Free Traffic Legal Advice

Hello,

I am the registered keeper of a vehicle that received a PCN from parking control management for “parked outside the confines of a marked bay”. Parking charge to keeper. Received within 14 days of “offence”

Driver story is as they entered this section of the car park, where they park 4-5 times a week, they noticed a man on a bicycle checking car door handles, and picking up old cigarettes and what not. Fearing for the safety of the vehicle, the driver observed the person in this section of the parking lot in the corner of the lot before committing to leave the vehicle there. Whilst in the vehicle, the driver noticed someone in a car taking photos of the driver, thinking he was with the dodgy looking person as it is an odd thing to do. So the driver took photos of him.

Little did the driver know he was taking evidence for a fine!

Do I have any grounds for appeal given that:
1. Driver was present in the vehicle when photos were taken, with proof of the pcm worker. In one of their photos on the online portal, a person can be seen in driver seat.
2. Driver drove off a few minutes after the photos
3. The bay next to the Driver has building works so impossible to park in and not usable for another customer. Also passenger cannot exit vehicle.
4. The white lines are not visible beneath the car.

Thanks all.

Please show us the NtKand any evidential photos they have provided. Just because the NtK arrived within 14 days of the event is not proof that they have complied with all the requirements of PoFA to be able to hold the keeper liable.

Leave all dates and times showing.

ok I will send letter and all the photos they uploaded tomorrow.

All those photos show is a vehicle in a bay with no ground markings taken over the span of less than a minute.

The NtK is not PoFA compliant. It fails on 9(2)(e)(i) and (ii) in that there is no invitation (nor any synonym of the word) for the keeper to pay the charge and it also fails to tell the keeper to pass the NtK to the driver.

The NtK also fails PoFA on 9(2)(a) in that it does not specify a period of parking. It simply specifies a moment in time.

On that basis, the keeper cannot be liable for the charge, only the driver whose identity is unknown to PCM. Additionally, there is no evidence of any contravention as the vehicle appears to be within a bay. There are no markings to indicate that the location is not a bay or that it is an area that is not available for parking.

The evidence does not show that the driver did not consider any signage as it is evident that the driver is still in the vehicle over the period of less than a minute. So it breaches the new joint CoP at 2.24, 5.1, 7.3c and Annex B.

Unfortunately, this is an IPC operator so, once the initial appeal is rejected (it will be) a secondary appeal to the IAS is an exercise in futility. Others will advise otherwise but personally, I wouldn't bother.

What you want is to see if they have the bottle to take it all the way to the ultimate dispute resolution service, the small claims track in the county court. You would be waiting to see if/when they decide to issue a claim. If they do, that is good and is when you will win this. There is no danger of a CCJ.

In the meantime, they will be sending useless debt collector letters hoping that you are low-hanging fruit on the gullible tree and will capitulate and pay up once they use language that threatens litigation. You want that, they don’t because they know that if it ever got that far, they would get a spanking from a judge.

The choice is yours, appeal as the keeper with the points highlighted above and see it rejected and then do or don’t try an IAS appeal which has a les than 5% chance of being accepted and/or wait for a Letter of Claim (LoC) and an N1SDT claim form from the CNBC.

Edited to add a health warning: There is a minuscule chance that if this ever actually got to a hearing and a judge did not accept your defence, you could be liable for ~£200 in total for the PCN and fixed costs. However, it is extremely unlikely that this would ever get to an actual hearing with the highly likelyhood of the operator having their claim struck out or them discontinuing once they realise you are not gullible and are prepared to take this all the way.

Once they have actually pay a hearing fee, they will abandon and go looking for lower hanging fruit on the gullible tree

They could show a photo of the bay but all they will have is what is on the file which you have seen only shows the vehicle for less than a minute is what appears to be a bay with no bother ground markings to suggest otherwise.

It doesn’t matter anyway because you appeal as the keeper. You are under no legal obligation to identify the driver to an unregulated private parking company. They cannot hold the keeper, you, liable because they have not fully complied with all the requirements of PoFA. They have nowhere else to go with this except to try and scare you into paying them.

If it went all the way to court (unlikely but possible) and a judge did not accept your defence and that you owe the claimant a debt, it would be the original PCN of £100 plus a £35 claim fee and fixed legal costs of £50. They would not allow the fake added “damages” of £70 they add on at DRA stage.

In the remote chance of a loss in court, as long as the CCJ is paid in full within 28 days, there is no record of anything on your credit file. It is expunged.

These shysters rely on the gullibility of their victims lack of knowledge of civil law to either capitulate once the threat of litigation arises or hope that the victim fails to follow the correct procedures and they get a CCJ by default.

They could show a photo of the bay but all they will have is what is on the file which you have seen only shows the vehicle for less than a minute is what appears to be a bay with no bother ground markings to suggest otherwise.

It doesn’t matter anyway because you appeal as the keeper. You are under no legal obligation to identify the driver to an unregulated private parking company. They cannot hold the keeper, you, liable because they have not fully complied with all the requirements of PoFA. They have nowhere else to go with this except to try and scare you into paying them.

If it went all the way to court (unlikely but possible) and a judge did not accept your defence and that you owe the claimant a debt, it would be the original PCN of £100 plus a £35 claim fee and fixed legal costs of £50. They would not allow the fake added “damages” of £70 they add on at DRA stage.

In the remote chance of a loss in court, as long as the CCJ is paid in full within 28 days, there is no record of anything on your credit file. It is expunged.

These shysters rely on the gullibility of their victims lack of knowledge of civil law to either capitulate once the threat of litigation arises or hope that the victim fails to follow the correct procedures and they get a CCJ by default.

Thank you.

They responded to my appeal and of course rejected. Even in the appeal they said bay marked by the following things... And there is none of those in the images they have. Should I bother to appeal to the IAS or just wait it out from now?

Quote from: b789 on August 01, 2024, 09:44:46 pm

hope that the victim fails to follow the correct procedures and they get a CCJ by default.

A brief add-on to this - if you move house before the matter is concluded, be sure to update them with your new address. When we do see people who have ended up with default judgements against them, the lion's share are due to changes of address.

Thanks for the heads up.

@Vivid23, I see you’ve posted all about this over on MSE today. Any response to the advice already given here?

Hi


I received a letter of claim in Feb 2025 to which I replied with:

___________________________________________________________________________________________
Re: Letter of Claim
I refer to your Letter of Claim.

I confirm that my address for service at this time is as follows, and I request that any outdated address be erased from your records to ensure compliance with data protection obligations:

**Confirmed address

Please note that the alleged debt is disputed, and any court proceedings will be robustly defended.

I note that the sum claimed has been increased by an excessive and unjustifiable amount, which appears contrary to the principles established by the Government, who described such practices as “extorting money from motorists.” Please refrain from sending boilerplate responses or justifications regarding this issue.

Under the Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims, I require specific answers to the following questions:

1. Does the additional £60 represent what you describe as a “Debt Recovery” fee? If so, is this figure net of or inclusive of VAT? If inclusive, I trust you will explain why I, as the alleged debtor, am being asked to cover your client’s VAT liability.

2. Regarding the principal sum of the alleged Parking Charge Notice (PCN): Is this being claimed as damages for breach of contract, or will it be pleaded as consideration for a purported parking contract?

3. Please state clearly and unequivocally which specific term(s) of the alleged parking contract the driver is alleged to have breached, along with evidence of how these terms were communicated to the driver. Failure to provide such information will demonstrate that your claim is vague, baseless, and bound to fail.

I would caution you against simply dismissing these questions with vague or boilerplate responses, as I am fully aware of the implications. By claiming that PCNs are exempt from VAT while simultaneously inflating the debt recovery element, your client – with your assistance – appears to be evading VAT obligations due to HMRC. Such mendacious conduct raises serious questions about the legality and ethics of your practices.

Further, it is embarrassing – legally speaking – that a so-called firm of legal professionals cannot see that this claim is fundamentally flawed and bound to fail. Your failure to include any mention of the contractual term the defendant is alleged to have breached demonstrates a lack of intelligence, diligence, or both.

The fact that your Letter of Claim and prior correspondence rely on vague and boilerplate assertions without clearly stating the basis of liability is not only procedurally improper but demonstrates disdain for the court process and the legal profession. As legal representatives, you are officers of the court and have a duty to uphold the integrity of the legal process, which includes ensuring that claims are founded on a proper legal and factual basis. Your failure to identify the specific contractual term allegedly breached is evidence of a serious deficiency in process and reflects a disregard for your obligations under the Civil Procedure Rules (CPR), particularly CPR 1.3, which requires legal representatives to assist the court in furthering the overriding objective of dealing with cases justly and proportionately.

The Letter of Claim itself serves as evidence of your failure to act as officers of the court, as you ought to know that presenting a claim without revealing the specific contractual term allegedly breached is not only deficient but also an abuse of process. This conduct undermines the principles of fair litigation and brings the legal profession into disrepute. By issuing vague and unsupported claims as part of a bulk litigation model, you fail to discharge your responsibilities to the court and instead demonstrate a willingness to pursue meritless claims in the hope of coercing payment.

I will not hesitate to bring these deficiencies to the court’s attention as part of a robust defence. Furthermore, I will formally request that the court impose appropriate sanctions against both the claimant and you as their legal representatives. This may include cost penalties and/or referrals to the relevant regulatory authorities for conduct that fails to meet the standards expected of officers of the court.

I strongly advise your client to cease and desist. Should this matter proceed to court, you can be assured that these issues will be brought to the court’s attention, alongside a robust defence and potentially a counterclaim for unreasonable conduct. If you, as the recipient of this letter, are not fully legally trained, I suggest you escalate this correspondence to a senior colleague or someone within your firm who is adequately qualified to understand the serious consequences of failing to address the deficiencies in your client’s claim and the professional obligations imposed upon you as officers of the court.

Yours faithfully,
**Name here

___________________________________

Their response was:

Our client: Parking Control Management UK Limited

We write further to your recent email.

Our answers to your questions are as follows:

The additional charge which has been levied on your Parking Charge of £70 is the amount set out in both the British Parking Association and International Parking Community Codes of Practice as the amount which may be added to a Parking Charge when a Parking Charge remains unpaid and when further recovery is required. Our Client adheres to the ATA’s Code of Practice. The £70 does not represent the cost of recovery but is a reasonable amount in relation to the Parking Charge amount, in order to encourage early payment of the Parking Charge without the need for debt recovery. It is a fair amount set by our Client’s government-approved Accredited Trade Association Code of Practice. There are however also costs incurred by our client in relation to debt recovery services.

By entering and parking the vehicle on our client's private land, you agreed to enter into a contract with our client and to be bound by the terms and conditions of that contract. The terms and conditions were clearly displayed at the entrance and in prominent places within the car park. Due to your failure to comply with the terms and conditions, our client has issued the PCN therefore if we are instructed to issue a claim the reason would be for Unpaid parking charges/ breach of contract.

This Parking Charge Notice relates to a contravention at Royale Leisure Park - W3 for "Parked outside of the confines of a marked bay" ****date here

The terms and conditions were clearly displayed in and around our client's private premises. When remaining on the premises, all motorists must choose to abide by them. However, on this occasion you failed to do so.

Please find attached your vehicle in clear breach of the terms and conditions.

Please note that we will not be addressing any further correspondence related to disputes of the same nature, as we have already provided you with a response. However, should you wish to raise a new dispute, we will investigate the matter further and respond accordingly.
You can make payment in the following ways: 
·  Contact us on 0330 828 5850 (our opening times are Monday- Friday 9:00- 17:00);
·  Register online at www.moorsidelegal.co.uk; 
·  Customer Portal - Quick Pay (moorsidelegal.co.uk)
If you fail to make full payment or set up a payment plan, we may be instructed to issue a County Court Claim against you. 
You may wish to seek legal independent advice.
Yours sincerely
Moorside Legal

________________________________________________________

Now I have received a letter before claim. Should I just use another template you've kindly recommended to some on the forum?

Is this another LoC from Moorside or a different bulk litigator? Or, was it just a debt collection letter, which does not need responding to?

Is this another LoC from Moorside or a different bulk litigator? Or, was it just a debt collection letter, which does not need responding to?

This is a second LoC from Moorside legal.

The first was letter of claim with a breakdown of "costs"

This was a short letter before claim with the short text I stated above saying I owe 170 for an unpaid invoice..

Is this unusual?

I also got an autoreply from them saying the inbox is not monitored from my email.