Free Traffic Legal Advice

Subject: Formal Complaint and Data Rectification Notice – [PCN Reference Number]

Dear NCP Complaints Team,

I am writing in my capacity as the registered keeper regarding the above-referenced parking charge notice (PCN). This letter constitutes a formal complaint and a data rectification notice, which you are obliged to consider as an appeal pursuant to Section 11.2 of the BPA/IPC Private Parking Single Code of Practice (PPSCoP).

I did not receive the original Notice to Keeper (NtK) for this alleged contravention. The only correspondence I have received is a reminder, which left no opportunity to appeal within the correct timeframe. This failure is a breach of Section 11.2 of the PPSCoP, which requires operators to ensure notices are issued properly and that keepers are given a fair opportunity to challenge the parking charge.

Furthermore, NCP cannot hold a registered keeper liable for any alleged contravention on land that is under statutory control. Gatwick Airport is not 'relevant land' as defined by Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA), and as such, the registered keeper cannot be pursued under this legislation.

If Gatwick Airport wanted to hold owners or keepers liable under its bylaws, this would be a matter for the landowner. However, this is not relevant here because your parking charge is not a statutory penalty but rather a contractual claim issued for your own profit. As such, it can only be pursued against the driver, and there is no legal presumption that the registered keeper is the driver.

I also formally exercise my rights under the UK General Data Protection Regulation (UK GDPR) to request rectification of your records. Please confirm:

1. That my name and address are recorded accurately as per the DVLA-provided details.

2. That no inaccurate or incomplete data has been or will be shared with third parties.

You are required to confirm cancellation of this PCN and rectification of your records within 28 days. Any further attempt to pursue this baseless charge will be considered harassment, and I will escalate my complaint to the BPA, DVLA, or ICO as necessary.

Yours faithfully,


[Your Full Name]

[Your Address]

[Vehicle Registration Number]

My concern is it says if I take no action, they may apply for a CCJ

A County Court Judgment (CCJ) does not just happen—it follows a clear legal process. If someone gets a Parking Charge Notice (PCN) from a private parking company, here's what happens step by step:

1. Parking Charge Notice (PCN) Issued

• The parking company sends a letter (Notice to Keeper) demanding money.

• This is not a fine—it’s an invoice for an alleged breach of contract.

2. Opportunity to Appeal

• The recipient can appeal to the parking company.

•If rejected, they may be able to appeal to POPLA (if BPA member) or IAS (if IPC member).

• If an appeal is lost or ignored, the parking company demands payment.

3. Debt Collection Letters

• The parking company might send scary letters or pass the case to a debt collector.

• Debt collectors have no power—they just send letters and can be ignored.

• No CCJ happens at this stage.

4. Letter Before Claim (LBC)

• If ignored for long enough, the parking company (or their solicitor) sends a Letter Before Claim (LBC).

• This is a warning that they may start a court case.

• The recipient has 30 days to reply before a claim is filed.

• No CCJ happens at this stage.

5. County Court Claim Issued

• If ignored or unpaid, the parking company may file a claim with the County Court.

• The court sends a Claim Form with details of the claim and how to respond.

• The recipient has 14 days to respond (or 28 days if they acknowledge it).

• No CCJ happens at this stage.

6. Court Process

• If the recipient defends the claim, a judge decides if they owe money.

• If the recipient ignores the claim, the parking company wins by default.

• No CCJ happens yet unless the recipient loses and ignores the court.

7. Judgment & Payment

• If the court rules that money is owed, the recipient has 30 days to pay in full.

• If they pay within 30 days, no CCJ goes on their credit file.

• If they don’t pay within 30 days, the CCJ stays on their credit file for 6 years.

Conclusion

CCJs do not appear out of thin air. They only happen if:

• A parking company takes the case to court.

• The person loses or ignores the case.

• The person fails to pay within 30 days.

If you engage with the process (appeal, defend, or pay on time), no CCJ happens.

An update for this case, I received one further reminder letter from Trace Recovery and I have now received the attached letter from their solicitor. Do I need to reply to this and if so, how?

Dear Sirs,

Your Letter Before Claim contains insufficient detail of the claim and fails to provide copies of evidence your client places reliance upon and thus is in complete contravention of the Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims.

I am the registered keeper of the vehicle. I am not obliged to identify the driver and I decline to do so. As there is no legal presumption that the keeper of a vehicle was its driver on any particular occasion, your client cannot pursue me as driver as per VCS v Edward (2023) [H0KF6C9C].

If your client is seeking to rely on Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA) in order to hold me liable as keeper, they are unable to do so. No initial Notice to Keeper was received. As such, no PoFA-compliant NtK was served within the timeframes required by paragraph 9(5) of the Act. Additionally, the location of the alleged contravention is airport land that is under statutory control and therefore there can be no Keeper liability. Your client is therefore only able to hold the driver liable and I am under no legal obligation to identify that person to an unregulated private firm.

A formal complaint was sent to your client and they never had the courtesy to respond except to say that they do not handle Parking Charge complaints. For this reason, I have copied in your client in this response to your Letter of Claim and I put them on notice that their failure to comply wth section 11 of the BPA/IPC Private Parking Single Code of Practice (PPSCoP) will be used against them in a formal complaint to the DVLA as this constitutes a breach of their KADOE agreement and they now risk sanctions that could affect their access to DVLA data.

As your client cannot pursue me as driver or keeper, it would be an abuse of the court’s process for your client to issue a claim against me and I will defend any such claim vigorously and seek costs in relation to your client’s unreasonable and vexatious conduct under Part 27.14(2)(g)

Because your letter lacks specificity and breaches the requirements of the Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims (paragraphs 3.1(a)-(d), 5.1 and 5.2) as well as the Practice Direction - Pre-Action Conduct (paragraphs 6(a) and 6(c)), you must treat this letter as a formal request for all of the documents/information that the protocol now requires your client to provide. Your client must not issue proceedings without complying with that protocol.

As supposed solicitors, you must surely be familiar with the requirements of both the Practice Direction and the Pre-Action Protocol for debt claims and your client, as a serial litigator of debt claims, should likewise be aware of them. As you (and your client) must know, the Practice Direction and Protocol bind all potential litigants, whatever the size or type of the claim. Its express purpose is to assist parties in understanding the claim and their respective positions in relation to it, to enable parties to take stock of their positions and to negotiate a settlement, or at least narrow the issues, without incurring the costs of court proceedings or using up valuable court time. It is embarrassing that a firm of Solicitors are sending a consumer a vague and un-evidenced 'Letter of Claim' in complete ignorance of the pre-existing Practice Direction and the Pre-Action Protocol.

I confirm that, once I am in receipt of a Letter Before Claim that complies with the requirements of para 3.1 (a) of the Pre-Action Protocol, I shall then seek advice and submit a formal response within 30 days, as required by the Protocol. Thus, I require your client to comply with its obligations by sending me the following information/documents:

1. An explanation of the cause of action
2. Whether they are pursuing me as driver or keeper
3. Whether they are relying on the provisions of Schedule 4 of POFA 2012
4. What the details of the claim are; for how long it is claimed the vehicle was parked, how the monies being claimed arose and have been calculated
5. Is the claim for a contractual breach? If so, what is the date of the agreement? The names of the parties to it and provide to me a copy of that contract.
6. If the claim is for a contractual breach, photographs showing the vehicle was parked in contravention of said contract.
7. Is the claim for trespass? If so, provide details.
8. Provide me a copy of the contract with the landowner under which they assert authority to bring the claim, as required by the BPA/IPC Private Parking Single Code of Practice (PPSCoP) section 14.
9. A plan showing where any signs were displayed.
10. Photographs of the signs displayed (size of sign, size of font, height at which displayed) at the time of any alleged contravention.
11. Provide details of the original charge, and detail any interest and administrative or other charges added.
12. Am I to understand that the additional £70 represents what is dressed up as a 'Debt Recovery' fee, and if so, is this nett or inclusive of VAT? If the latter, would you kindly explain why I am being asked to pay the operator’s VAT?
13. With regard to the principal alleged PCN sum: Is this damages, or will it be pleaded as consideration for parking?

I am clearly entitled to this information under paragraphs 6(a) and 6(c) of the Practice Direction. I also need it in order to comply with my own obligations under paragraph 6(b).

If your client does not provide me with this information then I put you on notice that I will be relying on the cases of Webb Resolutions Ltd v Waller Needham & Green [2012] EWHC 3529 (Ch), Daejan Investments Limited v The Park West Club Limited (Part 20) Buxton Associates [2003] EWHC 2872, Charles Church Developments Ltd v Stent Foundations Limited & Peter Dann Limited [2007] EWHC 855 in asking the court to impose sanctions on your client and to order a stay of the proceedings, pursuant to paragraphs 13, 15(b) and (c) and 16 of the Practice Direction, as referred to in paragraph 7.2 of the Protocol.

Until your client has complied with its obligations and provided this information, I am unable to respond properly to the alleged claim and to consider my position in relation to it, and it is entirely premature (and a waste of costs and court time) for your client to issue proceedings. Should your client do so, then I will seek an immediate stay pursuant to paragraph 15(b) of the Practice Direction and an order that this information is provided.

Yours faithfully,

[Your name]