Received Letter Before Claim -Oak Legal Services - vehicle broke down, need advice please

Shewy786

Hi all, hoping for some guidance on this one. I'm the registered keeper of the vehicle; I wasn't driving at the time, but I'm the one dealing with this claim.

Background:
On 15/05/2023 the vehicle (VW Golf) got a flat tyre while being driven near Algernon Firth, St Georges Road, Leeds LS1 3AR. The driver says it wasn't safe to continue, so they pulled into the nearest space they could find so a recovery truck could reach the car without causing an obstruction on the road. The driver called their breakdown provider and a recovery technician attended.

While the car was there, a City Permits Ltd warden issued a PCN — contravention code B: "Parked without displaying a valid permit". Time of contravention noted as 22:13 on 15/05/23.
Evidence I have:
I have four dated/timestamped photos from that night (taken by the driver):
- Two showing the recovery technician (in hi-vis, with tools and a jack) working on the car, timestamped 16 May, 00:04–00:10 — so roughly 1h50m–2h after the contravention time on the ticket
- One showing a flatbed recovery truck at the scene
- The original PCN itself

Neither I nor the driver have a breakdown callout reference, invoice, or job number, as it was a free callout through the driver's breakdown cover and this was over 3 years ago, so there's no paper trail beyond the photos themselves.
Where it stands now:
The original PCN wasn't responded to at the time, and I've now received a formal Letter Before Claim from Oak Legal Services acting for City Permits Ltd, dated 03/08/2026, demanding £170 total, citing the Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims and referencing ParkingEye v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67 as their basis for enforceability. They've given 30 days to respond or pay before court proceedings.

Also worth flagging — the letter is dated 03/08/2026 but wasn't actually sent/received until 10/08/2026, a full week later. This isn't the first time I've seen this - from what I've read from others dealing with this same company, this seems to be a pattern rather than a one-off, which feels pretty underhand given it eats into the 30-day response window before they can issue proceedings.

My questions:
1. As registered keeper rather than driver, does POFA 2012 Schedule 4 compliance matter here — i.e. does the original PCN/subsequent correspondence meet the strict requirements to transfer liability from driver to keeper? Should I be asking Oak Legal to prove this, or naming the driver instead?
2. Should I name the driver at this stage, given this is now a formal Letter Before Claim rather than just the original PCN? I understand there can be strategic reasons to name or not name the driver depending on timing and POFA compliance — keen to understand the pros/cons at the LBC stage specifically, since I know this differs from how you'd approach it at the initial-PCN stage.
3. Does the breakdown/emergency stop argument carry any real weight here, given there's no formal record from the breakdown company — just timestamped photos showing recovery in progress at the same location shortly after the ticket time?
Is it worth challenging on the contravention code itself — it was issued for "no permit displayed" rather than obstruction, which seems odd for a genuine breakdown situation?
Should I respond formally to the Letter Before Claim now using the standard reply form, or is there a stronger route (e.g. a witness statement for court if they do issue proceedings)?
Any red flags in how this letter is worded, or is this a fairly standard LBC template from Oak Legal/City Permits?
Any advice on next steps, or template wording others have used successfully in similar breakdown-related keeper/driver PCN disputes, would be hugely appreciated. Happy to post further scans/redacted documents if useful.
Thanks in advance!

WhatsApp Image 2026-08-19 at 13.19.45.jpeg

WhatsApp Image 2026-08-19 at 13.18.15 (1).jpeg

WhatsApp Image 2026-08-19 at 13.18.15.jpeg

WhatsApp Image 2026-08-19 at 13.19.35.jpeg

WhatsApp Image 2026-08-19 at 13.31.09.jpeg

Le_Kirk

What is the date of issue of the PCN? You said the date of event was 15/05/23 so if the PCN was issued after 24/05/23, it wasn't given in time for keeper liability.

Coupon-mad

But I think there was a windscreen PCN first, so we'd need to see the first NTK letter to be sure about POFA compliance, or not.

Le_Kirk

Yep, looking for date of issue of NtK and missed it was a NtD first!

Shewy786

The date of issue for the PCN was 15/5/23 and it was issued on the day on the car windscreen.

I don't have a copy of the original NTK (only the windscreen ticket), I don't even recall getting one — should I request it directly from Oak Legal as part of my LBC response, and does the burden fall on them to prove compliant timing, or on me to disprove it?

Coupon-mad

Yes I would say in your response that:

• you are not aware of ever being served with a Notice to Keeper, so you require a full copy of that document, to narrow the issues under the PAP for Debt Claims;
• The car was broken down so there was no applicable parking contract. You attach your dated/timestamped photos from that night (taken by the driver) including two showing the recovery technician;
• If you were not driving, say so;
• You could indeed name the driver now and give their postal address. This is a tactic that @ChirpyChicken uses and it is quite likely that Oak Legal aka ZZPS will refuse to transfer liability, which is unlawful but typical of ZZPS and then gives YOU a perfect defence if they try a claim.

Car1980

3. Does the breakdown/emergency stop argument carry any real weight here, given there's no formal record from the breakdown company — just timestamped photos showing recovery in progress at the same location shortly after the ticket time?
Is it worth challenging on the contravention code itself — it was issued for "no permit displayed" rather than obstruction, which seems odd for a genuine breakdown situation?

This is contract law so they are arguing you entered into a contract that states you allowed your vehicle to rest on the land if a permit was displayed.

Google "frustration of contract car breakdown parking". It's not an automatic get-out because each circumstance is different, but a breakdown is generally difficult for a parking company to argue against.

Shewy786

Should i send the template response from this forum Option A — a short one (disputing liability, stating it will be defended, no detail given) versus a longer one (Option B) that sets out the NTK request, the breakdown/frustration-of-contract argument, and challenges the £170 vs £100 discrepancy in detail. I've seen conflicting advice on which is better at LBC stage specifically. Given this is ZZPS/Oak Legal, would you recommend the short version now and save the detail for a Defence/WS if they proceed, or is there a reason to front-load the detail against this particular firm? Keen to follow whichever approach has worked best for people who've dealt with them.

Option A — short version:

Dear Sirs,

Your ref: [reference number]

Proposed legal proceedings

Claimant: City Permits Ltd

I refer to your letter of claim.

I confirm that my address for service for the time being is as follows, and any older address must be erased from your records:

[Insert correct address here]

The alleged 'debt' is disputed and any court proceedings will be vigorously defended.

Yours faithfully,

Option B — longer/detailed version:

Dear Sir/Madam,

Re: Letter of Claim dated 03 August 2026 – City Permits Ltd / Parking Charge Notice, Enforcement No. 11888

I write in response to your Letter of Claim dated 03 August 2026, which I did not receive until 10 August 2026. I note this for the record, as it materially reduced my time to respond within the protocol timeframe.

I am responding in accordance with the Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims and do not accept liability for the sum claimed, for the reasons set out below.

1. No evidence of a compliant Notice to Keeper

I have no record of ever being served with a Notice to Keeper in relation to this matter. Paragraph 8 of Schedule 4 to the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 requires that a Notice to Keeper be sent no earlier than 28 days and no later than 56 days after the date of the alleged contravention, and that it contain specific prescribed wording, in order for keeper liability to transfer.

I require a copy of the original Notice to Keeper said to have been sent, together with evidence of the date on which it was sent and the address used, so that I may assess compliance with Schedule 4. Until this is provided, I do not accept that any liability has been validly transferred to me as registered keeper.

2. No valid parking contract – vehicle breakdown

Without prejudice to point 1 above, the circumstances giving rise to the alleged contravention do not support the existence of an enforceable parking charge. The vehicle suffered an unforeseen vehicle breakdown and tyre failure on 15 May 2023, and it was not possible to continue driving safely. The vehicle was left at the location shown on the Parking Charge Notice only because it was the safest available place to stop while awaiting recovery, so as not to cause an obstruction elsewhere.

I enclose dated and timestamped photographs taken that night, showing a uniformed recovery technician attending the vehicle with tools and a vehicle jack, and a flatbed recovery vehicle in attendance. These are timestamped 16 May 2023, 00:04–00:10, approximately two hours after the contravention time of 22:13 recorded on the Parking Charge Notice, consistent with a genuine breakdown and recovery having taken place.

No valid parking contract could reasonably be said to have been entered into by way of conduct, as the vehicle was not "parked" in the ordinary contractual sense but left temporarily and unavoidably due to a sudden vehicle failure outside anyone's control. I would draw attention to the doctrine of frustration, which may apply where performance of an agreement becomes impossible due to an unforeseen event.

2a. Disputed increase from original charge

I also dispute the increase from the £100.00 originally stated on the Parking Charge Notice to the £170.00 now demanded. I require a full, itemised breakdown of how this figure has been calculated, including any debt recovery or administrative fees added, and confirmation of the specific contractual or regulatory basis said to justify them.

3. Documents requested

In accordance with Paragraph 4.1 of the Practice Direction on Pre-Action Conduct and Protocols and the Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims, I request copies of the following:

The original Notice to Keeper, if any, together with proof of the date and manner of posting;

Copies of the signage said to have been in place at the location on 15 May 2023;

Any photographs taken by the attending warden at the time of the alleged contravention;

Evidence of landowner authorisation to operate and issue parking charges at this location;

The itemised breakdown requested at paragraph 2a above.

4. Reservation of position

I reserve my position on all other matters until the above documents have been provided. I do not accept that the sum of £170.00, or any sum, is owed, and I would ask that the claim be withdrawn in light of the above.

Yours faithfully,

Shewy786

Thank you so much for your help so far guys, really appreciate it!

Coupon-mad

The longer one, as I suggested.

ChirpyChicken

You really should name the driver, it really is a gamer changer in cases and under used when its often a winner