Euro Car Parks / DCB Legal claim

DaMiester1

keeper sued but driver identified at POPLA — is my NTK non-compliant under para 9(2)(e)?

I have read the NEWBIES thread and posts #1 and #2 before posting. Claim form has arrived and AOS is done. Posting for a sense check on one specific POFA point before I file the defence.

Basic facts

• BPA member operator.
• Operator: Euro Car Parks. Solicitor: DCB Legal.
• ANPR only. No windscreen ticket. Postal Notice to Keeper only, so paragraph 9 of Schedule 4 applies.
• Parking event 16/10/2025, entry 15:27, exit 15:54. 27 minutes.
• Alleged contravention: no valid pay and display / permit purchased.
• Signage shows charges apply Mon–Sat 07:00–17:00, so the event was inside charging hours. I am not running any "free parking" argument.

Timeline

• 16/10/2025 — parking event
• 22/10/2025 — NTK issued (so deemed given 24/10, inside the 14 day window under para 9(5) — no late NTK point available)
• Appeal to operator, rejected 24/11/2025
• POPLA appeal submitted, operator evidence pack 18/12/2025
• 09/02/2026 — POPLA refused
• 12/03/2026 — debt collector letter, £170
• Wrote disputing, got a template brush-off saying they are not part of the dispute process
• 25/08/2026 — County Court claim issued. £170 plus £35 court fee plus £50 solicitor costs, £266.24 total
• AOS filed, defence due 27/09/2026

The complication

The registered keeper is a family member. I was the driver. I appealed to the operator on the keeper's behalf and then appealed to POPLA in my own name, expressly identifying myself as the driver. The POPLA decision records this and says the assessor considered the appellant's liability as the driver.

Despite that, the claim is against the keeper. The POC pleads it both ways — para 3 says the keeper is pursued as the driver, para 4 says in the alternative as keeper under POFA Sch 4.

I know from the thread that para 5(2) means they can still go after the keeper once proceedings are begun, so I am not relying heavily on "you know who was driving".

The actual question — para 9(2)(e)

Looking at the back of the NTK, I cannot find the statement required by paragraph 9(2)(e).

9(2)(e) requires the notice to state that the creditor does not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service, and then invite the keeper to pay or to name the driver.

The invitation half is there. But there is no present-tense statement that they don't know who the driver is. The only reference to their knowledge of the driver is inside the 9(2)(f) warning, phrased conditionally as "if... we do not know both the name and current address of the driver, we have the right to recover...".

My reading is that a conditional future warning under 9(2)(f) does not satisfy the separate mandatory statement required by 9(2)(e). If that's right, condition 6 fails and there is no keeper liability at all.

There is also a line saying that if the keeper names someone who denies driving, they will pursue the keeper anyway — which seems to undercut the statutory invitation.

Has anyone run the 9(2)(e) point on a Euro Car Parks NTK, and does it land? I've searched the forum and found plenty on late NTKs and missing 9(2)(f) wording, but less on 9(2)(e) specifically.

Other points I think I have

• Para 4(5) caps recovery from the keeper at the amount specified in the NTK under 9(2)(d), which is £100. They are claiming £170, so the £70 add-on looks barred by statute regardless of anything else.
• Signage: the nearest sign to the bay was substantially obscured by a tree. I have a photo. POPLA rejected this, so I'm treating it as a secondary point only. I'm going back to get proper driver's-eye-level shots from the bay in daylight at the right time of day.

What I'm asking

1. Is the 9(2)(e) reading sound, or am I overreaching?
2. Should I scrap my own draft and use the Template Defence from post #2 instead? Mine is bespoke and I'm conscious that's usually the wrong move here.
3. Anything obvious I've missed given the driver/keeper split?

Nellymoser

Whatever defence is used it has to be filed in the name of the person named on the Claim form. Same as the AOS, done in the keeper's account? not yours?

Coupon-mad

"I know from the thread that para 5(2) means they can still go after the keeper once proceedings are begun, so I am not relying heavily on "you know who was driving".

Errrr… you should be. That is the entire crux of the keeper's defence!

Operators CANNOT pursue or even process the keeper's data once the driver's name and address is known.

Did you appeal as driver and gave your address? They have processed her data illegally after that…

DaMiester1

Yes — to be clear on who's who: my mother is the registered keeper and she is the named Defendant. I am her son. I was the driver.

The AOS was done in her own MCOL account, in her name. She ticked "I am the Defendant" and signed the statement of truth herself. The Defence will go in her name too.

On the address question — yes, and it's on the operator's own paperwork. Their appeal rejection letter of 24/11/2025 is addressed to me by my full name, "on behalf of" my mother, at our home address. So they held the driver's name and a current address for service from the appeal stage onward.

I then appealed to POPLA in my own name, expressly identifying myself as the driver. The operator took part in that appeal and filed an evidence pack. The POPLA decision itself records that the appellant identified as the driver and says the assessor was considering the appellant's liability as the driver.

So by the time they issued against my mother in August 2026, they had held the driver's name and address for around nine months.

Understood on 5(2) — thank you, I'd read it far too widely. I'll make this the lead point. Is the data protection angle worth pleading in the Defence itself, or better saved for the Witness Statement?

yarpsnehpets

They will discontinue anyway as long as the matter is defended.

Your Mum's defence does not need to be overly complex.

She just needs to state that she is not liable.

State that POFA does not apply in this instance.

State that she was not the driver.

ECP NtKs are never compliant with POFA anyway.

POFA also forbids the pursuit of the keeper in an instance when the driver's details have been provided.

They have NO intention whatsoever of taking this to a hearing - they are just hoping that you (or Mum) pay out of fear.

Read POFA Explanatory Notes…

Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 - Explanatory Notes

Note 221 states;

Paragraph 4 provides that the creditor has a right to recover unpaid parking charges from the keeper of the relevant vehicle if the conditions set out in paragraphs 5, 6, 11 and 12 are satisfied. The creditor is not obliged to pursue unpaid parking charges through this scheme and may seek to do so through other means but they may not use the scheme provided for here to secure double recovery of unpaid parking charges (paragraph 4(6)), nor will they have the right to pursue the keeper, as opposed to the driver, of the vehicle where they have sufficient details of the driver’s identity. The right to reclaim unpaid parking charges from the vehicle keeper does not apply in cases where the vehicle has been stolen before it was parked, (paragraphs 4(2) to (3)), or in certain circumstances where the vehicle in question was a hire vehicle (paragraph 4(7)). The creditor may not make a claim against the keeper of a vehicle for more than the amount of the unpaid parking related charges as they stood when the notice to the driver was issued (paragraph 4(5)).

Gr1pr

Let's see your proposed paragraphs 2 & 3 for your non driving mum below, the rest of the template is unchanged

DaMiester1

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82118689#Comment_82118689

thank you for this information.

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82118781#Comment_82118781

also here it is:

2. The Defendant is the registered keeper of vehicle [REG]. She was not the driver on 16 October 2025. The vehicle entered the car park at 15:27:06 and left at 15:54:42. The Claimant issued a postal Notice to Keeper dated 22 October 2025. No notice to driver was given under paragraph 7 of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, so paragraph 9 applies to any notice relied upon as a notice to keeper.

3. The driver was the Defendant's son. He appealed to the Claimant, and the Claimant's own rejection letter dated 24 November 2025 is addressed to him by his full name at the Defendant's address. He then appealed to POPLA in his own name, expressly identifying himself as the driver. The Claimant participated in that appeal and filed an evidence pack on 18 December 2025. The POPLA assessment dated 9 February 2026 records that the appellant identified as the driver, and that the assessor was accordingly considering the appellant's liability as the driver. The Claimant has therefore held both the name of the driver and a current address for service for him since November 2025, some nine months before this claim was issued. In those circumstances the Claimant has no right to pursue the Defendant as keeper: paragraph 5(1)(b) of Schedule 4, and paragraph 221 of the Explanatory Notes, which states that a creditor will not have the right to pursue the keeper, as opposed to the driver, where they have sufficient details of the driver's identity. Paragraph 3 of the Particulars of Claim, asserting that the Defendant was the driver, is advanced contrary to the Claimant's own records.

Gr1pr

2 should be the paragraph 2 in the template defence, with an ending after keeper, that says

but not the driver

Not what you wrote above in your version of 2

Coupon-mad

That para 3 is fine. Good to go.

They always discontinue before hearings but make sure your Mum follows the 8 steps.

DaMiester1

Once i file the defense, the next steps would be to receive a Directions Questionnaire which i plan to download the N180 form and send it too: DQ.CNBC@justice.gov.uk with DCB legal cc'ed.

When it comes to the mediation, should i offer nothing or a small sum? The most I'd want to offer would be like £5, they really don't deserve my money.
I'll be choosing a local court too if it comes to the hearing which I'm sure they won't even turn up too.

yarpsnehpets

Your offer is £0 because no money is owed.

That is some way off yet.