Parking Ticket - Court Letter Received

PC_MANC

*PCN is dated 19/08/21

Gr1pr

You seem to be missing the point 

Smart Parking had 6 months to obtain keeper details and one month to get the pcn to the keeper , so 7 MONTHS

The fact that they failed the Pofa2012 deadline is irrelevant if they weren't even bothered about complying,  which they weren't until this year , so the default was and is 7 months 

The point 3 allegation in the POC is insufficient paid time  ( so that was allegedly reason for the pcn being issued )

There is also the point 4 untruth about Pofa2012 in the POC,  which dcb legal added but isn't true because it never was a factor in Smart Parking cases

Any occupant of the vehicle can purchase a ticket,  not just the driver,  Smart Parking had no idea who was driving 

My point is which defence scenario are you intending to use from the 2 options I outlined on the previous page  ?

PC_MANC

I'm going to go with that I was the driver.

Gr1pr

PC_MANC said:

I'm going to go with that I was the driver.

Then you are relying on the full payment was made,  as car1980 pointed out on page 2

I believe that in that case your post this morning can be used, if others here agree

But, the POFA point 4 should not even be in the POC 

PC_MANC

Thank you. I'll see wait a day or so to see if anyone else replies and then submit my defence.

Coupon-mad

I disagree. Take the opposite stance as 2021 is too long ago to recall.

I would not say who was driving and instead stick with copying one on the thread list right now from the past week, that talks about the POC signatory lying about the POFA. Add something like this to para 3 and remove 'and driver' from para 2 because you don't know:

  Regarding the Particulars of Claim paragraph 3, The Claimant has never used the POFA 2012 and has never been able to hold registered keepers liable, so the solicitor signatory of the statement of truth on this claim is misleading the court by citing that law. Due to the length of time, the Defendant has no recollection of the day in question but thinks they disputed a PCN around that time. Smart Parking then did nothing except adding £70 (that was not on their signs) which rewards them for sitting on their hands, because their share of that 'fee' after being split with the bulk litigator - in cases with default judgments or frightened Defendants just paying the lot - sees this Claimant receive far more than face value of a legacy £100 PCN that was stored for 4 years.

And please please please do this on or before 5th September (end of next week): the government's Public Consultation.

Their proposals are wrong and in some parts,  anti-consumer. We must stop them.

See this thread: -

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6617396/parking-code-of-practice-consultation-8-weeks-from-11th-july-2025/p1

We need every poster to come back & complete this vital Consultation before the deadline.

We understand that you may need some pointers. It looks laborious and detailed, we get that.

But no other knowledge is needed: you - as a harassed and angry Defendant who never wanted court and presumably received umpteen £170 threatograms from DR Plus over the years - can call out a scam industry with little preparation needed and you'll protect millions of motorists and help change the law.

I've written some guidance on that thread to focus on certain questions that are important, such as banning the added £70 that the DRA and PPC share when duped people pay.

Meaning Smart get more than face value for a PCN they've sat on for 4 years (and the DRA also make money only if they treat disputing consumers badly by refusing to engage in disputes) charges VAT on their own fee charged to Smart. Then they make consumers shoulder the lot including the VAT element of the B2B fee, which debtors cannot be required to pay (HMRC rules).

The whole DRA fee thing is a scam.

Ordinary people like you are falling victim to this scam 15 million times per annum. Motorists need your voice added please!

PC_MANC

Thank you. I will amend and complete the requested info before the deadline.

PC_MANC

I'm going to submit tomorrow. Is this too much information for 2 & 3?

2. The allegation(s) and heads of cost are vague and liability is denied for the sum claimed, or at all. At the very least, interest should be disallowed; the delay in bringing proceedings lies with the Claimant. This also makes retrieving material documents/evidence difficult, which is highly prejudicial. The Defendant seeks fixed costs (CPR 27.14) and a finding of unreasonable conduct and further costs (CPR 46.5). The Defendant has little recollection of events, save as set out below and to admit that they were the registered keeper.

3. Referring to the POC, paragraph 1 is denied. The Defendant is not indebted to the Claimant. Paragraph 2 is denied. The Defendant does not accept that a contravention occurred on 02/08/2021 as alleged.  Whilst the Defendant is the registered keeper, paragraphs 3 and 4 are denied. The Defendant does not know from the PCN or the POC what that time limit was. The Defendant has little recollection of the events, considering they occurred five years ago, and has little to add other than admitting that they were the registered keeper and not the driver. This raises questions about whether the Notice to Keeper was even POFA-compliant. The Claimant is required to provide strict proof of all their allegations. The Defendant denies the claim, asserting that any stay within the car park was either within the permitted time or would have been subject to a reasonable extension, such as grace periods mandated by the relevant Code of Practice. The quantum is hugely exaggerated (no PCN can be £170 on private land), and no damages were incurred whatsoever. Moreover, given the passage of over four years and the lack of specific details in the woefully inadequate Particulars of Claim, it is impossible for the Defendant to provide a complete defence, particularly as the signage at the location may have been unclear, ineffective or inadequate at the time.  

3.1 Regarding the Particulars of Claim paragraph 3, The Claimant has never used the POFA 2012 and has never been able to hold registered keepers liable, so the solicitor signatory of the statement of truth on this claim is misleading the court by citing that law. Due to the length of time, the Defendant has no recollection of the day in question but thinks they disputed a PCN around that time. Smart Parking then did nothing except adding £70 (that was not on their signs) which rewards them for sitting on their hands, because their share of that 'fee' after being split with the bulk litigator - in cases with default judgments or frightened Defendants just paying the lot - sees this Claimant receive far more than face value of a legacy £100 PCN that was stored for 4 years.

3.2 The Defendant does not recall being served with a compliant Notice to Keeper for these charges, which complied with the Protection of Freedoms Act (‘POFA’) 2012 wording prescribed in Schedule. Outside the POFA, parking firms cannot invoke ‘keeper liability’. This legal point has already been tested on appeal (twice) in private parking cases, and the transcripts will be adduced in evidence

i. In the case of Excel Parking Services Ltd v Anthony Smith at Manchester Court, on appeal re: claim number C0DP9C4E in June 2017, His Honour Judge Smith overturned an error by a District Judge and pointed out that, where the registered keeper was not shown to have been driving (or was not driving) such a Defendant cannot be held liable outwith the POFA.  Nor is there any merit in a twisted interpretation of the law of agency (if that were a remedy, then the POFA Schedule 4 legislation would not have been needed at all).  His Honour Judge Smith admonished Excel for attempting to rely on a bare assumption that the Defendant was driving or that the driver was acting ‘on behalf of’ the keeper, which was without merit. Excel could have used the POFA, but did not. Mr Smith’s appeal was allowed, and Excel’s claim was dismissed.

ii. In April 2023, His Honour Judge Mark Gargan, sitting at Teesside Combined Court (on appeal re: claim H0KF6C9C), held in Vehicle Control Services Ltd v Ian Edward that a registered keeper cannot be assumed to have been driving. Nor could any adverse inference be drawn if a keeper is unable or unwilling (or indeed too late, post litigation) to nominate the driver, because the POFA does not invoke any such obligation.  His Honour Judge Gargan concluded at 35.2 and 35.3. “My decision preserves and respects the important general freedom from being required to give information, absent a legal duty upon you to do so; and it is consistent with the appropriate probability analysis whereby simply because somebody is a registered keeper, it does not mean on the balance of probability they were driving on this occasion...” Mr Edward’s appeal succeeded, and the claim was dismissed.

Gr1pr

Its probably more a case of when you add them into the template defence and renumber,  does it fit into the 122 lines and can you save it successfully   ?  ( do not submit it yet,  just try it  and see   )

Before doing that, remove every double quote marking, replacing with a single quote marking 

Mcol will not accept the following characters   " < >

PC_MANC

Thank you.