Free Traffic Legal Advice

Thanks Intercity, could you have a quick review of this draft defense? VCS provided their witness statement a day before it was due (on the 26th of Feb):


Background

1. The claim is denied in its entirety and I deny that any debt is owed to the Claimant. It is accepted that I was the registered keeper of the vehicle on the material date. The Claimant has produced no evidence capable of establishing that I was the driver.

Driver Identity

2. The Claimant asserts within the witness statement of Mr Jake Burgess that I admitted to being the driver. This assertion is incorrect. The only document relied upon by the Claimant in support of this claim is the appeal enquiry contained within Exhibit 7 of their evidence bundle.

3. I accept that the appeal enquiry was submitted by me. However it was submitted strictly in my capacity as the registered keeper of the vehicle. The appeal system requires the appellant to select whether the appeal is being made as the driver or as the keeper and in this case the option “Keeper” was clearly selected.

4. The wording of the appeal itself refers to the driver in the third person and contains no admission as to the identity of the driver. At no stage have I admitted to being the driver.

5. Mr Burgess also suggests that I must have been the driver because I did not nominate another individual. This suggestion is legally incorrect. There is no statutory obligation requiring a vehicle keeper to identify the driver to a private parking operator.

6. I rely upon the persuasive authority of Vehicle Control Services Ltd v Edward which confirmed that a parking operator must provide evidence of driver identity and cannot simply assume that the registered keeper was the driver.


Protection of Freedoms Act 2012

7. The Claimant alternatively seeks to rely upon Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (“PoFA”) in order to transfer liability from the unknown driver to the registered keeper. Liability under PoFA is denied.

8. In order to rely upon PoFA, a parking operator must comply strictly with the statutory requirements set out within Schedule 4. These requirements include the inclusion of specific mandatory wording within the Notice to Keeper.

9. The Notice to Keeper issued by the Claimant fails to include all of the mandatory wording required by Schedule 4 Paragraph 9(2)(f). In particular the notice fails to include the wording that the creditor will have the right to recover the parking charge from the keeper “if all the applicable conditions under this Schedule are met”.

10. As the statutory wording is incomplete the Notice to Keeper is not compliant with PoFA and the Claimant cannot transfer liability to the registered keeper.


Grace Period and Minimal Overstay

11. The Claimant’s own evidence demonstrates that the driver purchased two hours of parking and that the paid parking period expired at approximately 14:36.

12. The relevant parking industry Code of Practice requires that motorists be allowed a minimum grace period of ten minutes to leave a car park after the expiry of paid parking time. Applying that grace period the relevant expiry time becomes approximately 14:46.

13. The Claimant’s own evidence shows that the vehicle exited the site at approximately 14:49. The alleged breach therefore amounts to approximately three minutes beyond the minimum grace period.

14. The alleged breach is trivial and falls within the legal principle of de minimis non curat lex. Unlike the circumstances in ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67, this is a paid car park where the driver purchased a valid parking session. The alleged overstay amounts to only a few minutes beyond the applicable grace period. In these circumstances there is no evidence of any legitimate commercial justification for enforcing a £100 charge, particularly where the parking tariff had already been paid.


ANPR Time Versus Parking Time

15. The Claimant relies upon ANPR timestamps showing the time the vehicle entered and exited the site. These timestamps represent the time on site rather than the actual time the vehicle was parked.

16. Drivers entering a busy car park must locate a parking space, manoeuvre the vehicle and later return to the vehicle before exiting the site. The Claimant’s calculation therefore does not accurately represent the time the vehicle was parked.


Signage and Contract Formation

17. The Claimant relies upon signage at the site to assert that a binding contract was formed with the driver. However the signage exhibited within the Claimant’s bundle raises several issues.

18. The signage states that motorists should refer to “full Terms and Conditions signs located at the Pay and Display machines”. This means that the full contractual terms are not displayed at the entrance to the car park. The Supreme Court in ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] confirmed that for a parking charge to be enforceable the terms must be clear and prominently displayed so that motorists have fair notice of them before parking.

19. The signage also states that “Any Driver/Registered Keeper remaining in this car park 10 minutes after entry agree in full to the Terms & Conditions”. This wording is problematic because a registered keeper cannot enter into a contract simply by the presence of a vehicle. Contract law requires that the driver, as the person capable of accepting contractual terms, must be the party entering into the contract.

20. The wording therefore attempts to impose contractual liability upon a registered keeper who has not entered into any contract with the operator. This type of wording has been criticised in multiple parking cases where operators have attempted to extend contractual liability beyond the driver.


Landowner Authority

21. The signage at the site clearly states that Excel Parking Services Ltd manage and control the car park. The Claimant in this case is Vehicle Control Services Ltd which is a separate legal entity.

22. The Claimant relies upon a document titled “Leaseholder Witness Statement” which asserts that Excel instructed Vehicle Control Services Ltd to manage parking at the site. However the underlying lease agreement has not been produced and the document amounts only to an unsupported assertion.

23. The Claimant is therefore put to strict proof that it has the necessary authority from the landowner to issue and enforce parking charges and to pursue this claim.


Additional Charges

24. The claim includes additional sums beyond the original parking charge. Such additional sums are commonly described as debt recovery costs.

25. In Excel Parking Services Ltd v Wilkinson (2020) the court held that such additional charges were not recoverable and amounted to an abuse of process.


Conclusion

26. The Claimant has failed to establish driver liability.

27. The Claimant has failed to establish keeper liability under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012.

28. The alleged breach concerns a trivial overstay largely within recognised grace periods.

29. The Claimant has failed to demonstrate that it has proper authority from the landowner.

30. For all of these reasons I respectfully request that the Court dismiss the claim.


Statement of Truth

I believe that the facts stated in this witness statement are true.

The hearing has been scheduled for the 27th of April, with the fee to be paid by the claimnant. Unfortunately I've missed the deadline to submit witness statement. Will contact the court to see if it's still possible to submit it.

I'd like to address some of the points made in their witness statement, if appropriate to do so in my own witness statement. For reference I've linked their witness statement here: https://pdfhost.io/v/LQGdjELJ3m_Witness_Statement

In particular, I'm seeking guidance on how to respond to the following two claims:

I refer to the decision in One Parking Solution Ltd v Wilshaw [2021] (“Wilshaw”) whereby it was found  that  it  is not  necessary  for  the Claimant  
to  prove the  Landowner’s  authority  to  constitute  a valid cause of action to recover the Parking Charge, 
what is required is proof that there is a binding contract between the Claimant and the Defendant. 
Further, it was found in Wilshaw that the contract between the Claimant and the Freeholder (Landowner) does not affect the validity of any contract between the Claimant and the Defendant. 

My Company acknowledges the Defendant’s reference to another unrelated Claim that had been struck out due to the Particulars of Claim. 
Respectfully, this is irrelevant, the Court has not determined the Particulars of Claim for this Claim to be insufficient when considering the case prior to allocation.
The Defendant seeking to rely on an unrelated matter is frivolous at best. The Charge remains due and the Defendant remains liable. 

Hi,

I've been informed by the rental company that they received a PCN for my hire vehicle for crossing Blackwall tunnel, and as per their T&C's they have already charged the cost of the PCN and an additional admin fee.

I've an account set up with TFL initially for automatic payments for congestion charges, but it also includes tolls for Blackwall and Silvertown tunnels. So usually when I drive through them I don't worry about paying the charge. So I was in the same mindset with the rental van.

I'd just like to check if there has been much success in appealing the Blackwall PCNs, and do I have any basis to appeal? The PCN is obviously not in my name.

https://imgpile.com/p/3I4Bbd1

Thanks

Hey all,

I've received an email now from the solicitors stating that the client wishes to proceed with the claim, that the N180 has been filed with the court, but also that their client may be willing to settle the case.

Should I just ignore this correspondence, and wait for the court to issue the N180?

Thanks

Good evening all,

I've been issued a PCN by Southwark for being in a bus lane. I'm fairly certain there hasn't been a camera instlalled here before, and haven't seen any warning of a new camera installation.

Regardless, the signage is quite clear, so don't have a leg to stand on in that regard. So I'd just like to check and would be most grateful if anyone could advise if the PCN can be challenged on any other grounds?

PCN:
https://imgur.com/a/LX7EPew

Payment page screenshot:
https://imgur.com/a/pEs3DHp

I found the initial LOC, hadn't read it carefully , thought it was just another debt collector letter. The LOC is dated: 21 March 2025.

I don't see any mention of N1SDT though. I may have discarded it if it were sent in a different letter, but I doubt it.

I've linked the claim form from HMCTS and the initial LOC (front and back).

Hi there,

I received two PCNs for driving through a restricted road twice (going in both directions). Whilst it was dark at the time, it was rather clear the road was restricted to vehicle traffic. So I don't think I've any basis to challenge validity of the PCN due to poor signage or on any other circumstantial basis.

As such, I was about to pay the PCNs but the payment link provided on the PCN doesn't work, it leads to a 404: Page not found error (www.southwark.gov.uk/onlinepayments).

So just curious if this provides a basis to challenge the validity of the PCN, or by any chance is there anything wrong with the PCN that could be used to make a successful challenge?

All 4 pages of the PCN: https://imgur.com/U3qA4cP