Free Traffic Legal Advice

Hi all, first post, looking for a sense check on where I stand before anything formal arrives.

---

THE BASICS
Parking company: Euro Car Parks
Location: Weavers Wharf, Kidderminster
Date of alleged contravention: August 2025
Site type: ANPR, reason given as "no valid payment or validation to cover duration of stay"
My position: I am the registered keeper. The vehicle was sold a few weeks after the alleged contravention date.

---

THE ISSUE
I never received the original Notice to Keeper. The first correspondence I was aware of was a letter from Debt Recovery Plus demanding £170. I believe the NTK may not have reached me due to the vehicle being sold shortly after the parking date.

---

CORRESPONDENCE TIMELINE
Step 1 - My initial contact via ECP website contact form
Upon receiving the DRP letter I submitted a message via ECP's website requesting a copy of the original notice, photos, and confirmation of the original charge amount. I cited PoFA 2012 and noted ECP remains the legal creditor.

---

Step 2 - ECP's response
ECP replied from a no-reply address stating they could not accept my correspondence as the matter had been passed to DRP, and that all communication must now go through them.

---

Step 3 - My formal email to ECP appeals address
As I could not reply to the no-reply address I forwarded the chain to the appeals email listed on their website at the time. In this email I confirmed I was not refusing payment, offered to settle at the original charge amount, cited Schedule 4 PoFA 2012 noting ECP remains legal creditor and DRP has no independent standing, requested ECP either accept direct payment or confirm they were not pursuing the matter, and noted I did not consent to further third party data processing under UK GDPR. ECP never replied.

---

Step 4 - Attempted further contact after DCBL letter arrived
When I later tried to chase via the appeals email I received an automated response stating that address is no longer in use, directing me to the website contact form. When I used the contact form I received an automated response saying the matter had been referred to DCBL and to speak to them. ECP have effectively closed off all direct communication routes.

---

DRP LETTERS
I have DRP chaser letters dated 3rd November, 18th November, 3rd December and 31st December. I do not have the original DRP letter or any correspondence before early November as some letters were lost during a house move. No formal Letter Before Claim was received at any point during the DRP correspondence period.

---

MOST RECENT DEVELOPMENT
After moving house I received my first ever letter from DCBL (Direct Collection Bailiffs Ltd) acting for ECP. The letter states £170 is owed, gives 14 days to pay or contact them, explicitly states it is NOT subject to High Court or bailiff action, and says they may recommend their client commence legal action.

---

WHERE I AM NOW
No LBC. No court claim. First DCBL letter only at this stage. I have copies of my ECP correspondence and the four DRP letters available if helpful. I did not appeal via POPLA as I was unaware of the charge until the DRP letter arrived, by which point that window had long passed.

---

MY QUESTIONS
Is the DCBL letter a standard pre-action step or does it indicate court action is genuinely closer?
Given the NTK was never received, is ECP's keeper liability position under PoFA 2012 weakened?
Should I respond to DCBL at all, or sit tight?
If a claim arrives, is £170 likely to be the enforceable amount or would a court reduce it?
Any known history of ECP/DCBL issuing claims for this site or at this value?
Given ECP have blocked all direct communication routes, does this strengthen my position at all?

Thanks in advance.

---

---

---

---

---

Appreciate the reply.

I’ve now sent a SAR via the ICO, mainly to force disclosure of the NTK, DVLA KADOE logs and full case history so I can confirm whether PoFA has been properly complied with.

From your experience, how likely is it at this stage that DCB Legal actually pick this up and issue a Letter of Claim?

I can pretty much guarantee you that the ECP issued NtK will not be PoFA compliant and that, in theory, should make this easy to defend and they will have no idea who the driver was.

But let's wait for the NtK to arrive to be sure.

ECP normally respond to SAR very quickly - probably because they see money - maybe they know that SAR requests normal lead to payment, who knows?

The NtK is not PoFA compliant.

Can we assume that they have no idea who the driver was?

This is some comments I made in another Euro Car Parks thread relating to the evidence ECP provided at the POPLA stage.

This should give you the pointers you are seeking?



Comments on Euro Car Parks evidence.


I note with interest that ECP have not engaged with any of my evidence or specific appeal points.

This appears to mean an automatic win for the appellant since the operator is required to rebut each appeal point under POPLA rules?

However, I note from other appeals on the internet that POPLA Assessors often break from protocol and ignore these specific rules.

I will therefore make the following comments based on what the operator has submitted.


The operator has submitted a generic evidence pack rather than an evidence pack / response in keeping with my appeal.

This appears deliberate and I believe that they have taken this approach as they are unable to rebut non PoFA compliance appeal points using their own NtK because the NtK does not meet the requirements for either wording or format.

I will once again highlight the short comings of the operators NtK.

I would request that the POPLA Assessor keeps firmly to my appeal points in order to make sure all appeal points are addressed using the legislation.

PoFA Schedule 4 Paragraph 9(2)(b) specifies;

"The notice must inform the keeper that the driver is required to pay parking charges in respect of the specified period of parking and that the parking charges have not been paid in full"

However, the operator's notice specifies;

"You are now advised under the paragraph 9(2)(b) of schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 that the driver of the motor vehicle is required to pay this parking charge in full."

You will immediately notice that the operator's sentence fails to meet the complete requirements of 9(2)(b) - whilst they specify that the driver is required to pay the parking charge, the sentence fails to state the second part of the requirement, namely; that the parking charges have not been paid in full.

In order to demonstrate integrity and transparency, if the POPLA Assessor believes that the notice does contain the sentence (the parking charges have not been paid in full) required by 9(2)(b), I would respectfully ask the Assessor to quote, verbatim, the sentence from the NtK which meets the two requirements of 9(2)(b).


The missing information is immediately fatal to the operators reliance on PoFA as total compliance is required.


Further,

PoFA Schedule 4 Paragraph 9(2)(e) specifies the following;

The notice must state that the creditor does not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver and invite the keeper—

Sub-paragraphs 9(2)(e)(i) and 9(2)(2)(ii) then set out both the wording and format for the two conditions of the invitation which 9(2)(e) requires.

The two conditions must be separated by the word 'or' - the word 'or' has a defined legal meaning in legislation so must be contained in the invitation.

The compliant sentence would therefore read as follows; (or something very close)

Your are notified under paragraph 9(2)(e) of schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 that the creditor does not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver - the keeper is therefore invited to (i)to pay the unpaid parking charges; or (ii)if the keeper was not the driver of the vehicle, to notify the creditor of the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver and to pass the notice on to the driver."

The required paragraph containing the statutory wording and two limbed invitation (separated by the word 'or') is not present on the operator's NtK.

Once again this immediately fatal to the operator's reliance on PoFA.

When examined, the operators NtK jumps directly from their (incorrect) version of 9(2)(b) straight onto the requirements of 9(2)(f) - the requirements of 9(2)(e) are totally over looked.

Once again, in order to demonstrate integrity and transparency, if the POPLA Assessor believes that the notice does contain the sentence which specifies both the mandatory wording and two limbed invitation then I would respectfully ask the Assessor to quote, verbatim, the sentence from the NtK which meets all the requirements of 9(2)(e) along with the two conditions of the keeper invitation specified in sub-paragraphs 9(2)(e)(i) and 9(2)(e)(ii).

This information is not present.

I am happy that paragraph 9(2)(f) is present and compliant but the presence of 9(2)(f) does not negate the requirements of 9(2)(b) and 9(2)(e).





Feel free to ask any questions.

They will (in 99% of cases) pull out at the Court stage but you'll need to jump through the hoops.

You are now waiting for a Letter Before Claim which needs replying to.

Ignore all other begging debt letters which will almost certainly arrive.

Once the LBC arrives we can advise further.

DCB Legal will almost certainly issue a County Court Claim but this is easy to defend - they work on the basis that the average person on the street doesn't know how the legal system works and **** up at some stage.