Free Traffic Legal Advice

So Reply #5.
What did you find in the time since then, by searching the forum for example?

I've looked at this recent post https://www.ftla.uk/private-parking-tickets/private-parking-court-claim-received-retail-park-short-stay/msg119996/#msg119996

I've put this together below but I am not sure if it is right. That PCN I posted previously is exactly 14 days from the when they claim. However, it doesn't make any mention of transferring liability to the driver, so is it even a NtK?

In this thread https://www.ftla.uk/private-parking-tickets/received-letter-of-claim-please-advise!!!/15/ they seem to outline a very different response, and so I am not sure which one is really best.

Defense
1. The Defendant denies the claim in its entirety and no debt is owed to the Claimant.

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

3. The Claimant is unable to identify the driver at the material time and there is no legal obligation for the vehicle keeper to provide this information to the Claimant and I will not be doing so under any circumstance.

4. The Claimant appears to be relying on Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) (2012) which allows them to transfer liability from the unknown driver to the Registered Keeper but ONLY when the strict requirements of the legislation are met.

5. That, in this instance, the Claimant is unable to meet the requirements of PoFA as the Claimant's Notice to Keeper (NtK) was not delivered to the Registered Keeper within the statutory timeframe of 14 days from the date of the alleged parking event. Furthermore, the Claimant should provide evidence of posting and service should they dispute this.

6. Instead, the Claimant isssued a parking charge notice (PCN) directly to the keeper which did not explicitly identify the driver, nor made any request to the keeper to identify the driver and furthermore contained insufficient information. Additionally, the Claimant was unable to provide evidence of sufficient signage at the alleged time.

7. That the Claimant's issued PCN shows that the alleged parking event took place on 24rd July 2022 but the notice was only issued on 5th August 2022, and therefore could not have been reasonably served within the 14 day requirement.

8. That with the Claimant unable to either identify the driver or rely on PoFA there is no legal route to liability in this matter.

The Parking Charge Notice (PCN) probably is also the Notice to Keeper (NtK).
Please show it, with reference to https://www.ftla.uk/private-parking-tickets/read-this-first-private-parking-charges-forum-guide/
If the dates are as above it is likely too late to enable transfer of liability from the unknown driver to the registered keeper.
Event: 23/7/22
Notice: 5/8/22
Deemed delivered: 9/8/22, 17 days after the event

And it’s not a fine!

Your next step is probably to receive and defend a court claim on this basis, which will likely be discontinued before actually going to court by the claimant.

This is the PCN that I recieved, what would the next steps be exactly?

I recieved a parking ticket from Smart Parking from 2022 and have naturally been sent dozens of spam letters. Recently, I got the letter of claim from DCB Legal Ltd and responded with the following email.

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.

They then responded with the following email

We write in response to your correspondence received in our office.
We now respond to the same as follows.

It is our position that the Letter of Claim ("LOC") is compliant with the Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims ("the Protocol"). The LOC provides adequate information for you to identify the debt that our client is seeking to recover. We respectfully draw your attention to paragraph 2.1(c) of the Protocol and remind you that both parties are expected to act reasonably and proportionately.

When parking on private land, the contractual terms of the site are set out on the signs. You are entering a contract and agreeing to the terms by parking and staying on the site. Parking in breach of the terms as stipulated on the signage means that you are then breaking the terms of the contract.

The terms and conditions on the signs clearly provided tariff rates to pay for parking, if the correct payment was not made a parking charge would be issued. The parking charge was issued correctly as you failed to pay for the correct time your vehicle was on site.

In order to identify the Registered Keeper of the vehicle, our client submitted a request for details to the DVLA. Your details were provided and thereafter notices were sent to you by our client at your serviceable address. Those notices asked you to either make payment or, if you were not driving, nominate a driver by providing their name and full address. You did neither and as such you are now pursued on the basis that you were driving. On the balance of probabilities, if you were not the driver, you would have nominated.

In accordance with the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice, where the Parking Charge (PC) becomes overdue and before Court proceedings have commenced, a reasonable sum may be added for the debt recovery fees. The correct recovery fees have been added and will not be removed. As such, the outstanding balance of £170.00 remains payable to prevent further action.

As payment was not made, either within 14 or 28 days, the creditor was entitled to instruct debt recovery agents / Solicitors to pursue payment and is entitled to recover the costs of doing so. It would have been made clear in the terms and conditions set out in the signs that additional enforcement costs may be incurred in the event of non-payment.

If there are any documents that you have requested, but that are not attached, it is because we have deemed the request to be disproportionate and/or not relevant to the substantive issues in dispute. We respectfully draw your attention to paragraph 2.1(c) of the Protocol and remind you that both parties are expected to act reasonably and proportionately.

You now have 30 days from the date of this email to make payment of £170.00. Failure to make payment may result in a Claim being issued against you without any further reference.

And provided CCTV of my car at the time, but with stock images of the signs displayed not an actual image of the signs.

How should I reply to this? Any help would be greatly appreciated.