Free Traffic Legal Advice

Is the notice you receive addressed to you in your name or is it a copy of a reminder received by the Hire company? A reminder is useless to us for providing advice. We need to see the original Notice to Keeper (NtK) or the subsequent Notice to Hirer (NtH) if the Hire company have correctly transferred liability to you as the Hirer.

Normally, a Parking Charge Notice (PCN) issued to a leased/hired vehicle is a "Golden Ticket" because, as long as the drivers identity is not revealed, they cannot hold the Hirer liable as in 99.999% of cases involving hired/leased vehicles, the parking operator will not fully comply with all the requirements of PoFA to enable them to hold the Hirer liable.

So, before we continue, in whose name is that reminder notice? Did you receive anything at all before that notice? If so, show us but redact any persona details and the PCN number. Leave all dates and times visible.

No one who is here receiving advice and following it pays a penny to ECP.

So, the rental company transferred liability from themselves to you, the Hirer. Once they have done that, they are no longer liable and are out of the picture.

However, ECP is then obliged to send you a Notice to Hirer (NtH). What you have show us is not an NtH but a reminder letter which does not conform to the requirements of PoFA.

I suggest you now send a formal complaint to ECP with the following:

Quote

Euro Car Parks Limited
30 Dorset Square
London
NW1 6QJ

Sent as attachment to ECP contact webpage

Subject: Formal Complaint – No Notice to Hirer (NtH) Received

Dear Sir/Madam,

I am writing to formally complain (not appeal) about the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) referenced below, which I received as a Final Notification Letter dated 18/02/2025. This is the first correspondence I have received regarding this alleged contravention.

PCN Number: [Insert PCN Number]
Vehicle Registration: [Insert Registration]
Date of Alleged Contravention: 25/11/2024
Location: MFG - Cricklewood

Since this letter is addressed to me as the Hirer, the hire company must have transferred liability. However, under Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA), Euro Car Parks was required to issue me with a Notice to Hirer (NtH) within 21 days of receiving my details from the hire company.

To date, I have not received any such Notice to Hirer (NtH). Therefore, I require you to:

1. Confirm whether a Notice to Hirer (NtH) was ever issued and, if so, provide a copy of it.
2. Provide proof of sending that complies with the Interpretation Act 1978, specifically evidence of proper service of the NtH.
3. Explain why I was not given an opportunity to appeal the PCN or provided with an opportunity to make a secondary appeal to POPLA.

If you cannot provide proof of sending a valid Notice to Hirer, then no liability has been established under PoFA, and I cannot be held responsible for this charge.

I expect a response within 14 days, failing which I will escalate this matter to the British Parking Association (BPA) and the DVLA for investigation and further action.

Yours faithfully,

[Hirer's Full Name]
[Hirer's Contact Information]

Use their contact page here: https://www.eurocarparks.com/enquiry/ where you can attach the letter as a PDF file and upload it.

It looks like you’re in the usual process now.

Not being able to appeal isn’t huge because your appeal would have been rejected anyway. But you could still write to ECP for the record to state that you won’t be paying because, as hirer, their notice to hirer fails the requirements of PoFA 2012 to transfer liability from the driver to you.

Ignore DCBL/Debt Recovery Plus completely.

DCB Legal or someone may then issue a Letter of Claim, come back here when they do, but essentially you can reiterate that you’re not going to pay. You would win in court if it came to that. All their nonsense in the meantime is designed to make you give up or be frightened into paying.

ECP didn’t used to go to court anyway, so you may just have to put up with bluster until they give up.

Quote from: jfollows on April 09, 2025, 11:41:36 am

It looks like you’re in the usual process now.

Not being able to appeal isn’t huge because your appeal would have been rejected anyway. But you could still write to ECP for the record to state that you won’t be paying because, as hirer, their notice to hirer fails the requirements of PoFA 2012 to transfer liability from the driver to you.

Ignore DCBL/Debt Recovery Plus completely.

DCB Legal or someone may then issue a Letter of Claim, come back here when they do, but essentially you can reiterate that you’re not going to pay. You would win in court if it came to that. All their nonsense in the meantime is designed to make you give up or be frightened into paying.

ECP didn’t used to go to court anyway, so you may just have to put up with bluster until they give up.

Thank you for your advice!

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.