear, prominent, or comprehensible to adequately notify motorists of the contractual requirements imposed by the parking operator.

•   Accordingly, the operator failed to take reasonable steps to ensure that the material terms of the parking contract were properly brought to the attention of drivers before any purported contract was formed.

8. Subsequent Actions and Evidence of Inadequate Communication of Parking Terms

•   Upon receipt of the Parking Charge Notices, I immediately contacted representatives of Exmouth RFC to establish the circumstances surrounding the alleged contraventions.

•   Mr Lawrence Giles, Chairman of the Junior Section and my counterpart at Exmouth RFC, acknowledged the issue and agreed to intervene on behalf of the affected visitors.

•   Mr Giles requested the registration numbers of the vehicles that had been issued with Parking Charge Notices, which were subsequently provided and forwarded to Jan McCarthy, Secretary of Exmouth RFC.

•   The vehicle registration details were supplied for onward transmission to Smart Parking Ltd with a request that the Parking Charge Notices be cancelled, on the basis that the motorists concerned were legitimate invited guests of Exmouth RFC.

•   The intervention of senior representatives of Exmouth RFC supports the contention that the affected motorists were authorised visitors and were entitled to park at the venue.

•   The need for Exmouth RFC to seek cancellation of multiple Parking Charge Notices is indicative of a failure by the parking operator to adequately communicate the requirements of the newly introduced parking scheme to legitimate visitors.

•   The fact that authorised guests were unaware of the requirement to register their vehicle details demonstrates that the relevant parking terms were not sufficiently brought to their attention before parking.

•   The operator's continued pursuit of Parking Charge Notices against legitimate visitors, despite notification from the landholder's representatives that those visitors were authorised users of the site, raises questions as to whether reasonable discretion was exercised and whether the enforcement process was conducted fairly and proportionately.

•   The circumstances are consistent with a failure of signage, communication, and implementation of the new parking arrangements, rather than any deliberate or negligent non-compliance by the motorists concerned.

9.    The defence maintains that the Particulars of Claim are too vague as per our previous defence filing.




 

I could use some help with wording if possible to avoid legal mistakes.

Essentially, this is my defence:
1.   The original parking charge notice from Smart Parking Ltd was not compliant with PoFA 2012. It was issued 10/4/24 for an alleged contravention 24/3/24.
2.   We were invited guests of the Landlord, Exmouth Rugby Club. I was part of a large touring party invited to Exmouth RFC and we were not informed of their new parking arrangements (the tour was arranged prior to the installation of the parking scheme). Exmouth had the system installed in the February of 2024 and we arrived in the March.
3.   There was inadequate signage alerting drivers to the parking scheme. I have no pictorial evidence, however some 25 or more fines were issued that day, all of them to our touring party, all of whom did not see adequate signage. Had ther been adequate signage explaining that invited guests were to register at the clubhouse to park for free, we would have done so.
4.   Upon receiving the notification, I contacted Exmouth RFC and talking to my contemporary - Mr Lawrence Giles, Chairman Junior Section – he agreed to act on the issue and asked for the registration numbers of the vehicles that were fined. These were forwarded to Jan McCarthy, Secretary of Exmouth RFC, so they could be sent to Smart Parking Ltd, asking them to cease pursuing these fines. Smart Parking Ltd did not comply with the Landlords wishes.

Many thanks again for any help you can offer

And so it goes on! I genuinely appreciate the advice and support this site offers.

I have been served a 'Notice of Transfer of Proceedings'

After the mediation call, which was amicable but they did not accept my offer of £0. DCB Legal have called me several times but I have not picked up or spoken to them.

I have now received a Notice of Transfer of Proceedings in the Civil National Business Centre, claimant Smart Parking Ltd stating the claim has been transferred to the County Court of Bristol for allocation.

I can submit documents via email to the county court. Should I put forward my defence at this junction?

I would greatly appreciate your advice.

KR.

As this case continues, it appears that Smart Parking ltd intend to pursue me.

I have been sent a telephone mediation appointment for April, for which I need to prepare my defence. To recap, my defence is as follows:

1.
I was part of a large party of invited guests visiting the landlord (Exmouth RFC). On the day of our visit, around 25 vehicles received parking fines.
Exmouth RFC did not pass on the parking arrangements intended for invited guests (namely that there is a registration system accessible by tablet to allow for free parking).
In the initial phases of organising the visit, the landlord did not communicate to us any information regarding parking. Our touring party subsequently discovered that the parking system was in planning and implementation stage and many of the volunteers at Exmouth were unaware of the plans.  when we arranged the visit first instance not passed information onto us regarding the changes to their parking arrangements.
2. The signage was completely inadequate. Indeed, at the time (March 2024) just a few weeks after the implementation of the system, there was no signage in the car park itself. 25 separate fines on the day stand testament to the fact.
3. In my capacity of Junior Chairman of Thornbury RFC  (the touring party) I contacted my contemporary at Exmouth RFC (Lawrence Giles) and he said he would send the list of impacted registration numbers to him to forward onto Smart Parking Ltd. As a representative of the landlord he was apologetic and he was not sure of what he could do, but believed at the time he could get Smart Parking to stop pursuing the people on the list. Some weeks later as it became clear Smart Parking were continuing their action, I attempted to make contact again but my attempts went unanswered this time.


I would greatly appreciate how this should be worded and/or structured for legal purposes (assuming the mediator will be making a judgement based on the case I put forward).

I am (as ever) eternally grateful for your input. Kind regards.

And so it goes on...I received this (via email only) yesterday. It has an N180 'Directions Questionnaire' attachment pre-filled out by DCB. I am under the impression that I should only respond to written correspondence and requests, does this constitute written as via email? Should I respond or ignore.

Many thanks again for all the help and advice.

Good Morning

Having reviewed the content of your defence, we write to inform you that our client intends to proceed with the claim.

In due course, the Court will direct both parties to each file a directions questionnaire. In preparation for that, please find attached a copy of the Claimant's, which we confirm has been filed with the Court.

Without Prejudice to the above, in order to assist the Court in achieving its overriding objective, our client may be prepared to settle this case - in the event you wish to discuss settlement, please call us on 0203 434 0433 within 7 days and make immediate reference to this correspondence.

If you have provided an email address within your Defence, we intend to use it for service of documents (usually in PDF format) hereon in pursuant to PD 6A (4.1)(2)(c). Please advise whether there are any limitations to this (for example, the format in which documents are to be sent and the maximum size of attachments that may be received). Unless you advise otherwise, we will assume not.

 

Kind Regards,

Litigation Support

DCB Legal Ltd

 

Tel: 0203 838 7038 | DX 23457 Runcorn

Many many thanks for this. I have submitted the defence and will wait to hear.

I would greatly appreciate some advice on this claim from Smart Parking dating back some 19 months.

Smart Parking issued a PCN to the registered keeper on the 10/04/2024 some 17 days after the alleged offence (24/03/2025). I responded to the original notice stating that under the PoFA (2012), as there was no ticket issued on site, the notice fell outside of the 14 day period required to comply. They rejected this and have been pursuing me ever since.

Sadly, the usual letters chasing the charge have been lost, but I have the original notice. I have not responded to any of the subsequent correspondence and have ignored the letters.

I have just received claim from HM Courts and tribunals notifying me of a claim against me from DCB Legal Ltd. It arrived 6 days from date of issue (05/12/2025) so am now short on time to respond.

The case is complex because the dates and times of the alleged offence are not in dispute, but the establishment of the 'contract' between the driver and the rugby club are ambiguous and contradictory. We were invited guests of Exmouth Rugby Club and were touring the region with various age groups (some 50 or so parents and children). Exmouth RFC established their ANPR managed parking system in the February and we visited in the March. We began organising the tour long before (September of 23) and during our initial communications, nothing about parking was mentioned. Closer to the date we had further communication from Exmouth RFC, but the advice differed depending on age group and was obscure. Some were told as visitors We were entitled to register and park for free (a tablet system was available if you knew about it). Some were told to pay on the Ringo app and other age groups didn't receive communication of any sort.

Some 30 or so of our members were issued parking charge notices that day. I wrote and spoke to my contemporary (Exmouth RFC  Junior Chairman) in my position as Junior Chairman of our rugby club and asked him (as the land owners) to cancel the charges due to the confused communication and inadequate signage.

He asked me to send a list of registration numbers and promised to 'look into it'. I sent the numbers but nothing further was heard and subsequent attempts to contact failed.

I would greatly appreciate any advice from this forum as have just a few days to acknowledge the claim. I am keen to defend my position in any way possible as feel strongly we have not had a clear and binding contract with Exmouth RFC who will ultimately profit from this action.

Kind regards.