Sorry, I thought I'd replied to the last post.

Thanks. Figured out how to submit it online. I've now started getting calls from DCB Legal, I get a prerecorded message and hang up.

MCOL claim history now shows that the DQ was sent to me on 7/7/26, which I've received in the post. Twice actually.

The problem is there doesn't appear to be any way to submit it online instead though!?

No worries, thanks.

No.

Just the defence.

Don't overthink this.


That I am the named defendant and I deny any liability in this matter.

That the vehicle driver is not known to the Claimant and there is no legal requirement for me to identify the driver.

That the Claimant has provided no evidence as to who the driver was.

That the Claimant's Notice to Keeper does not comply with Protection of Freedoms Act (2012)(PoFA) and as such liability cannot be transferred myself.

That, in particular, the Claimant's Notice to Keeper does not meet the requirements of PoFA Schedule 4 Paragraph 9(2)(e) - the mandatory wording and two limbed legal choice required by the paragraph is not present on the Claimant's NtK and, as such, total compliance is not achieved.

That this means that there is no legal route to me being liable for the alleged debt.

Thanks. Appreciate the help. These things feel massively confusing!

Defence submitted. Should I expect the N180DQ via email next?

Hi everyone, I need to submit this today or I miss my chance to defend.

Would you leave in the part where I've explained what happened to the driver on the day?

Thanks

You’ve still got “bit PoFA compliant”

Appreciate it, but I've already amended that on my draft copy offline. I reposted the original defence from my previous post because I was hoping for a bit more in-depth advice beyond spell checking. But perhaps my defence is already fine! Thanks.

Please could someone cast their eye over the following defence before I submit it online? TIA.

The driver went to view a flat. The landlord told them to park behind building A and said that they were covered by a residents permit. The driver saw the ECP sign but due to how illegible it was and holding the honestly held belief that they were covered by a residents permit parked up, walked round to the flat and when they got no answer called the landlord. Turned out the landlord had given the driver the wrong address. He should have sent the driver to building B which is next door and has it's own car park. The driver left the car park after 14 minutes.

The communications between the landlord and driver were by phone and the landlord is no longer contactable.

An appeal was submitted to the original NtK as follows:

I am the keeper of the vehicle and I dispute your 'parking charge'. I deny any liability or contractual agreement and I will be making a complaint about your predatory conduct to your client landowner.

As your Notice to Keeper (NtK) does not fully comply with ALL the requirements of PoFA 2012, you are unable to hold the keeper of the vehicle liable for the charge. Partial or even substantial compliance is not sufficient. There will be no admission as to who was driving and no inference or assumptions can be drawn. ECP 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. ECP have no hope at POPLA, so you are urged to save us both a complete waste of time and cancel the PCN.

PoFA paragraph 9(2)(e)(i) has not been complied with. The NtK did not specifically invite the Keeper to pay the charge.

In big bold writing on the front of the NtK it says that payment is to be made within 28 days of issue. Section 8.1.2(e) of the PPSCoP says that the recipient of a notice has 28 days from the date of receipt, not date of issue.

The ECP sign in the car park mentioned is bit PoFA compliant with paragraph 2(2) or 2(3) as they do not adequately bring the charge to the attention of the driver (Ref Beavis case).

I have asked ECP to provide proof that they have a valid contract flowing from the landowner that permits them to issue PCNs at the location. They have failed to do so.