Free Traffic Legal Advice

It might be worth posting up the PCN if you have it. It can then be examined for non PoFA compliance.

Your defence is clearly very strong so would expect them to discontinue.

It might be worth posting up the PCN if you have it. It can then be examined for non PoFA compliance.

Your defence is clearly very strong so would expect them to discontinue.

The PCN has been approved as compliant by PoFA

So, what has gone on prior to this court claim?

What have you received and what have you done?

As this could have been dealt with earlier.

Thanks, @Dave65 — here’s the timeline and what I’ve done.

What I received

- PCN from Euro Car Parks (keeper notice) – Walsall Waterfront
- Reminder and debt collector letters
- Letters from the solicitors (including the Letter of Claim)
- County Court Claim Form

What I did

Appealed to Euro Car Parks as keeper (paid tariff; car reg mistyped by one letter). Rejected

Appealed to POPLA with bank statement (18:33 payment on 09/08/2024), machine log showing the mistyped reg at ~18:34 (Tx ID 144163, WLW07L, site 330104), proof the mistyped reg isn’t a real vehicle, and the Single Code point about keying errors. Rejected

Ignored debt collector demands

Sent a Subject Access Request to ECP

Filed Acknowledgment of Service (defend all)

Sent a CPR 31.14 request to the solicitor for contract/signage, landowner authority, ANPR, unredacted keyed reg logs, payment reconciliation for Tx 144163, DVLA/KADOE for the pleaded reg, and a breakdown of sums

Drafting defence covering payment made, keying error, no loss or legitimate interest, POFA compliance, signage and standing, and unrecoverable add-ons

Why it wasn’t resolved earlier:
- ECP rejected despite proof of payment and obvious keying error
- POPLA also rejected
- Driver identity not admitted; proceeding to defend in court

- POPLA refused my appeal. They say their role is only to decide if the PCN was issued “correctly” at first instance based on the operator’s evidence, not to source evidence or apply court rules.
- They relied on the operator’s payment reports saying “no payment traced” to my car reg, and on signage stating the full, correct reg must be entered.
- They accepted I paid, but said my ticket wasn’t valid because the car reg was mistyped.
- They cited BPA Code guidance and Beavis, saying the charge doesn’t have to represent loss.

You need to post documentation rather than paraphrasing if you want advice here.

Fair point, here's the PCN.
https://imgpile.com/p/RELE1e5
https://imgpile.com/p/Uouysyc

My rushed submission to POPLA:
For the purpose of my report I have summarised the appellant’s grounds into the following points,
and have checked each point before coming to my conclusion. The appellant has stated that: • They
paid for parking and had a valid ticket. • The ticket displays their partial vehicle registration
number, which they assume mimics the way receipts do not show the full credit card number. • The
payment machine did not work so they paid by phone. • The operator has not honoured its
agreement by allowing motorists to pay by phone, then issuing them with Parking Charge Notices
(PCNs). • They will be making a complaint to the landowner. The appellant has also requested the
following evidence: • An explanation of the allegation and evidence; • A close up photograph of the
sign; • A record of payments made from three hours prior to the entry of their vehicle and three
hours after its exit; • Provide a copy of the contract between the operator and the motorist setting
out the terms and conditions; • A copy of the PCN setting out its reason for issue, address and date
and time of the event; • detail how the PCN was brought to their attention; • state whether the PCN
was issued under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 and state which liability type they are being
held liable under; • state the amount of the PCN; • explain the factual or legal basis for the amount
being claimed; and • provide a calculation for the amount of the charge and any interest. To
support their appeal, the appellant has provided: • A screenshot of their bank statement; • A copy
of the operator’s response to their appeal; and • A photograph of a sign. This evidence has been
considered in making my determination. After reviewing the operator’s evidence, the appellant has
referred to the operator’s transaction report and pointed out which transaction belongs to their
vehicle. The appellant has requested a copy of the full, unredacted report.



POPLA's response:
Before I begin my assessment of this appeal, I must advise that it is not POPLA’s role to source
specific evidence on behalf of either party; POPLA’s role is solely to assess whether a PCN was
issued correctly in the !rst instance. While I can see that the appellant has requested various
pieces of evidence within their grounds of appeal and comments, I will solely be addressing the key
grounds of appeal raised. When assessing an appeal, POPLA considers whether the parking
operator issued the PCN correctly and if the driver complied with the terms and conditions for the
use of the car park as set out on the signs. When parking in a private car park, the motorist forms a
contract with the operator by remaining on the land for a reasonable period. For the avoidance of
doubt, the signage at the site sets out the terms and conditions of this contract. Both the appellant
and the operator have provided photographs of the signage. In this speci!c car park, the terms and
conditions state that motorists must purchase a valid ticket for their full, correct vehicle registration
number, or have a valid paybyphone payment. The signs also state that a £100 PCN will be issued
for a breach of the terms. Within its evidence !le, the operator has provided a copy of the PCN
detailing all of the relevant information as requested by the appellant. For the avoidance of doubt,
the operator is holding the appellant liable for the PCN as the keeper of the vehicle under the
Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 as driver details were not provided within their appeal. In this
case, I can see that the PCN was issued for failing to purchase a valid ticket. The operator has also
provided screenshots of its payment reports, which demonstrate that a payment had not been
made in connection with the appellant’s vehicle that day. Within their appeal to POPLA, the
appellant has provided a screenshot of a bank transaction, demonstrating a transaction made to
the operator during their stay. Although I can see that the appellant paid for parking, it is evident
that they did not provide their full, correct vehicle registration number when doing so. By the
appellant’s own admission, their ticket/receipt contained their partial vehicle registration number.
The ticket would therefore not have been valid for the appellant’s vehicle. It is important to explain
that the site is managed by automatic number plate recognition cameras and it is therefore
imperative that motorists provide their full, correct vehicle registration numbers when paying for
parking. As the appellant did not do so, a PCN was automatically issued by the system as a
payment could not be traced in connection with their vehicle. While I acknowledge that the
appellant has indicated that the payment machine was not working, the appellant was able to pay
For the purpose of my report I have summarised the appellant’s grounds into the following points,
and have checked each point before coming to my conclusion. The appellant has stated that: • They
paid for parking and had a valid ticket. • The ticket displays their partial vehicle registration
number, which they assume mimics the way receipts do not show the full credit card number. • The
payment machine did not work so they paid by phone. • The operator has not honoured its
agreement by allowing motorists to pay by phone, then issuing them with Parking Charge Notices
(PCNs). • They will be making a complaint to the landowner. The appellant has also requested the
following evidence: • An explanation of the allegation and evidence; • A close up photograph of the
sign; • A record of payments made from three hours prior to the entry of their vehicle and three
hours after its exit; • Provide a copy of the contract between the operator and the motorist setting
out the terms and conditions; • A copy of the PCN setting out its reason for issue, address and date
and time of the event; • detail how the PCN was brought to their attention; • state whether the PCN
was issued under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 and state which liability type they are being
held liable under; • state the amount of the PCN; • explain the factual or legal basis for the amount
being claimed; and • provide a calculation for the amount of the charge and any interest. To
support their appeal, the appellant has provided: • A screenshot of their bank statement; • A copy
of the operator’s response to their appeal; and • A photograph of a sign. This evidence has been
considered in making my determination. After reviewing the operator’s evidence, the appellant has
referred to the operator’s transaction report and pointed out which transaction belongs to their
vehicle. The appellant has requested a copy of the full, unredacted report.for parking. The operator’s transaction reports also demonstrate that many other motorists were
able to pay by machine/by phone. I am therefore satis!ed that there were working payment
methods. With regards to legitimate use, section 17 of the British Parking Association Code of
Practice sets out how parking operators must address appeals from motorists who have paid, but
did not provide their full, correct vehicle registration number when doing so. In this case, the
appellant did not provide the operator with any evidence of their payment at the !rst stage of
appeal. As the operator was unable to locate a transaction with a similar vehicle registration
number to the appellant’s within its reports, it was unable to determine whether a payment was
actually made for the vehicle, for the correct location. As such, the operator was not able to take
this into consideration and respond to the appellant’s appeal accordingly. I acknowledge that the
appellant has provided a copy of the operator’s response to their appeal, but this does not a"ect
the validity of the PCN. In terms of POPLA’s role, we can only assess whether the parking conditions
were breached. I understand that the appellant has stated that they will make a complaint to the
landowner, but this cannot have any bearing on my decision. Furthermore, the appellant appears
to be questioning the amount of the parking charge. For the avoidance of doubt, the charge does
not represent a loss. The Supreme Court considered private parking charges in a high-pro!le case,
Parking Eye v Beavis, and decided that a charge did not need to re#ect any actual loss incurred by a
parking operator or landowner; the charge simply needed to be in the region of £85. The Court’s
full judgement in the case is available online should the appellant want to read it. After considering
the evidence from both parties, I am satis!ed that the appellant did not make a valid payment for
their vehicle and therefore did not comply with the terms and conditions of the site. As such, the
parking charge has been issued correctly and I must refuse the appeal.

What CCJ? Do you have any understanding of how someone gets a CCJ? Nothing we advise on here will make anyone get a CCJ.

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.

How did you submit your AoS? Did you use the MCOL, email or by post?

With an issue date of 31st October, you have until 4pm on Wednesday 19th November to submit your defence. If you submit an Acknowledgement of Service (AoS) before then (as you say you have), you would then have until 4pm on Wednesday 3rd December to submit your defence.

You only need to submit an AoS if you need extra time to prepare your defence. If you want to submit an AoS then follow the instructions in this linked PDF:

https://www.dropbox.com/s/xvqu3bask5m0zir/money-claim-online-How-to-Acknowledge.pdf?dl=0

Until very recently, we never advised using the MCOL to submit a defence. However, due to recent systemic failures within the CNBC, we feel that it is safer to now submit a short defence using MCOL as it is instantly submitted and entered into the "system". Whilst it will deny the use of some formatting or inclusion of transcripts etc. these can always be included with the Witness Statement (WS) later, if it ever progresses that far.

You will need to copy and paste it into the defence text box on MCOL. It has been checked to make sure that it will fit into the 122 lines limit.

1. The Defendant denies the claim in its entirety. The Defendant asserts that there is no liability to the Claimant and that no debt is owed. The claim is without merit and does not adequately disclose any comprehensible cause of action.

2. There is a lack of precise detail in the Particulars of Claim (PoC) in respect of the factual and legal allegations made against the Defendant such that the PoC do not adequately comply with CPR 16.4.

3. The Defendant is unable to plead properly to the PoC because:

(a) The contract referred to is not detailed or attached to the PoC in accordance with PD 16, para 7.3(1);

(b) The PoC do not state the exact wording of the clause (or clauses) of the terms and conditions of the contract (or contracts) which is/are relied on;

(c) The PoC do not adequately set out the reason (or reasons) why the claimant asserts the defendant has breached the contract (or contracts);

(d) The PoC do not state with sufficient particularity exactly where the breach occurred, the exact time when the breach occurred and how long it is alleged that the vehicle was parked before the parking charge was allegedly incurred;

(e) The PoC do not state precisely how the sum claimed is calculated, including the basis for any statutory interest, damages, or other charges;

(f) The PoC do not state what proportion of the claim is the parking charge and what proportion is damages;

(g) The PoC do not provide clarity on whether the Defendant is sued as the driver or the keeper of the vehicle, as the claimant cannot plead alternative causes of action without specificity.

4. The Defendant submits that courts have previously struck out materially similar claims of their own initiative for failure to adequately comply with CPR 16.4, particularly where the Particulars of Claim failed to specify the contractual terms relied upon or explain the alleged breach with sufficient clarity.

5. In comparable cases involving modest sums, judges have found that requiring further case management steps would be disproportionate and contrary to the overriding objective. Accordingly, strike-out was deemed appropriate. The Defendant submits that the same reasoning applies in this case and invites the court to adopt a similar approach by striking out the claim due to the Claimant’s failure to adequately comply with CPR 16.4, rather than permitting an amendment. The Defendant proposes that the following Order be made:

Draft Order:

Of the Court's own initiative and upon reading the particulars of claim and the defence.

AND the court being of the view that the particulars of claim do not adequately comply with CPR 16.4(1)(a) because: (a) they do not set out the exact wording of the clause (or clauses) of the terms and conditions of the contract which is (or are) relied on; and (b) they do not adequately set out the reason (or reasons) why the claimant asserts that the defendant was in breach of contract.

AND the claimant could have complied with CPR 16.4(1)(a) had it served separate detailed particulars of claim, as it could have done pursuant to PD 7C, para 5.2, but chose not to do so.

AND upon the Court determining, having regard to the overriding objective (CPR 1.1), that it would be disproportionate to direct further pleadings or to allot any further share of the Court’s resources to this claim (for example by ordering further particulars of claim and a further defence, with consequent case management).

ORDER:

1. The claim is struck out.

2. Permission to either party to apply to set aside, vary or stay this order by application on notice, which must be filed at this Court not more than 7 days after service of this order, failing which no such application may be made.

Just submit the defence now, as is.