Free Traffic Legal Advice

Hi there

The driver in this case was parked at a music studio which handed out scratch card permits to scratch out the day and fill out to put on the dashboard.

To keep it brief... the driver used the car park three days in a row and had a valid permit each day. However, in the middle day - they did not immediately place the scratch permit on the dashboard, as per the awful procedure in place by this private car park, the driver had to go into the studio to retrieve a permit from somebody in particular before scratching and filling it out to return to the car and place it in the window. The person who the driver was visiting was late that day and therefore the permit for that day was not acquired and filled out for perhaps 40 minutes or so whilst the car was sat there.
an attendant observed the 30 minute grace period that apparently is the rule of the carpark and then gave the vehicle a fine. Shortly after, the permit was placed on the dashboard for the rest of the day. a valid permit was therefore totally acceptable and in use.
Further, the permits are for a whole day. they do not have a time filled out on them. they are not required to show the desired length of parking.
So would surely be valid for the whole day if on the dashboard at all, regardless of when placed there?...

The keeper received a charge through the post. The driver emailed pleading their case, naively making the driver's identity known to one of the managers of the car park. but NOT to PPS or through the portal. The manager of the carpark refused to understand how outrageously poor taste the "parking charge" was, given that the driver had evidence of the physical valid permit and other supporting photos.
In the end, they decided as a "show of good faith" (hilariously) they would reduce it to a "cancellation fee"... of £20.

The driver and keeper actually missed that email and presumed that it was still under review. One letter came weeks later saying the £20 had not been paid. Then just now, two months later- there was a letter from a debt recovery "debt recovery plus" on the car parks behalf- but now stating the keeper had to pay £90 !!



The PCN letter chase for £20 stateS that they do not know the full name and address of the driver so the keeper needed to let them know who was driving. (which i find confusing as the driver had emailed somebody-i think a manager - at the car park/ retail centre (not someone at PPS though).


Perhaps, it is possible to go ahead with the method that the keeper will not be disclosing the driver's information as PPS didnt follow the POPLA code?...


The debt recovery letter also was supposedly sent on the 17th Jan- with a deadline to pay on the 31st. However, the keeper only received the letter yesterday (24th Jan).

Surely there is cause for some sort of predatory behaviour here, sending the letter so delayed from the date of the action, in order to pressure the keeper to pay up in a rush?


I can provide further full evidence - including the fact that there are not prominent signs displayed all over the "car park" making drivers aware, it is essentially street parking on an industrial estate- featuring one sign on the wall nearby with very very small writing with the terms. I also need to confirm this but i belive that the "30 minute grace period" that is a deadline for the permit to be in the car before a fine is issued is not clearly stated on the signage?
But for definite - the company that run the music studios did not make the driver aware of any "30 grace period" or that the permit needed to placed urgently on the dashboard. In fact, it's due to the delay of one of the people working at the studio that the driver couldnt display the valid permit in time, because he couldn't physically access the permit or register online.
Is there any grounds for predatory behaviour here, or non POPLA compliant activity?



Anyway, my main question is this: if it has been escalated to debt recovery already - is it too late to get this properly overturned with the management of the shopping centre or PPS? Or is that still possible? The driver has already been in touch with the management of the shopping centre who own the car park. Should an appropriately worded appeal about not following POPLA code be directed to them, stating that they should remove the debt recovery instruction immediately against the keeper?



Sorry for the essay- thankyou as always for the help in here. The driver always tries to follow parking rules- but these companies are absolute predators.




[ Guests cannot view attachments ]

Well this is fantastic. Many thanks again for your clear guidance on here, really appreciated.


There was absolutely no NtD left on the car. No communication left on the vehicle at all.
As I mentioned before though, the driver had finally managed to fill out the yellow parking permit and placed it visibly on the dashboard for the rest of the day. It just wasn't there for the 30 minute grace period the attendant observed the car for.


"What you have shown us appears to be a Notice to Keeper (NtK) that has been issued at least 28 days and no less that 56 days after the issue of an NtD. However, if that is the case, PPS have referenced the wrong PoFA paragraph as they should reference paragraph 8(2)(f)."
- Great, yes this is the case. No NtD left on the car, a letter with an NtK was issued to the keeper around a week later. Hopefully, I can use this case to close the issue?


The photographic evidence on the PPS site is no longer available but at the time it shows pictures of the car observed 35 minutes apart without the permit in the window as they stated is "apparently" the grace period observed. Clear and obvious signage is not here to show that. there are no pole signs, just one on the wall on the same street.


The driver emailed HCCM management (the highcross centre mgmt) as they were advised to by the person they were working with that day. They did not email with PPS. I believe HCCM are just the owners of the land/ the industrial estate. The driver may have made their identity clear to HCCM. Although maybe not passed on to PPS


I will provide a full transcript of the conversation to show the appeal process so far from the driver. It was more personal, attempting to plea with the retail park manager (not PPS) that this was a silly mistake and that they had a valid permit. (Including photgraphic evidence). They did admit that they were driving.:


To confirm. no appeal or contact was made directly between driver and PPS. Only with the highcross centre mgmt.




[ Guests cannot view attachments ]

Ah ok - apologies for the confusion. Please note- the Debt recovery letter tried to claim a £90 fee, not the £20 reduced fee. Let me send the first NtK.

For clarity of timeline:

- NtK recieved for £100

- Driver emails to the land owner HCCM, to plead case

- HCCM reduce to £20 cancellation fee

- Keeper / driver ignores email

- PPS send £20 NtK (apparent "cancellation fee")

- Keeper / driver ignores £20 letter

- DRP send letter attempting to claim £90 debt recovery


Can you also clarify that because of the crazy poor system of using hand collected scratch card parking permits, (Only available to get by collection) - that there is no breach of POPLA here or something? How can they use such an archaic method which allows for issues like this to occur, if the driver cannot immediately access a physical permit?
The attendant didn't place a notice on the car window at all either?

My only other argument was also that there was no appropriately visible or large signage saying that the permit MUST be placed on dashboard within "30 minutes". Or at least perhaps it was not adaquate signage?


So to clarify, have you seen the DRA letter I sent in the first post? Despite the threat that they can escalate the matter and affect the keeper's credit score, you are saying they do not have the power to do that, correct?


As seen below. the initial PCN was issued on 1st November.





[ Guests cannot view attachments ]

Morning everyone - As advised I'm coming back to the group when they next contact. Although I don't know if this is a letter of claim or just another chase up?

However, if possible - and if you think it would work - I would very much like to reach out to them now and close this case off. The owner of the vehicle is a pensioner, who is struggling to deal with the letter threats (despite me re assuring her multiple times that they can't escalate this). So, as you can imagine- it would be a massive help for her if we can use the evidence shown so far or my previous messages about their method of using scratch cards for permits or not having appropriate signage on the street?

I would be happy to go and grab evidence from the site location of the lack of appropriate signage if that helps to just close this case off.
Or even, if the email conversation where the parking management admit they will reduce the parking charge to a "cancellation fee" as there were no grounds for charge?

If any of that would help to close the case- i'd like to try.

Otherwise - Please see attached the most recent letter today from a DRA.

Thankyou as always for your help in these stressful cases!




[ Guests cannot view attachments ]

OP, you need to try and persuade the Keeper to persist. If necessary, you can handle everything in their name. Whilst there is a possibility that a court claim for debt may be issued, it is very easily defended and the odds of it ever getting as far as a hearing are extremely remote.

Any claim, as long as it is defended, is most likely to either be struck out or discontinued. These vermin who infest private car parks are simply ex-clamper thugs who are greedy and do not care about their victims.

We spend many hours every day advising on how to defeat these scammers. We are successful in over 99% of the cases we advise on, whether at appeal stage or court claim stage.

It would be a shame to have wasted so much of our time and advice for your pensioner friend to simply throw in the towel and be fleeced out of their hard earned pension in order to fund a bunch of ex-clamper scammers. If you are prepared to do most of the legwork, which you have done so far, then why give up now?

No. That is not an LoC. A useless debt recovery agent such as the bottom-dwelling DRP cannot do anything whatsoever except to try and scare the low-hanging fruit on the gullible tree to pay up out of ignorance and fear.

DO NOT respond to any debt collector. Never, ever communicate with them. They are completely powerless to do anything. Ignore them.

An LoC will clearly state so on it.

Just so as you completely understand how a CCJ can be given, have a read of this:

Nothing we advise on here will make anyone get 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.

PPS will not engage further and will simply fob you off to the debt recovery agent. Don't bother.

Yes, an LBC is the same as an LoC or LBCCC or whatever else you may want to call it.