Free Traffic Legal Advice

You can safely ignore all debt recovery letters that will soon come your way. Debt collectors are powerless to do anything except to intimidate the low-hanging fruit on the gullible tree into paying out of ignorance and fear.

Come back when you receive your Letter of Claim (LoC) from DCB Legal. If you follow the advice, you will not pay a penny to Elite. We will give you the correct template to defend the eventual claim and is due course, the claim will either be struck out or discontinued.

It would be helpful if you could post a phot of both sides of the Notice to Keeper (NtK) without redacting any dates or times. The actual wording of the alleged contravention is also needed.

Oh dear! What a waste of an appeal. The Notice to Keeper (NtK) is not PoFA compliant which means if the driver is not identified, they cannot hold the Keeper liable.

I have now gone through the Notice to Keeper and all the evidence in detail, and I want to set out clearly where you stand and what will happen next.

First, Elite have made a complete mess of the legal basis they say they are relying on. On the NtK they state that they are relying on Schedule 4 paragraph 8 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. Paragraph 8 only applies where a physical windscreen ticket (a Notice to Driver) was placed on the car and the driver then failed to respond. In your case that never happened. The NtK itself says that the breach was captured by a patrol officer camera device and that the PCN is being served by post. That scenario is governed by paragraph 9, not paragraph 8. So from the outset they have picked the wrong section of PoFA.

Even if there had been a windscreen ticket, which there was not, a valid paragraph 8 NtK must be served in a strict window between day 28 and day 56 after the incident. Your alleged incident was on 9 September 2025 and the NtK is dated 10 September 2025, i.e. the very next day. That alone would make it impossible for the NtK to comply with paragraph 8. In other words, whichever way Elite try to spin it, this notice cannot give them keeper liability under PoFA.

However, that valuable defence point was wasted. In your initial appeals to Elite and to POPLA you unfortunately revealed who was driving. That means that although the NtK is not PoFA compliant and Elite cannot hold you liable as keeper, that line of defence has effectively been thrown away. They will now pursue you as the admitted driver. We cannot undo that. What we can do is make sure the defence focuses on the much stronger points, which are to do with signage, the formation of any contract, and the quality of Elite’s evidence.

A key point that Elite have failed to address is whether a contract was ever formed at all. Their NtK does not state any “period of parking”. It just gives a single time. That is not sufficient to show that the vehicle was actually parked for longer than the minimum 5 minute consideration period. The law and the PPSCoP both recognise that a motorist must be allowed a short period on arrival to find a space, read the signs, decide whether to stay and, if necessary, leave without penalty. Elite have provided no evidence that the car was parked for longer than that basic consideration time. No period of parking means no proof of a breach and therefore no proof that any contract was actually formed and then broken. If there is no evidence of consideration at all, there is, in contract terms, no contract.

On top of that you now have strong factual evidence about the site itself. You have walked the route from the estate entrance to where the car was parked and taken photographs and video. That evidence shows that there is no Elite entrance sign on the approach to the bays you used and no prominent sign anywhere on that route telling a driver that they must “register” or use the JustPark app to obtain the free hour. The only sign at the bay is the tariff board which simply states “Up to 1 hour – Free” in the grid, with no qualification in that grid about any registration requirement.

Elite’s own evidence to POPLA is very shaky. Their hand-drawn site plan shows entrance signs and terms and conditions signs in locations that simply do not exist on the route you actually took. Their photographs of the “signage” were taken in the hotel-side row, not in the street-side row where you parked, and the two areas are separated by a grass median and trees. In short, they have not shown that any relevant sign was visible from your bay, or that the alleged terms were ever properly brought to the driver’s attention. POPLA’s assessor appears to have been misled (unsurprisingly) by that inaccurate plan, but POPLA’s decision is not binding on you or a court, and a judge will be much more interested in your clear, contemporaneous photos and video than in Elite’s sketch.

So, when this eventually reaches court, the defence will say in plain terms:


Because you have this level of evidence, I am confident that if the matter is defended properly it is very unlikely you would not be successful. The usual pattern with Elite is that they will pass the file to DCB Legal, followed by a formal Letter of Claim (LoC). At that point we will send a detailed reply setting out the points above. If they then issue a small claim, we will file a concise, robust defence.

Realistically, once a proper defence is on the record and they can see that you have evidence of the true site layout and the lack of a stated period of parking, one of two things will happen in cases like this: either the claim is struck out by a judge on the papers, or DCB Legal quietly discontinues shortly before they would have to pay the £27 trial fee. In other words, the chances of this going all the way to a contested hearing where you lose and have to pay are at the very lower end of slim to zero, provided you follow the advice at each stage and do not miss any deadlines.

I recieved DCB Legal's Letter of Claim this morning, dated 20th Feb.



I would very grateful for any help in writing my reply to them.

Hi all,

B789 has been kind enough to help me in my response to Elite Parking for a NtK I recieved last year when I failed to register for my 1 hour free parking on an app.

Here is the previous thread for context:

https://www.ftla.uk/private-parking-tickets/elite-parking-pcn-free-1-hr-failure-to-register-eddington-avenue-cambridge-popla/msg100850/#msg100850

I have now recieved my Letter of Claim (LoC) from DCB Legal, included here:



I have also drafted my response based on B789's intitial advice. As this is my first Letter of Claim, I would be grateful if anyone could make any suggestions for what I should/shouldn't say in it. I have until next week to send a formal response.

Response to Letter of Claim

I dispute the debt and deny liability to your client.

Please treat this as a substantive response under the Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims. I am also seeking debt advice. This matter must therefore be placed on hold for not less than 30 days from your receipt of this response and, if you provide the documents requested below, for not less than 30 days from your provision of those documents.
If, as appears, your Letter of Claim was not accompanied by the required Information Sheet, Reply Form and Financial Statement, then it is also non-compliant with paragraph 3.1 of the Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims.

My position is as follows.

1. No contract was properly brought to the driver’s attention at the material location

The vehicle was parked in the street-side row opposite the Hyatt/Turing building, not in the hotel-side row shown in much of your client’s evidence.

At the relevant location, the prominent tariff board stated “Up to 1 hour – Free”. There was no clear Elite entrance sign on the actual approach to those bays, and no prominent sign at or near the relevant bays stating that this free hour was conditional upon prior registration via JustPark or any other method.

If your client contends that registration was a mandatory condition even for the free hour, that term was not transparently or prominently communicated at the material location. The signage, as actually encountered, communicated a free first hour, not a clearly conveyed “free first hour only if registered” term. A written consumer notice must be transparent, and where wording can bear more than one meaning, the meaning most favourable to the consumer prevails.

2. Your client’s signage evidence is inaccurate and non-representative

Your client previously relied on a hand-drawn site map and signage photographs that do not accurately represent the actual route taken or the actual row in which the vehicle was parked.

The route from the Huntingdon Road entrance to the relevant bays does not contain the entrance/private land signage in the positions alleged. The “red” entrance sign relied upon by your client is not present at the entrance actually used to access the relevant bays and appears to be located hundreds of metres away elsewhere on the estate. Your client’s signage photographs were taken in the hotel-side row, which is physically separated from the street-side row by a grass median and tree line. Those photographs do not prove that the alleged registration term was visible from, or on the approach to, the bay used.

The IPC Code says operators should display entrance signs where there is a defined entrance, and must adequately display any signs intended to form the basis of contract. Your client is therefore put to strict proof that the specific contractual term relied upon was actually present, visible and legible on the route taken and at the relevant parking location on the material date.

3. Your client has not properly proved any contravention or any accepted contract at the relevant location

Your client’s case appears to rely on a single patrol image and non-representative signage material, rather than evidence showing that the alleged term was brought to the driver’s attention before or at the point of parking in the street-side row.

Further, the notice and evidence do not identify any true period of parking, only a single time. That is not proper proof that the vehicle was parked for longer than the minimum time required for a driver to enter, find a space, read signs and decide whether to stay. The IPC Code requires a sufficient consideration period so that a motorist may make an informed decision whether to enter or remain. On your client’s own evidence, there is no proper proof that any contractual term was fairly communicated, accepted and then breached.

4. Your client’s legal basis has been inconsistently stated

For completeness, your client’s Notice to Keeper was said to rely on Schedule 4 paragraph 8 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, even though no windscreen notice was served and the notice was issued by post. Paragraph 8 applies where a Notice to Driver has first been given; paragraph 9 governs postal notices where no Notice to Driver was given. That materially undermines the coherence and reliability of your client’s case.

5. The sum claimed is not properly particularised

Your letter claims £170, said to include the parking charge and debt recovery costs. Please identify precisely:

- the original parking charge
- each additional sum added
- the legal basis for each additional sum
- where each such sum was expressly and prominently communicated on the signage said to form the contract

The Debt Claims Protocol requires sufficient information about the debt and any other charges.

Documents and information required

Please now provide the following so that the issues can be properly understood and narrowed:

1. A copy of the original PCN / Notice to Keeper and all photographs relied upon.

2. A copy of the patrol officer’s notes, handheld device record, and the precise observation times relied upon.

3. A full unredacted copy of the contract, or chain of authority, with the landowner authorising Elite Parking Management Ltd to operate and litigate at this site.

4. A contemporaneous site plan for the material date showing the exact location of every sign relied upon, and identifying which sign is said to have applied to the street-side row opposite the Hyatt/Turing building.

5. Contemporaneous photographs of all signage on the actual route taken and at the actual parking location, not the hotel-side row.

6. Confirmation of the exact contractual term alleged to have been breached, with the wording relied upon.

7. Evidence that the alleged registration requirement for the free first hour was clearly displayed at or before the point of parking in the relevant row.

8. A full breakdown of the amount claimed, including the basis of any added sum beyond the original PCN.

9. Confirmation whether your client’s case is pleaded as breach of contract, contractual charge, or some other cause of action.

I have contemporaneous photographic and video evidence relevant to the disputed signage, route of approach and parking location, which will be relied upon if proceedings are issued and/or if it becomes necessary to do so.

Until the above documents are provided, your client has not supplied enough information to comply properly with the Protocol or to enable the issues to be narrowed. If proceedings are issued prematurely, that non-compliance will be drawn to the court’s attention.

Yes, unfortunately the driver was revealed in my initial appeal to Elite and again at POPLA before I discovered the forum advice about appealing as keeper only.

Here's my defence if anyone could please sense-check for me @InterCity125 ?

Defence
1. The Defendant denies the claim in its entirety. No sum is owed
to the Claimant.

2. The Particulars of Claim are sparse, generic and fail to comply
with CPR 16.4. They do not plead the precise contractual terms
relied upon, the wording of the sign said to create the contract,
the location of that sign, any proper period of parking, or how
the sum of £170 has been calculated.

3. The Claimant alleges: “Vehicle Not Registered On JustPark App
Or Displaying P&D Ticket”. This is insufficient to establish a
cause of action. The Claimant has not pleaded the actual term
allegedly breached, when or where that term was incorporated, or
how the alleged breach arose.

4. The Defendant was the registered keeper of vehicle DU69 VJZ.
The Claimant pleads liability as driver and, in the alternative,
keeper liability under Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms
Act 2012. Liability is denied on either basis.

5. Insofar as the Claimant relies upon keeper liability, it is
denied that the Notice to Keeper complied with Schedule 4 of POFA
2012. The Notice to Keeper purported to rely on paragraph 8
despite no Notice to Driver having been served, and failed to
state a compliant period of parking.

6. The Defendant denies that any clear, prominent and enforceable
term requiring registration to obtain the advertised free hour was
incorporated into any contract at the location used.

7. The vehicle was parked in a street-side bay at Eddington. The
only bay-level sign visible at that location was a tariff board
prominently stating “Up to 1 hr – Free”.

8. Any alleged requirement to register using JustPark or a payment
machine was not integrated into the “Up to 1 hr – Free” tariff
line and was not displayed with the prominence or transparency
required for a term said to create liability for a £100 charge.

9. Further, insofar as registration through JustPark required a
booking or transaction fee, the advertised “Free” hour was
materially qualified. That qualification was not presented with
sufficient prominence in the tariff line relied upon by the
motorist.

10. There was no clear Elite entrance sign on the actual route
taken to the street-side bays warning that vehicles must register
on arrival in order to obtain the advertised free hour.

11. The alleged registration term was therefore not fairly or
adequately brought to the driver’s attention before or at the
point of parking. No contract can be formed unless the alleged
terms are clearly brought to the driver’s attention before or at
the time of contracting.

12. The Claimant’s previous evidential material included a
hand-drawn site plan and signage photographs which do not
accurately reflect the actual route taken or the street-side row
used.

13. The Defendant’s position is that the Claimant’s plan shows
signage locations which are not present on the actual route to the
relevant street-side bays.

14. The signage photographs previously relied upon by the Claimant
appear to relate to a different hotel-side row, separated from the
street-side bays by landscaping, and do not prove what signage was
visible or legible from the bay used.

15. The Claimant is put to strict proof that the alleged
contractual terms were present, visible, legible and sufficiently
prominent from the actual bay and actual approach route used on
09/09/2025.

16. The Claimant is further put to strict proof of the accuracy of
any site plan relied upon, including the precise location,
orientation, wording, height and visibility of each sign said to
apply to the street-side bays.

17. The Defendant avers that the signage relied upon by the
Claimant was inadequate, unclear and non-representative of the
location used. The purported registration requirement was, at
best, buried in dense wording and was not sufficiently prominent
to override the clear tariff representation of “Up to 1 hr –
Free”.

18. The Consumer Rights Act 2015 requires consumer terms and
notices to be transparent and prominent. A hidden or
insufficiently prominent qualification to an advertised “Free”
tariff cannot fairly create liability for a £100 charge.

19. The facts are distinguishable from ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis
[2015] UKSC 67. In Beavis, the charge was upheld in the context of
clear, repeated and prominent signage. Here, the issue is that the
decisive registration term was not clearly incorporated at the
actual location used.

20. Accordingly, no enforceable contract was formed.
Alternatively, if any contract was formed, the alleged
registration requirement was not incorporated and no breach of
that alleged term is proven.

21. The Particulars plead no proper period of parking. A bare
allegation of contravention and a generic reason do not establish
how long the vehicle was parked, what contractual term was
breached, or how the alleged breach arose.

22. The Claimant is put to strict proof of the period of parking
relied upon and of any evidence showing that the vehicle was
parked in breach of clearly communicated terms.

23. The Claimant is put to strict proof of its authority from the
landowner to operate, issue charges, and conduct litigation in
respect of the specific street-side bays relied upon.

24. The claimed sum of £170 is denied. The Particulars fail to
identify what part is the original parking charge and what part is
alleged damages or added recovery costs.

25. Any sum added above the original parking charge is disputed as
unrecoverable double recovery. The Claimant is put to strict proof
of the legal and contractual basis for every sum claimed.