Free Traffic Legal Advice

Please read this:

READ THIS FIRST - Private Parking Charges Forum guide

No "debt" is to be paid by any date. Ignore the useless and powerless Debt Recovery Agents (DRAs). They are not a party to the contract allegedly breached by the driver and cannot initiate anything.

Their sole purpose is to fool the low-hanging fruit on the gullible tree to pay up out of ignorance and fear. Never, ever, EVER, communicate with a powerless debt collector.

No "fine" has been issued and I will pay you £100 for every occurrence of the word "fine" you can find on any paperwork. Ignore DRP+. They are no the company that issued a Parking Charge Notice (PCN) and you certainly don't pay them a penny unless you have just fallen off the gullible tree.

Who did you appeal to? What did you say in your appeal?

It is a pity you hadn't discovered this forum before you made any appeal. (Not so) Smart Parking are one of the easiest to defeat at the initial appeal stage because they do not issue Parking Charge Notices (PCNs) that comply with PoFA. What this means that as long as the Keeper appeals without identifying the driver, they have nowhere to go.

By appealing as the Keeper and blabbing the drivers identity, inadvertently or otherwise, with silly statements such as "I did this or that" instead of just referring to the driver in the third person such as "The driver did this or that", the Keeper has thrown away the easiest of appeals that would have left (not so) Smart Parking in a Catch-22 dilemma.

Why? Because the unknown driver is always liable. The known Keeper is not under any legal obligation to identify the unknown driver to an unregulated private parking company. So, if (not so) Smart Parking do not know the identity of the unknown driver and because they do not rely on PoFA to be able to hold the known Keeper liable, they are stuffed.

If the Keeper has blabbed that they were also the driver when there was no legal obligation to do so, they have, proverbially, shot themselves in both feet! The Keeper and the driver are two separate legal entities.

The POPLA decision is not binding on you. However, are you willing to fight this as far as it is likely to go? You are going to have to weather a storm of useless debt collector letters. You can safely ignore any Debt Recovery Agent (DRA) letters such as those from DRP+. They are not a party to the contract allegedly breached by the driver. Never, ever, ever, communicate with a useless DRA. All they can do is try and get the low-hanging fruit on the gullible tree to pay up out of ignorance and fear.

What the most likely outcome will be a county court claim for the alleged debt which is easily defended. In the vast majority of cases, as long as the claim is defended, they will eventually discontinue. In the rest, the claim is struck out due to errors made by the claimants solicitor. Of the tiny number that actually go as far as a hearing, most are won.

So, are you prepared to fight this with the advice you will get from here?

How long is a piece of string? The DRA phase is usually around a month or two but, in theory, they can chase forever. They won't.

The phase you are waiting for is when they begin the litigation stage by sending you a Letter of Claim (LoC). This is required by the Pre Action Protocols (PAP). You will note the difference between an LoC and a DRA letter because the DRA letters always give you only 14 days to pay. The LoC must give you at least 30 days.

A DRA cannot issue an LoC because, as already mentioned, they are not a party to the contract that the driver allegedly breached. Only the party involved or their legal representative can issue an LoC. (Not so) Smart Parking do not dp their own litigation and usually farm it out to their bulk litigator of choice, DCB Legal, but they could also use one of a few others.

When you receive an LoC, come back and we will take you through the process. (Not so) Smart Parking and their bulk litigators are really not vert smart at all. They are easily defeated and only push on in the process up to the point where they have to pay the trial fee, usually around a month before any hearing date and then discontinue if the claim has not already been thrown out for other failures that they never learn to correct.

IN all, it could last up to a year with the way the court system is overloaded at the moment. Just remember, no one pays a penny to (not so) Smart Parking if they are receiving and following the advice they receive here.

"Of the tiny number that actually go as far as a hearing, most are won" I would question that and it will depend on who's taking you to court, Smart parking certainly aren't very smart, some of the other companies are a lot better at what they do, they will discontinue the ones they are less likely to win so if does got to court they think they have a reasonable chance of winning. What the court decides on the day though can have an element of randomness in it.

I disagree. The only reason the few that make it all the way to a hearing and are lost is more often than not down to the defendant submitting a weak defence that is poorly pleaded and a subsequent Witness Statement that also fails to properly flesh out the already weak defence. That and their nerves on the day.

Yes, there is an element of "judge bingo" but in general, most judges are already aware of the abuse of the system by these bulk litigators on behalf of their vexatious clients. The only difference between what we suggest on here and the MSE forum is the actual defence. The MSE defence is a very long boilerplate defence that most judges are fully aware of and cannot be bothered to actually read all of it. Judges want an easy life and a short defence is much more likely to actually be read.

The short defence suggested here points out the deficiencies in the claimants PoC and failures of CPR 16.4. Now we ask the court to strike out the claim for these CPR failures and, should the judge not agree, to make the claimant submit further detailed particulars so that the defendant can know and respond properly to the claim.

I don't think we have and a single one of the defences I have suggested submitting go as far as a hearing to date. The defence was suggested by a current District Judge and is tweaked as necessary.

If/when you receive an LoC, come back and we will advise further. Ignore anything else except an LoC or an actual N1SDT Claim Form from the CNBC.

I'm not sure which bit in reply #9 is not clear.

QDR will not issue an LoC. They are simply acting as useless debt collectors and they are hoping you are low-hanging fruit on the gullible tree who can be intimidated into paying up out of ignorance and fear.

AN LoC MUST give you at least 30 days to pay, so lodge that in your memory and come back when you receive an actual LoC.