Free Traffic Legal Advice

First, respond to the BPA fob-off with the following:

Quote

Subject: Re: Euro Car Parks – Formal Complaint – PCN [insert reference]

FAO: AOS Investigations Team

Dear Sir/Madam,

Thank you for your response. I must respectfully point out serious flaws in your reasoning and conclusions.

This matter is now the subject of formal legal proceedings in the County Court. Nevertheless, your dismissal of the concerns raised reveals a fundamental misunderstanding of both the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA) and the Private Parking Single Code of Practice (Version 1.1, 17 February 2025) to which all BPA members are bound.

1. Your refusal to investigate fails to address the core complaint
You state that since I “have received a copy of the Notice to Hirer”, you will not investigate further. This fails to acknowledge the specific complaint:

• that the original Notice to Hirer was never served, and that no appeal opportunity was offered.

The issue is not whether the document exists but whether it was lawfully served within the time and manner required by Schedule 4 Paragraph 14 of PoFA. The operator has produced no proof of service compliant with the Interpretation Act 1978, such as a certificate of posting or equivalent evidence.

2. You misrepresent the purpose of the Code
You assert that your remit excludes assessing whether the operator is “acting unlawfully”. That is not the complaint made. The complaint is that:

• The operator pursued liability without properly serving a Notice to Hirer;
• The operator denied access to the appeals process;
• The operator escalated the charge to a debt collector without resolving a valid complaint.

These actions amount to direct breaches of the Private Parking Single Code of Practice v1.1, in particular:

• Clause 8.4.1 (c) – requires operators to consider appeals received outside the normal 28-day period where exceptional circumstances exist (such as a missing NtH).
• Clause 8.4.9 – requires that when rejecting an appeal, the operator must give the option to appeal to the relevant Independent Appeals Service and must suspend enforcement or debt recovery until that appeal is determined.
• Clause 11.2 – requires any complaint that includes or may include an appeal to be treated as such until it is clear otherwise, and to be handled fairly and transparently.

The operator has disregarded all three of these mandatory requirements.

3. BPA’s failure to investigate supports abuse of process
Your refusal to investigate may now be relied upon by the Claimant as supposed evidence that the operator acted “reasonably” or “in accordance with the Code”, which is demonstrably false. This undermines the BPA’s stated role as an impartial regulatory body and facilitates misuse of DVLA keeper data contrary to the KADOE contract obligations referenced in Section 3 of the Code.

4. Next steps
I request that the BPA:

1. Reconsider the complaint based on whether the Notice to Hirer was served, not merely issued;
2. Confirm whether Euro Car Parks was compliant with the Code when denying access to the independent appeals process; and
3. Provide a written position that can be disclosed to the court as part of my defence.

If you maintain your refusal to investigate, I will escalate this matter to both:

• The DVLA’s Accredited Trade Association oversight function, and
• The Independent Complaints Assessor (ICA) for failure to discharge your investigatory obligations under the Code.
I look forward to your revised position.

Yours faithfully,

[Your Name]
[Your Address]

Thank you, Actioned

With an issue date of 23rd October, you have until 4pm on Tuesday 18th November to submit your defence. If you submit an Acknowledgement of Service (AoS) before then, you would then have until 4pm on Tuesday 2nd 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

MCOL CPR16.4 only defence

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.

Quote

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.

Hello, Following submission of the defence on the 7th November, I have since received a letter on 12th December from the Civil National Business Centre titled "Notice of proposed allocation to the small claims track"

It states

"Take notice that

1. This is now a defended claim - A copy of the defence has been sent to you by the defendent

2. It appears that this case is suitable for allocation to the small claims track.

If you believe that this track is not the appropriate track for the claim, you must complete box C1 on the small claims directions questionnaire (Form N180) and explain why.

3. You must by 29 December 2025 complete the small claims directions directions questionnaire (Form N180) and file it with the court office"

Is there anything I must do with this? I've received no other correspondence to my defence

Thank you, much appreciated. N180 form filled in and sent the addresses mentioned with myself cc'd.