Free Traffic Legal Advice

Firstly, thanks in advance to any help provided!

Situation:
- On the 30th December 2025, the driver parked off of Ambury Road South, PE29 3EH, and did not realise it was private parking.
- The car they were driving was borrowed for a short while from a family member.
- The family member received the PCN letter in the post on the 21st of January for a £60 charge, and gave it to the driver. The PCN letter said it was posted on the 8th Jan 2026, but the letter did not arrive until Wednesday 21st January. According to the terms set out in their notice, the date of the notice is deemed to be the second working day after posting — so the 12th of January - and based on that date, the 14-day discounted payment window should have expired on the 26th January. However, when the driver attempted to make payment on the 24th January, only the full £100 amount was offered.
- The PCN pictured the private parking sign, which the driver had missed.
- The driver appealed the PCN citing 1) Late Delivery/Unreasonable Notice Window 2) Failure to Provide Practical Opportunity to Pay Discounted Rate 3) Presumption of Delivery / Burden of Proof, and asked for the PCN to be cancelled all-together.
- The driver then forgot about the appeal due to life things happening (family grief, losing their job, not yet getting a new job etc.). Not an excuse, but just additional context.
- A few days ago, the driver received a letter from DCBL Ltd dated the 4th June 2026 regarding a 'final notice of tended legal action' for £170. They had received no prior letters from them.
- The driver contacted NPC and they resent an appeal outcome letter (which was rejected) dated 23rd February 2026. They said this was emailed to the driver, but they cannot find it in their emails, so assume that it must have gone into their spam folder and was missed before it was deleted after 30 days.


Notices Received:
- Here is the original PCN received back in January 2026 ( ).
- The driver doesn't have a copy of the exact appeal letter written, but it's something along the lines of this ( ). These attachments where provided alongside the appeal ( ).
- This email was sent from NCP when the driver requested the appeal outcome letter in June 2026 ( ).
- Here was the appeal outcome letter that was emailed to the driver in February 2026, but they cannot locate it ( ).
- Letter from DCBL dated 4th June (https://ibb.co/4ZfCrWpq).


Questions
1. Should the driver send a Subject Access Request to NPC to obtain everything they have around the fine, including the exact appeal letter?
2. Does the driver ignore all the letters from DCBL Ltd, until a letter from DCL Legal arrives?
3. Is there enough grounds to follow it through to court if needed?

I have managed to clear the resolution and the PCN makes no mention of period of parking observation time is NA. You can use this in due course but as said signs at the site and their location would be advantageous.

@Sander333
Thank you. Noted that it's an invoice, and not a fine, and also that they'll rely on The Interpretation Act.

And no, I did not appeal to IAS. I did plan to if the appeal was rejected, but as I didn't see the rejection and forgot about it altogether, I missed the window to appeal.

Here is the space the driver parked the car, along with the signs. Fully aware of the stupidity! + .


@InterCity125
Thanks, but reviewing the NtK, it does say the below, so doesn't that meet the requirement?

"YOU ARE NOW INVITED TO (i) Pay the unpaid Parking Charge; or (ii) if you were not the driver of the vehicle, notify us ... of the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver..."

and later:

"...if after the period of 28 days ... we do not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver, we will have the right to recover from you..."

@InterCity125
Oh okay, thank you. I think I'm understanding it now. So because the NtK literally doesn't say "The creditor does not know the name and address of the driver" but instead references 'The driver", they haven't met the requirement of PoFA Schedule 4 Paragraph 9(2)(e)?

Would you be able to direct me in the direction of where I can find that it's been tested in court? I've done an online search, but am not coming up with much, I'm afraid.


Also, as part of the appeal, the driver did admit that they were driving so that the owner of the vehicle stopped receiving letters. I believe that this was the wrong thing to do, but will it come back to bite the driver?

I cannot immediately find the case relating to the wording by it is somewhere on the Parking Prankster website blog.

If you have time then you could search for it.

But, I wouldn't worry too much at this stage - a County Court Judge will understand the requirements of PoFA once you them out (if it ever comes to that).

If the driver has been identified then the PoFA angle is not applicable.