DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Private parking tickets
*****************************************************
#Post#: 121068--------------------------------------------------
Re: Parking on pavement in front of shop (Cake Box, Small Heath,
Coventry Rd)
DIR By: Sm86
Date: June 8, 2026, 3:53 am
---------------------------------------------------------
I thought so. Seems to totally ignore the grounds for
challenging.
Her name is Natalie Matthews
HTML https://ibb.co/67TD849m
#Post#: 121077--------------------------------------------------
Re: Parking on pavement in front of shop (Cake Box, Small Heath,
Coventry Rd)
DIR By: InterCity125
Date: June 8, 2026, 4:42 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: Sm86 link ---
>
> I thought so. Seems to totally ignore the grounds for
challenging.
>
> Her name is Natalie Matthews
>
>
HTML https://ibb.co/67TD849m
>
--- End Quote ---
Yes, I agree.
And Natalie Matthews has form for this.
Notice in particular how she avoids any demonstration of
compliance in the manner which we asked for.
She states, (when discussing the wording of the NtK) that, "It
also says that the creditor does not know both the name of the
driver and a current address for service for the driver" - is
does not - there is no such wording present on the NtK - she has
basically made this up in order to verbally imply compliance in
a scenario where the operator has not been able to rebut your
appeal point.
#Post#: 121083--------------------------------------------------
Re: Parking on pavement in front of shop (Cake Box, Small Heath,
Coventry Rd)
DIR By: Sm86
Date: June 8, 2026, 5:17 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Where do we stand now?
Is the Popla process exhausted?
Do I pay the fine?
#Post#: 121084--------------------------------------------------
Re: Parking on pavement in front of shop (Cake Box, Small Heath,
Coventry Rd)
DIR By: DWMB2
Date: June 8, 2026, 5:27 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: Sm86 link ---
>
> Is the Popla process exhausted?
>
--- End Quote ---
Yes.
--- Quote from: Sm86 link ---
>
> Do I pay the fine?
--- End Quote ---
It is your money and therefore your choice. If you wish to
continue to fight, ignore the debt collector's letters that they
will send, and return here for advice if you receive a Letter of
Claim from Secure Parking's solicitors.
#Post#: 121100--------------------------------------------------
Re: Parking on pavement in front of shop (Cake Box, Small Heath,
Coventry Rd)
DIR By: Sm86
Date: June 8, 2026, 6:00 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Ok. Is it ultimately a civil case that could end up in court?
What's your experience with cases like mine? Obviously we hoped
Popla would handle it properly but that hasn't happened. Once a
Popla decision hasn't gone in your favour, would that
essentially weaken the case if it ended up in front of a judge?
I assume I would be responsible for legal costs too should that
happen?
#Post#: 121101--------------------------------------------------
Re: Parking on pavement in front of shop (Cake Box, Small Heath,
Coventry Rd)
DIR By: jfollows
Date: June 8, 2026, 6:04 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Small Claims track means virtually no costs. Definitely not
legal costs even if you lose.
HTML https://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/procedure-rules/civil/rules/part27#27.14
--- Quote ---
> Costs on the small claims track
> 27.14
> (1) This rule applies to any case which has been allocated to
the small claims track unless paragraph (5) applies
> (Rule 46.13 makes provision in relation to orders for costs
made before a claim has been allocated to the small claims
track)
> (2) The court may not order a party to pay a sum to another
party in respect of that other party’s costs, fees and expenses,
including those relating to an appeal, except –
> (a) the fixed costs attributable to issuing the claim,
calculated in accordance with Table 2 in Practice Direction 45;
> (b) in proceedings which included a claim for an injunction or
an order for specific performance a sum not exceeding the amount
specified in Practice Direction 27A for legal advice and
assistance relating to that claim;
> (c) any court fees paid by that other party;
> (d) expenses which a party or witness has reasonably incurred
in travelling to and from a hearing or in staying away from home
for the purposes of attending a hearing;
> (e) a sum not exceeding the amount specified in Practice
Direction 27A for any loss of earnings or loss of leave by a
party or witness due to attending a hearing or to staying away
from home for the purposes of attending a hearing;
> (f) a sum not exceeding the amount specified in Practice
Direction 27A for an expert’s fees;
> (g) such further costs as the court may assess by the summary
procedure and order to be paid by a party who has behaved
unreasonably; and
> (h) the applicable Stage 1 and, where relevant, the Stage 2
fixed costs in Table 10 and Table 11 in Practice Direction 45
where –
> (i) the claim was within the scope of the Pre-Action Protocol
for Low Value Personal Injury Claims in Road Traffic Accidents
(‘the RTA Protocol’) or the Pre-action Protocol for Low Value
Personal Injury (Employers’ Liability and Public Liability)
Claims (‘the EL/PL Protocol’);
> (ii) the claimant reasonably believed that the claim was
valued at more than the small claims track limit in accordance
with paragraph 4.1(4) of the relevant Protocol; and
> (iii) the defendant admitted liability under the process set
out in the relevant Protocol; but
> (iv) the defendant did not pay those Stage 1 and, where
relevant, Stage 2 fixed costs; and
> (i) in an appeal, the cost of any approved transcript
reasonably incurred.
> (3) A party’s rejection of an offer in settlement will not of
itself constitute unreasonable behaviour under paragraph (2)(g)
but the court may take it into consideration when it is applying
the unreasonableness test.
> (4) The limits on costs imposed by this rule also apply to any
fee or reward for acting on behalf of a party to the proceedings
charged by a person exercising a right of audience by virtue of
an order under section 11 of the Courts and Legal Services Act
19901(a lay representative).
--- End Quote ---
#Post#: 121103--------------------------------------------------
Re: Parking on pavement in front of shop (Cake Box, Small Heath,
Coventry Rd)
DIR By: Sm86
Date: June 8, 2026, 6:10 am
---------------------------------------------------------
That's good to know. Let's keep going
🤷🏻‍♂️
Am I waiting for a debt collection letter now before we take our
next steps?
And is it worth lodging a complaint with Popla about our friend
Natalie?
#Post#: 121117--------------------------------------------------
Re: Parking on pavement in front of shop (Cake Box, Small Heath,
Coventry Rd)
DIR By: InterCity125
Date: June 8, 2026, 7:38 am
---------------------------------------------------------
I'll come up with a complaint email.
I've noticed another area of non-compliance on the operators NtK
which the assessor seems not to flag.
In my opinion there is little chance of this case ever being
successful at Court but that won't stop them pressuring you.
#Post#: 121120--------------------------------------------------
Re: Parking on pavement in front of shop (Cake Box, Small Heath,
Coventry Rd)
DIR By: Sm86
Date: June 8, 2026, 7:59 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Is the best approach to totally ignore them if they begin debt
collection?
Or send a letter objecting and invite court action if they
disagree?
I used to work in the debt sector and would do this for statue
barred debt. Not sure if this is a good approach here
#Post#: 121122--------------------------------------------------
Re: Parking on pavement in front of shop (Cake Box, Small Heath,
Coventry Rd)
DIR By: DWMB2
Date: June 8, 2026, 8:14 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Ignore debt collectors. As you will probably be aware from your
time in that sector, debt collectors are not interested in any
communication that doesn't involve you paying up, and won't do
anything other than send threatening letters.
At some point they'll get bored and refer back to their client,
who'll have the choice to either give up or instruct solicitors.
*****************************************************
Page 4 of 5
DIR Previous Page
DIR Next Page