Free Traffic Legal Advice

I have received a money claim from DCB Legal on behalf of UK Parking Control Ltd. My wife parked the car at Brent Cross shopping centre without realising it was a disabled parking bay. I received the notice to owner and letters from DCB but continued to ignore and throw away as this has worked with previous ones.

I have a digital copy of the NtO that was initially sent to the leasing company which I have attached along with the money claim.

https://ibb.co/DPWwj9zp


Any help truly appreciated!

yes I did receive a Notice to Hirer in my own name from UKPC.
I have removed the picture of the claim form for now.

If you received a NtH, did it also come with the required documents?

See paragraph 13 of https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2012/9/schedule/4

(a)a statement signed by or on behalf of the vehicle-hire firm to the effect that at the material time the vehicle was hired to a named person under a hire agreement;

(b)a copy of the hire agreement; and

(c)a copy of a statement of liability signed by the hirer under that hire agreement.

They won’t have done this, so you will have a defence based on no liability because of their failure to comply with the requirements of PoFA 2012 to transfer liability to the hirer.

The forum contains a number of similar cases in which UKPC has not complied with PoFA to transfer liability, and indeed many parking companies do not, just sending something called a "Notice to Hirer" without the supporting documentation is usually enough to persuade the majority of recipients to pay but there is no legal reason without complying with PoFA 2012. Now that you've passed the appeal stage, you will have to file a defence and will have to stay on top of the paperwork, but it's normal for DCB Legal to discontinue cases before having to pay the court fee. You will get advice from here on the process but you will have to stay on top of your deadlines. Even if you don't get your SAR response in time, you're on pretty firm ground with the PoFA 2012 argument anyway.

When you come to write a defence, I would advise starting by disputing the Particulars of Claim on the N1SDT form, stating that the driver of the car has never been identified and that you are being pursued as the hirer of the car. Then go on to say that, as hirer, you can not be liable for the actions of the unknown driver because UKPC has not complied with the requirements of PoFA 2012 Schedule 4 Paragraph 13 with its Notice to Hirer sent to you to transfer the liability to you, because .....

Yes.
You should work it out and post here for comment.
I think I’ve given you enough clues! I’m not going to write it for you.
The “F” in the name of the forum should be a hint. If you want to find and pay or a competent solicitor who will do your work for you, that’s fine.
You have to write and understand your own defence. We’ll help you write it, but we won’t write it for you.

Haha thats quite ok.
I'm sorry if I sounded like I was asking you to do all the work for me because I definitely wasn't expecting it and I'm very grateful for the help that you and others on here provide in your own free time. It was just the ... at the end that threw me!

I will draft a response - is it ok to respond on the moneyclaim website or is by post/email best?

The Defendant is the Hirer/Lessee of the vehicle xxx. The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to the relief claimed, or any relief at all.

The Claimant’s particulars of claim state that a parking charge was incurred by the driver of the vehicle on xxx. The Defendant was not the driver of the vehicle at the material time and is under no legal obligation to identify the driver to a private parking operator.

The Claimant has brought these proceedings against the Defendant under the assumption that the Hirer must be held liable for the actions of the driver. In English Law, there is no presumption that the hirer or keeper of a vehicle was the driver on any given occasion (Combined Parking Solutions v Ms X).

To transfer liability for a parking charge from the driver to a Hirer, the Claimant must strictly comply with the mandatory statutory requirements set out in Paragraph 13 and Paragraph 14 of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012.

The Claimant failed to comply with PoFA 2012 Schedule 4. Specifically, the Claimant failed to provide the mandatory documentation required under Paragraph 14(2)(a), which dictates that the Notice to Hirer must be accompanied by a copy of the hire agreement and a copy of the signed statement of liability. The Claimant failed to provide these documents, rendering the Notice to Hirer defective and invalid.

Due to the Claimant’s strict failure to adhere to the rigid statutory requirements of PoFA 2012 Schedule 4 regarding hired vehicles, the Claimant has forfeited the right to claim hirer liability.

Consequently, the Claimant has no lawful cause of action against the Defendant. The Defendant cannot be held liable for a contract to which they were not a party.

The Court is respectfully invited to strike out this claim as having no reasonable prospect of success.

Is the defence above ok?

PoFA also requires the notice to keeper to be sent along with the notice to hirer. Even if you happened to have it anyway.
Otherwise your defence is sound, and remember that DCB Legal will almost certainly discontinue eventually, before having to pay the court fee, but in the meantime you will need to complete a N180 Directions Questionnaire when DCB Legal sends you theirs and the court tells you, you will need to attend a meaningless mandatory mediation session, and you will eventually get the case allocated to your local court with a deadline for DCB Legal to pay the court fee.

Search the forum for "N180" and mediation to know more, and please post the letter of allocation when you eventually receive it. We don't need to see DCB Legal's DQ because they are all the same and your preferences override theirs anyway.