DCB Legal / Secure Parking Solutions claim — keeper but not driver

guttedman

Hi all,

I have received a County Court claim from Secure Parking Solutions Ltd, represented by DCB Legal, relating to a private parking charge at Buckingham Street Pay & Display, Birmingham B19 3JG.

The alleged parking event was on 21 December 2025. The allegation is that the vehicle was parked without displaying a valid pay & display ticket or valid parking session.

The claim was issued on 13 August 2026 and I have already completed the Acknowledgment of Service on MCOL. I understand that I now need to file my defense in time.

The amount claimed is £263.24, made up of the parking charge / added costs, court fee and legal representative’s costs.

I was the registered keeper of the vehicle at the time, but I was not the driver. I have never driven this vehicle. The vehicle was in the possession, custody and day-to-day control of another person, whose full name and address I can provide to the court if required, but I have not posted those personal details here.

The Particulars of Claim say I am pursued as driver, or alternatively as keeper pursuant to Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012.

I am planning to use the current MSE template defense and adapt only the case-specific paragraphs. I would be grateful if someone could check whether the following wording is suitable for my paragraphs 2 and 3, especially because I was keeper but not driver.

Proposed case-specific paragraphs:

1. It is admitted that the Defendant was recorded by DVLA as the registered keeper of the vehicle. It is denied that the Defendant was the driver. The Defendant has never driven this vehicle. The Claimant is put to strict proof that the Defendant was the driver, because there is no legal presumption that a registered keeper was the driver.
2. The allegation relates to Buckingham Street Pay & Display, Birmingham B19 3JG, on 21 December 2025. The Defendant did not park the vehicle, did not purchase or fail to purchase any parking session, did not enter into any contract with the Claimant, and did not agree to pay any parking charge. At the material time the vehicle was in the possession, custody and day-to-day control of another person. The Defendant was merely the registered keeper recorded by DVLA and was not the user or driver of the vehicle. If the Claimant seeks to rely on keeper liability, the Claimant is put to strict proof of full compliance with Schedule 4 of POFA 2012.

Any advice on whether this wording is suitable, or whether I should mention the other person in the defense or leave that for witness statement stage, would be appreciated.

Many Thanks for all of you.

Gr1pr

No blabbing about who was driving, no details, you are pursued as keeper, regardless of who was driving

PPost a redacted picture of the POC from the lower left of the claim form below after hiding the VRM details first

Your 2 paragraphs above would possibly be paragraphs 3 & 3.1 , not 1 & 2, OR as 2 & 3. ?

Coupon-mad

"The vehicle was in the possession, custody and day-to-day control of another person, whose full name and address I can provide to the court if required."

Too late for that.

Why do you think the Claimant can't hold you liable under the POFA?

Show the PCN. Both sides.

And the POC.

guttedman

Thanks, understood.

I am not saying the Claimant definitely cannot hold me liable under POFA. I am asking whether the Notice to Keeper is POFA compliant for a windscreen-ticket case.

I have now found the postal Notice to Keeper dated 21 January 2026. It relates to an alleged parking event on 21 December 2025 at Buckingham Street Pay & Display, Birmingham B19 3JG. The Notice to Keeper states that a PCN was issued and affixed to the vehicle, so this appears to be a windscreen-ticket case. I do not have the original windscreen PCN / Notice to Driver.

I have uploaded the redacted POC and both sides of the NTK.

For the current MSE template, are the following suitable as my case-specific paragraphs 3, 3.1 and 3.2, or should they be shortened?

3. The Defendant confirms that he was the registered keeper of the vehicle. Liability is denied. The Defendant was not the driver and has never driven this vehicle. The Defendant was not present, did not park the vehicle, did not see any windscreen PCN, did not enter into any contract with the Claimant, and has no personal knowledge of the alleged parking event.

3.1. The postal Notice to Keeper held by the Defendant is dated 21 January 2026 and relates to an alleged parking event on 21 December 2025 at Buckingham Street Pay & Display, Birmingham B19 3JG. The Notice to Keeper states that a PCN was issued and affixed to the vehicle, therefore this appears to be a windscreen-ticket case. The Defendant does not have the original windscreen PCN / Notice to Driver and does not admit that the Claimant complied with Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. If the Claimant seeks to hold the Defendant liable as registered keeper, the Claimant is put to strict proof of full compliance with every mandatory requirement of Schedule 4.

3.2. The Defendant also denies that the Claimant is entitled to recover any sum from the Defendant as keeper exceeding the amount of the parking charge specified in the relevant Notice to Keeper. The Claimant is put to strict proof that the amount claimed is recoverable in law.

Court claim.jpg

NTK page 1.jpg

NTK page 2.jpg

Coupon-mad

This bit would be at the end of para 2 as the instructions tell you in the defence thread:

"The Defendant confirms that he was the registered keeper of the vehicle. Liability is denied. The Defendant was not the driver and has never driven this vehicle."

However that defence is going nowhere because that looks like a compliant NTK issued a month after a windscreen PCN, and under para8 of Sch4 of the POFA the keeper is liable, even if not driving.

You need to remove your link to the Claim Form as it gives your VRM and password which is personal/secure data not to divulge.

Here it is redacted:

You'd be better just responding to the allegation, saying something like this (or tailor it if you do know from the driver what went wrong):

The Defendant is reduced to guesswork as they were not there but the signs and any PDT machine was believed to be obscure or hidden and the keeper's honest belief is that any purported 'terms' were either not seen or there was no working machine and the driver left after walking around looking for a working machine. The site was poorly lit in December darkness and the car was only photographed 11 minutes apart, which the Competition and Markets Authority has held in Summer 2026, is insufficient time in a pay and display scenario where signs are unclear and/or payment mechanisms not found or working.

MrJenkinsEsq

On the particulars against themselves:

Paragraph 1 pleads that a Parking Charge was issued to a vehicle and that the Defendant is thereby indebted, but a vehicle is incapable of entering a contract, breaching a term or incurring a liability.

A charge issued to a vehicle rather than to a person can only sensibly describe a notice affixed to that vehicle, so the only coherent reading of paragraph 1 is that a Notice to Driver was put on the windscreen at the site.

If that is the case, the Claimant is committed to paragraph 8 of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 and cannot fall back on paragraph 9, which applies only where no notice to driver has been given.

That means both notices have to be right: the Notice to Driver must comply with paragraph 7 on content and on how and when it was given, and the Notice to Keeper must comply with paragraph 8(2) on content and fall within the 28 to 56 day window in paragraph 8(4).

A compliant Notice to Keeper cannot cure a defective Notice to Driver, because paragraph 8 only operates where a notice to driver has been given in accordance with paragraph 7.

Paragraph 2 says the Defendant was issued with a Parking Charge, which is a different event from the one pleaded in paragraph 1, and the Particulars never say which actually happened.

Paragraph 3 asserts the Defendant was the driver, while paragraph 4 relies on keeper liability, which arises under paragraph 5(1) only where the Claimant does not know both the driver's name and a current address for service.

The Claimant cannot both know who the driver was and not know it, and since that knowledge lies solely within its own gift, the two alternatives are mutually destructive rather than genuine alternatives.

Paragraph 3 pleads the breach as parking without displaying a valid ticket or without a valid parking session, which are distinct contraventions proved by different evidence, and again the Particulars do not say which is alleged.

Nothing in the Particulars identifies the term said to have been breached, the conduct amounting to the breach, or the date the charge became payable.

The £170 is pleaded as the total of the Parking Charge and damages with no breakdown of either.

guttedman

is it acceptable?

3. The Defendant confirms that he was the registered keeper of the vehicle. Liability is denied. The Defendant was not present, did not park the vehicle, did not see any windscreen PCN, and has no personal knowledge of the alleged parking event. The Defendant is therefore reduced to responding based on the limited and unclear information supplied by the Claimant.

3.1. The allegation appears to relate to a pay-and-display car park at Buckingham Street Pay & Display, Birmingham B19 3JG, on 21 December 2025. The Claimant’s own Notice to Keeper shows observation times of approximately 21:12 to 21:23 on a dark December evening, a period of only around 10 to 11 minutes. The Defendant’s honest belief, based on the short observation period, darkness, pay-and-display nature of the site and limited photographs provided, is that the driver may not have seen clear contractual terms, may have been unable to locate or use a working payment machine or payment mechanism, and/or may have left after attempting to understand the terms or locate a working method of payment. The Claimant is put to strict proof of clear, prominent, illuminated signage and working payment facilities at the material time.

3.2. The Particulars of Claim are unclear and internally inconsistent. They plead that a Parking Charge was issued to a vehicle, but a vehicle cannot enter a contract, breach a term, or incur liability. If a notice was issued to the vehicle, the only coherent reading is that a Notice to Driver was affixed to the vehicle. The Claimant is therefore put to strict proof that any Notice to Driver complied with paragraph 7 of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012.

3.3. If a Notice to Driver was given, the Claimant is committed to the paragraph 8 route of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 and cannot rely on paragraph 9, which applies where no Notice to Driver was given. The Defendant does not have the original windscreen PCN / Notice to Driver and does not admit that it was compliant. A compliant Notice to Keeper cannot cure a defective Notice to Driver. The Claimant is put to strict proof that both the Notice to Driver and Notice to Keeper complied with every mandatory requirement of Schedule 4.

3.4. The Particulars further plead driver liability and keeper liability as alternatives, but do not properly identify the facts said to support either route. The Claimant has not pleaded how it allegedly knows the Defendant was the driver, nor has it pleaded the facts necessary to establish keeper liability. The Particulars also plead two different alleged breaches, namely parking without displaying a valid pay-and-display ticket or parking without a valid parking session, which are distinct allegations requiring different evidence. The Claimant is put to strict proof of the exact term allegedly breached and the conduct said to amount to that breach.

3.5. The sum of £170 is pleaded as a combination of a Parking Charge and damages, but no breakdown is provided. The Defendant denies that any additional sum above the original parking charge is recoverable, particularly from a registered keeper. The Claimant is put to strict proof of the legal basis, contractual basis and calculation of the sum claimed.

Castle

OP

Have you seen the NTD?