Free Traffic Legal Advice

Hi, thanks in advance to anyone who is able to consider this!

Brief summary: I am being asked for £510 for failure to pay for parking on three successive occasions nearly four years ago. We didn't receive the original NTKs because they were sent to the wrong address, possibly due to us moving house around that period and there being a time lag for us telling the DVLA of our new address. I immediately offered to pay £60 for each ticket plus £20 extra, but they are unwilling to negotiate.

What are my options?

More details

I received three letters from Trace Debt Recovery (all dated 25 Apr 2025) on behalf of Alliance Parking, for three parking charges back in 26, 27 June / 4 July 2021 (just under 4 years ago). They total £490.  This is the first I heard about them.

I emailed the debt recovery agency immediately on receipt of the letters to request copies of the Notice to Keepers: they were sent to an address we had recently moved out from, and although we left a forwarding address these were not forwarded. They were dated 1, 2 and 20 July 2021. Each NTK asks for £60 / £100 / £160 depending on when it's paid. (Note that one of the debt recovery letters demands £170, not £160 - it doesn't explain why.)

It is possible that at least for the original Notice to Keepers, we had not yet updated the DVLA of our new address. We were in temporary accommodation, so perhaps we delayed updating it until we had a permanent address - it's too long ago to remember. It doesn't seem to be possible to obtain a history of registered addresses from the DVLA. Note also we no longer own the car.

Along with providing the original Notice to Keepers, Trace Debt Recovery included a covering letter dated 19 May 2025 demanding a total of £510 (I don't know where this number comes from - the total of the three letters is £490).

I decided to try to settle the matter by sending this email on 20 May:

Thank you for sending the notice to keepers for these three cases.

We dispute your invoiced amount of £510, which we do not feel is proportionate, but we are willing to make a payment of £200 in full and final settlement for all three cases.

We never received the Notice to Keepers until you emailed them yesterday. This is because we were no longer resident at that address: we moved out on 23rd March 2021, and into temporary accommodation until the 14th July 2021. We left a forwarding address, but the new occupants of <address> did not forward us our post. We therefore only found out about the charges several years later. I have not yet been able to find details of the DVLA address history over that time (which presumably you used to contact us), but we do admit it is possible we did not notify the DVLA of our change of address until after you sent the notice to keepers, at least for the first two.

Several years have passed since we entered your car park so it is difficult to remember what happened, but given that we have records of paying for parking at many beaches in the area over that period of time, and we never paid at your car park, we probably did not realise we needed to pay. From the many complaints about the car park on trip advisor, it seems we are not the only ones.

However, in the interests of settling the matter we are willing to pay the original charges listed on the notice to keepers, of £60 each - as if we had paid them on receipt of the original Notice to Keepers. We feel this is a fair amount, given that we have responded promptly to your correspondence as soon as we received it.

We also acknowledge the possibility of a delay in updating the DVLA address history, which may have caused you additional costs. We offer a further £20 to cover the cost of your correspondence dated 25 April, and the recent email.

This comes to £60 x 3 + £20 = £200.

This offer should not be interpreted as an admission of liability.

Please let us know if you accept the offer within 14 days, after which time it will expire.

Yours faithfully,

We received this reply:

Good morning,

Thankyou for your correspondence.

We are unable to reduce the PCNs at this stage.

Regards,

Customer service

It also says in their covering letter that "We will not enter into any further correspondence regarding this matter." so I have not responded since.

I feel I have acted in good faith throughout, and don't want to give into bullying. Could anyone advise me of my options?

You’ve gone about this the wrong way. By offering to settle the matter and explaining that you probably didn’t realise you needed to pay, you’ve weakened your position. It gives the impression that you accept that the charges were valid, even if you didn’t mean to say that directly. That makes it harder to argue later that you’re not liable at all.

The bigger problem is the amount. Because this claim is for more than £500, it’s much more likely that the parking company will take it to court and won’t back down later. If they win, they can enforce the judgment through the High Court, which makes it easier for them to recover the money — including using bailiffs if needed. This isn’t a small claim they’re likely to forget about.

So, your chances of getting this cancelled or ignored are now much lower than they would have been if you had handled it differently from the start.

That said, there’s still a remote chance you could succeed in defending it, depending on how the parking company handled the notices and whether they followed the legal requirements properly. For example, if they didn’t serve the original notices correctly or can’t show that a proper contract was formed, a judge might still rule in your favour. But that’s not guaranteed, and it will take careful preparation and probably a strong, well-argued defence.

In short, this is not hopeless, but it’s an uphill battle now. You need to take it seriously, keep a close eye on any letters from them, and be ready to defend a court claim properly if it comes.

It doesn't work that way when it coms to acquiring the Keepers data from the DVLA. It is the Keepers responsibility to keep their V5C address up to date. In fact, not updating it in a timely manner could land you with up to a £1,000 fine, should they decide to actually do anything about it.

The parking company cannot just dip into the DVLA database whenever they want to. They can only request the Keepers data once and that will usually be a few days after the date of the alleged contravention.

They can only pursue the Keeper for the charge if they have fully complied with all the requirements of PoFA 2012, which is why we advise everyone to never reveal the drivers identity. The only way they can identify the driver is if the Keeper tells them who it is, inadvertently or otherwise. If their PCN does not comply with all the requirements of PoFA, then they cannot transfer liability from the unknown driver to the known Keeper.

Looking at the Notices to Keeper (NtK) you have shown us, they are not relying on the provisions of PoFA to hold the Keeper liable as they have not used the necessary statutory wording and the third notice was not even given within the relevant period, even if they had used the correct wording.

I need to know whether the wording you have shown us in your offer to part pay is the EXACT wording you used or have you paraphrased any of it? Was that correspondence to the parking company or to the useless debt collector?

You referred to "we" as in "we did this or that", rather than simply referring to the driver in the third person with "the driver did this and that". However, if there has been no instance where the Keeper has said "I did this or that", then there is a remote chance that you can defend this on the basis that the actual driver has not been identified and the Keeper cannot be liable as the operator has not relied on the provisions of PoFA to transfer liability form the unknown driver to the known Keeper, especially if that was to the debt collector and not to the parking operator.

So, we need to know the EXACT wording you used in any communication with the operator.

Luckily, you DDED "This offer should not be interpreted as an admission of liability." although, ideally the whole letter should have been headed with "WITHOUT PREJUDICE". At court, the judge has do decide on the facts and on the balance of probabilities and it may be probably that you admitted liability with your offer.

Right now, there is nothing more you can do except to wait and see if/when they issue a Letter of Claim (LoC). Any debt recovery letters can be safely ignored as they can only persuade the low-hanging fruit on the gullible tree to pay up out of ignorance and fear.

If you have a copy of the updated V5C, then it says on it when it was updated on both the second and third pages:

Respond to the LoC in an email addressed to info@moorsidelegal.co.uk and CC yourself:

Dear Sirs,

Your Letter Before Claim dated 29 July 2025 contains insufficient detail of the claim and fails to provide copies of the evidence upon which your client purports to rely. It is therefore in complete contravention of the Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims, the relevant Practice Direction on Pre-Action Conduct, and basic standards of pre-litigation transparency.
As a firm regulated by the SRA, it is reasonable to expect that you are familiar with paragraphs 3.1(a)–(d), 5.1 and 5.2 of the Protocol, and paragraphs 6(a) and 6(c) of the Practice Direction on Pre-Action Conduct. These rules exist to facilitate informed and proportionate resolution, not as a procedural afterthought.

Your client alleges a breach of contract yet refuses to provide the contract, the terms allegedly breached, or any explanation of how the sum of £510 is calculated. The Civil Procedure Rules and associated protocols are clear: before commencing proceedings, parties should have exchanged sufficient information to understand each other’s position. This plainly includes disclosure of the key documents upon which your client relies.

I had no knowledge of these alleged charges until contacted by Trace Debt Recovery in April 2025. I have since obtained evidence from the DVLA confirming that I updated my keeper address in May 2021. Your client requested DVLA data after this date but relied on the vehicle record, not the most up-to-date information. Your client’s failure to properly serve the original notices is therefore not my fault, and I deny having received them at the time.

Moreover, the Notices to Keeper your client eventually disclosed do not comply with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. They fail to include the statutory wording required by Schedule 4 and are therefore incapable of creating keeper liability. As the driver has not been identified, your client has no cause of action against me.

I require your client to comply with its obligations under the Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims by providing the following:

1. A copy of the original Notices to Keeper that purport to create liability

2. A copy of the contract allegedly entered into, in the form of contemporaneous photographs of the signage at the material time and location

3. The precise terms and conditions that your client alleges were breached

4. The contract or other evidence establishing your client’s authority from the landowner to operate and issue PCNs at the site

5. A full breakdown of the amount claimed, including whether the £70 “debt recovery” uplift is contractual, includes VAT, and whether the sum is claimed as consideration or damages

Until this information is provided, I am unable to respond substantively. If your client proceeds to issue a claim without first providing the required documents and information, I will invite the court to stay the proceedings and to impose sanctions for failure to comply with the Protocol. I will rely on the decisions in Webb Resolutions Ltd v Waller Needham & Green [2012] EWHC 3529 (Ch), Daejan Investments Ltd v The Park West Club Ltd [2003] EWHC 2872 (TCC), and Charles Church Developments Ltd v Stent Foundations Ltd & Peter Dann Ltd [2007] EWHC 855 (TCC).

Any claim issued now will be met with a robust defence and an application to strike it out as an abuse of process under CPR 3.4(2). I will also ask the court to consider a costs order under CPR 27.14(2)(g) due to unreasonable conduct.

If you continue to send defective Letters of Claim or proceed with litigation without rectifying the defects outlined above, I reserve the right to refer this matter to the Solicitors Regulation Authority for investigation of potential breaches of SRA Principles 1, 2 and 5.

Yours faithfully,

[Your full name]

My bad... it is indeed 'help' not 'info' @morsidelegal.co.uk

Their response is a textbook example of procedural evasion and empty assertion. It fails to cure the defects you identified in your 8 August email and continues to flout the Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims. Respond by return email with:

Subject: Your defective response dated 20 August 2025 – Failure to comply with Pre-Action Protocol

Dear Sirs,

Your response dated 20 August 2025 is noted. It fails to address the deficiencies outlined in my letter of 8 August and remains non-compliant with the Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims and the Practice Direction on Pre-Action Conduct.

Your vague reference to an online portal is not sufficient. The Protocol requires that documents be provided directly and clearly—not buried behind login credentials or third-party platforms. You have failed to supply:

• Copies of the original Notices to Keeper
• Photographic evidence of signage at the material time
• The full contractual terms allegedly breached
• Evidence of your client’s authority from the landowner
• A breakdown of the £510 claimed, including the legal basis for the £70 uplift

Your attempt to justify the £70 charge by citing trade association CoPs is legally irrelevant. These codes do not override statutory requirements or judicial precedent. The Supreme Court in ParkingEye v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67 did not endorse arbitrary uplifts, and your client’s Notices to Keeper fail to comply with Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. As the driver has not been identified, your client has no lawful basis to pursue the keeper.

Your continued failure to provide the required documents and information is obstructive and unreasonable. If proceedings are issued without full compliance, I will apply to strike out the claim under CPR 3.4(2) and seek costs under CPR 27.14(2)(g). I will also invite the court to stay the claim pending proper disclosure and will rely on Webb Resolutions Ltd v Waller Needham & Green, Daejan Investments Ltd v The Park West Club Ltd, and Charles Church Developments Ltd v Stent Foundations Ltd.

Finally, your conduct raises serious concerns under the SRA Principles, particularly Principles 1 (upholding the rule of law), 2 (acting with integrity), and 5 (providing a proper standard of service). If you persist in issuing defective Letters of Claim or proceed to litigation without remedying these failures, I will refer this matter to the Solicitors Regulation Authority.

Yours faithfully,

[Your Name]

Follow up:

I read through your reply in a bit more detail and had a few questions, hope you don't mind me asking:

1. My theory now is that we updated the driving licence with the DVLA but not the vehicle log book. That would explain the address discrepancy. From what I understand, parking companies should indeed rely on the the vehicle log book when issuing NTKs, right? (If I've got that wrong, do you know where it's specified otherwise?)

2. I read Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act. Would you mind explaining how their original NTKs are noncompliant? From what I understand from that Act, the whole point is it allows them to pursue the keeper if they can't identify the driver.

I don't want to give into bullying, but I would rather not get into a legal battle if I am not on solid legal ground!

Thanks again so much for your help, I appreciate it so much.