Free Traffic Legal Advice

"The Operator relies upon POFA in seeking keeper liability.

The NTK was not served within 14 days of the parking event on 29 April 25 as required by POFA. The NTK date of issue is 13 May 2025.

Paragraph 9 of Schedule 4 provides:

(5) The relevant period for the purposes of sub-paragraph (4) is the period of 14 days beginning with the day after that on which the specified period of parking ended.

(6)A notice sent by post is to be presumed, unless the contrary is proved, to have been delivered (and so "given" for the purposes of sub-paragraph (4)) on the second working day after the day on which it is posted; and for this purpose "working day" means any day other than a Saturday, Sunday or a public holiday in England and Wales.

I have considered all the issues raised by both parties in this Appeal and I am not satisfied that the parking operator has established that the Parking Charge Notice was properly issued and therefore this Appeal is allowed.

As your appeal has been accepted, the charge has been cancelled by the operator and you do not need to take any further action.

You need to respond to the LoC with the following by email to info@dcblegal.co.uk and also CC yourself:

Quote

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 was the hirer of the vehicle in question at the time of the alleged contraventions, but I am not and have never been the registered keeper. I am not obliged to identify the driver and I decline to do so. As there is no legal presumption that the hirer or 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 or hirer, they are unable to do so. I have received no Notice to Keeper or Notice to Hirer from Smart Parking at any time. Your client has failed to comply with the strict requirements of PoFA Schedule 4, including the mandatory provision of a copy of the hire agreement and a statement of liability. Even if your client were to issue or re-send these documents now, it would be well outside the statutory period and would not remedy the defect. Your client is therefore unable to rely on PoFA to establish keeper or hirer liability.

Furthermore, the alleged contraventions date back over three years, and I have received no communication from Smart Parking prior to the recent demands from DCBL. This excessive delay is prejudicial and undermines the credibility of the claim. It is entirely unreasonable to expect any individual to recall specific details of vehicle use from over three years ago, particularly in the absence of any contemporaneous notice or evidence.

As your client cannot pursue me as driver, keeper, or hirer, 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 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. Copies of the original Notice to Keeper (NtK), Notice to Hirer (NtH), and any other documentation your client intends to rely upon in support of its claim, including but not limited to correspondence with the hire company, evidence of compliance with POFA Schedule 4, and any contemporaneous notices or photographs 
2. An explanation of the cause of action 
3. Whether they are pursuing me as driver, keeper, or hirer 
4. Whether they are relying on the provisions of Schedule 4 of POFA 2012 
5. 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 
6. 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 
7. If the claim is for a contractual breach, photographs showing the vehicle was parked in contravention of said contract 
8. Is the claim for trespass? If so, provide details 
9. 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) 
10. A plan showing where any signs were displayed 
11. Photographs of the signs displayed (size of sign, size of font, height at which displayed) at the time of any alleged contravention 
12. Provide details of the original charge, and detail any interest and administrative or other charges added 
13. 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? 
14. 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]