Free Traffic Legal Advice

They wont appoint bailiffs or the likes will they. ?

Why no bailiff can knock on your door

1. County Court Judgment (CCJ):

• A bailiff (enforcement agent) can only get involved after a creditor has obtained a CCJ against you in a county court.
• If the CCJ is under £600, the creditor cannot transfer it to the High Court for enforcement by a High Court Enforcement Officer (HCEO). Instead, enforcement would remain under the county court's jurisdiction.

2. Threshold for High Court Enforcement:

• If a CCJ is over £600 (including fees and interest), the creditor can transfer it to the High Court for enforcement by an HCEO. This is a common method because HCEOs tend to be more effective at recovering money.

3. Cost-Benefit Analysis for Creditors:

• For CCJs under £600, creditors may find it uneconomical to pursue enforcement through county court bailiffs, as they are generally slower and less effective than HCEOs.
• As a result, creditors may opt not to escalate enforcement for small amounts.

4. Private Parking Charges and Bailiffs:

• In the context of private parking charges, no bailiff action can occur unless the parking operator has gone to court, won a case, obtained a CCJ, and you fail to pay the judgment within the stipulated time (usually 30 days).

So, no bailiff will come to your door for a debt under £600 unless the creditor deems it worth pursuing through county court enforcement. However, even if the debt is over £600, bailiff involvement only happens after a CCJ is issued, and enforcement is transferred to the High Court.

A County Court Judgment (CCJ) does not just happen—it follows a clear legal process. If someone gets a Parking Charge Notice (PCN) from a private parking company, here's what happens step by step:

1. Parking Charge Notice (PCN) Issued

• The parking company sends a letter (Notice to Keeper) demanding money.

• This is not a fine—it’s an invoice for an alleged breach of contract.

2. Opportunity to Appeal

• The recipient can appeal to the parking company.

•If rejected, they may be able to appeal to POPLA (if BPA member) or IAS (if IPC member).

• If an appeal is lost or ignored, the parking company demands payment.

3. Debt Collection Letters

• The parking company might send scary letters or pass the case to a debt collector.

• Debt collectors have no power—they just send letters and can be ignored.

• No CCJ happens at this stage.

4. Letter Before Claim (LBC)

• If ignored for long enough, the parking company (or their solicitor) sends a Letter Before Claim (LBC).

• This is a warning that they may start a court case.

• The recipient has 30 days to reply before a claim is filed.

• No CCJ happens at this stage.

5. County Court Claim Issued

• If ignored or unpaid, the parking company may file a claim with the County Court.

• The court sends a Claim Form with details of the claim and how to respond.

• The recipient has 14 days to respond (or 28 days if they acknowledge it).

• No CCJ happens at this stage.

6. Court Process

• If the recipient defends the claim, a judge decides if they owe money.

• If the recipient ignores the claim, the parking company wins by default.

• No CCJ happens yet unless the recipient loses and ignores the court.

7. Judgment & Payment

• If the court rules that money is owed, the recipient has 30 days to pay in full.

• If they pay within 30 days, no CCJ goes on their credit file.

• If they don’t pay within 30 days, the CCJ stays on their credit file for 6 years.

Conclusion

CCJs do not appear out of thin air. They only happen if:

• A parking company takes the case to court.

• The person loses or ignores the case.

• The person fails to pay within 30 days.

If you engage with the process (appeal, defend, or pay on time), no CCJ happens.

Rebuttal to Smart Parking Ltd Evidence Pack

The evidence pack provided by Smart Parking Ltd is not relevant to the key point in this appeal. The only matter the assessor needs to consider before looking at any other material is whether Smart Parking Ltd has fully complied with all the requirements of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA) in order to transfer liability for the parking charge from the driver to the keeper.

As is the keeper's legal right, they have declined to identify the driver. Therefore, unless Smart Parking Ltd can show that their Notice to Keeper was fully compliant with PoFA, the keeper cannot be held liable.

Under paragraph 9(5) of Schedule 4 of PoFA, a Notice to Keeper must be delivered (given) within 14 days beginning with the day after the date of the alleged parking event. The following dates apply in this case:

- The date of the alleged parking event was Sunday 23 March 2025.
- The next day, from which the 14-day period starts, was Monday 24 March 2025.
- The final day of the 14-day period was Sunday 6 April 2025.

Smart Parking Ltd issued the Notice to Keeper on Thursday 3 April 2025. A notice sent by post is considered to be delivered two working days later, under paragraph 9(6) of PoFA. Counting two working days from Thursday 3 April (which excludes Saturday 5 April and Sunday 6 April), the presumed date of delivery is Monday 7 April 2025.

This means the Notice to Keeper was deemed delivered (given) 15 days after the parking event. That is one day outside the 14-day limit (relevant period) required by law. Therefore, Smart Parking Ltd cannot rely on PoFA to transfer liability to the keeper.

Smart Parking Ltd has submitted an evidence pack, but none of it deals with this key issue. They have provided photographs of signage and general terms and conditions, but that is not relevant here. If the operator wishes to hold the keeper liable, they must comply with PoFA. If they do not, they must pursue the driver. As the keeper has not been identified as the driver, and as PoFA cannot apply due to late delivery of the Notice to Keeper, the appeal must be allowed.

To summarise:

- The Notice to Keeper was delivered (given) too late to comply with PoFA.
- The keeper has not been identified as the driver.
- Therefore, the operator cannot hold the keeper liable.

Accordingly, Smart Parking Ltd has no lawful basis to recover the charge from the keeper, and the appeal should be upheld.

I am the registered keeper. NCP cannot hold a registered keeper liable for any alleged contravention on land that is under statutory control. As a matter of fact and law, MET will be well aware that they cannot use the PoFA provisions because Stansted Airport is not 'relevant land' and Southgate Park is within the airport boundary.

If Stansted Airport wanted to hold owners or keepers liable under Airport Bylaws, that would be within the landowner's gift and another matter entirely. However, not only is that not pleaded, it is also not legally possible because MET is not the Airport owner and your 'parking charge' is not and never attempts to be a penalty. It is created for MET's own profit (as opposed to a bylaws penalty that goes to the public purse) and MET has relied on contract law allegations of breach against the driver only.

The registered keeper cannot be presumed or inferred to have been the driver, nor pursued under some twisted interpretation of the law of agency. Your NtK can only hold the driver liable. MET have no hope at POPLA, so you are urged to save us both a complete waste of time and cancel the PCN.