This is the legal position:
The operator (NPC) cannot legally pursue you as the Keeper after you have complied with the transfer of liability process and provided a valid serviceable address for the driver. The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA) Schedule 4 explicitly states that once the parking operator is notified of the driver’s identity and address for service, they lose the right to hold the Keeper liable.
You named your brother as the driver and provided a valid address for service in the USA. Once the transfer of liability was confirmed, NPC had no further legal basis to pursue you as the Keeper.
Since they acknowledged the transfer of liability (via email confirmation), NPC cannot simply disregard it because the driver is outside the UK. PoFA does not state that a transfer of liability is invalid if the driver is overseas. It only requires that a serviceable address is provided.
The reissuing of a new NtK with the same reference number after the transfer of liability suggests improper conduct and an attempt to mislead the court. Continuing to demand payment from you despite acknowledging the transfer is unreasonable behaviour and forms grounds for a costs order under CPR 27.14(2)(g) for their unreasonable conduct.
Having already transferred liability and received confirmation, NPC should be estopped from bringing a claim against you. This means they cannot keep changing their position after confirming the liability transfer.
If NPC wanted to enforce the charge, they should have pursued the driver in the USA. Their failure to do so does not justify pursuing the Keeper when liability has already been transferred.
It's a pity that you didn't come here before submitting your defence. Your defence raises valid points, but it needed clarity, structure, and legal references to maximise its impact. The court will be looking for a well-reasoned response that directly addresses the Particulars of Claim (PoC) and demonstrates why the claim has no cause of action against you.
The Particulars of Claim have serious issues, besides not complying with CPR 16.4. The Claimant states you are pursued as the driver (paragraph 3 of PoC). However, you were not the driver, and you transferred liability correctly. The burden of proof is on the Claimant to prove you were driving.
The Claimant cannot pursue you under PoFA because you named the driver and provided a valid serviceable address. PoFA 2012, Schedule 4, Paragraph 5(1)(b) states that once the Keeper provides the driver’s details, keeper liability ceases.
The Claimant had the driver’s details and failed to pursue him. Their decision to ignore the transfer of liability and continue to chase you is unreasonable.
The Claimant reissued a second NtK for the same PCN, which is irregular and suggests an attempt to mislead. The claim for £170 includes an unlawful added sum (typically a false 'damages' or 'debt recovery fee'). This has been ruled abusive in multiple cases (
Excel v Wilkinson [2022],
Britannia v Semark-Jullien [2020]).
You could submit an amended defence. However, this would cost £303, although you could get those costs back if you are successful. The problem is that this is never likely to ever get to a hearing because DCB Legal with discontinue the claim before they have to pay the hearing fee. There is no doubt about that.
However, assuming you are the first person on the planet where DCB Legal don't discontinue a single PCN claim that is defended, no matter how feebly, these arguments can be included in your Witness Statement when the court orders one.
Even though the claim is now in litigation, you can still take actions to put pressure on CPM and DCB Legal, particularly by exposing their procedural failings and unreasonable behaviour. Consider these options:
1. Formal Complaint to NPCEven though NPC is an IPC member and the IPC complaints process is worthless, a formal complaint to NPC is still strategically useful because:
• It forces NPC to respond (or fail to respond), proving they are non-compliant.
• It documents their breach of the Private Parking Single Code of Practice (PPSCoP).
• It provides evidence for the DVLA complaint, demonstrating that NPC ignored their obligations under the KADOE contract.
• If the case does ever go to a hearing, it shows you acted reasonably and in good faith, while CPM acted unreasonably.
2. DVLA complaint:Parking firms obtain Keeper details from the DVLA’s KADOE system, which requires them to act in compliance with PoFA and PPSCoP rules. Your complaint should highlight:
• CPM’s misuse of DVLA data by continuing to pursue you after acknowledging the driver details.
• Their attempt to mislead the court by issuing a second NtK.
• Their use of a debt collector (DCBL) to harass you despite already transferring liability.
A DVLA complaint can be particularly damaging to CPM because if they are found to have breached BPA rules, they could lose access to the DVLA database.
3. Complaint to the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA)DCB Legal is regulated by the SRA, and you can report them for:
• Knowingly pursuing an unmeritorious claim.
• Ignoring evidence of a valid liability transfer.
• Using litigation as a harassment tactic.
The SRA takes a dim view of law firms using the court system to harass people when they know their case is baseless. A well-worded complaint could cause internal reviews at DCB Legal, which might prompt them to discontinue the case faster.
4. Data Protection Complaint to CPMYou can send a Subject Access Request (SAR) under the UK GDPR, demanding:
• All data they hold on you, including internal notes/emails.
• All correspondence regarding the Transfer of Liability.
• Any communication between CPM and DCB Legal.
This forces them to expose any evidence that contradicts their claim and wastes their time responding. If they fail to comply, you can escalate to the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO).
5. Pre-Action Conduct Complaint to DCB LegalAlthough the case is already in litigation, you can still send a formal complaint to DCB Legal, putting them on notice that their claim is abusive, vexatious, and unreasonable.
Demand an explanation as to why they are pursuing you despite a valid Transfer of Liability. Threaten a wasted costs order for unreasonable behaviour (CPR 27.14(2)(g)). Warn them that you will escalate complaints to the BPA, DVLA, and SRA.
Would you like assistance in drafting those complaints?
