DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Private parking tickets
*****************************************************
#Post#: 121992--------------------------------------------------
Re: DCB letter of claim- smart parks-cresta court altrincham
after 3 years.
DIR By: InterCity125
Date: June 16, 2026, 11:04 am
---------------------------------------------------------
I suggested this in another Smart Parking Claim.
There's a lot of Smart claims at the moment so someone must be
instigating these robo-claims.
All easily defended as Smart PCNs were always out of time for
PoFA.
I would start with something like;
1. It is acknowledged that I was the Registered Keeper of the
vehicle at the material time.
2. The vehicle driver is not known to the Claimant and, as this
is a contract dispute, I will not be identifying the driver
under any circumstance as the law does not require it.
3. The Claimant appears to be relying on Protection of Freedoms
Act (2012)(PoFA) in order to transfer liability from the unknown
driver to myself.
4. In order to invoke 'keeper liability' using PoFA the Claimant
must demonstrate that their Notice to Keeper (NtK) is compliant
with Schedule 4 of PoFA - in this instance the NtK is not
compliant as it was served well beyond the 14 day period
required by the legislation.
5. As a result, with the driver unknown and no option of keeper
liability, there is no legal route to liability in this matter.
6. Liability is therefore denied entirely.
Further defence points which the Court should be aware of;
7. (then add your further points being very careful not to imply
that you were the driver)
#Post#: 124066--------------------------------------------------
Re: DCB letter of claim- smart parks-cresta court altrincham
after 3 years.
DIR By: Tuffnut
Date: July 8, 2026, 6:53 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Thanks guys, following your advice this is a draft of defense i
have prepared. Please let me know if this would be okay.
1. The Defendant is the registered keeper of the vehicle. The
Claimant has failed to identify the driver, and the Defendant is
under no obligation to do so. This is a contract dispute, and
the Claimant has provided no evidence that the Defendant was the
driver at the material time.
2. The Claimant has failed to comply with the mandatory
requirements of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act
2012. No notice was served on the vehicle at the time of the
alleged contravention, and no compliant Notice to Keeper was
served upon the Defendant within the statutory 14 day period.
The contravention occurred on 08/01/2023, while the notice was
issued on 31/01/2023, placing it well outside the statutory
limit for invoking keeper liability.
3. At the time of the alleged contravention, the Defendant
resided at the address registered with the DVLA. The Defendant
continued to reside at this address for approximately six months
following the incident. Despite this, no correspondence was ever
received. This lack of notice, combined with the significant
delay of over three years in bringing this claim, is highly
prejudicial to the Defendant and has prevented the timely
investigation of this matter.
4. The Claimant is put to strict proof that they have the
authority of the landowner to issue parking charges and to bring
legal proceedings in their own name. The Claimant is required to
produce a full, unredacted contract between themselves and the
landowner.
5. The Defendant denies that a contract was formed. The Claimant
is put to strict proof that clear, prominent, and legible
signage was present at the material time, which complied with
relevant codes of practice. Furthermore, the Particulars of
Claim regarding insufficient paid time are vague. The Claimant
has failed to provide a breakdown of the duration of the parking
event or the amount paid. The Defendant is unable to verify
these claims.
6. The Claimant has added an arbitrary sum in legal costs. These
costs are denied. They are not supported by the contract, were
not genuinely incurred, and represent an attempt at double
recovery, which is prohibited in the Small Claims track.
7. In light of the above, the Defendant denies liability for the
entirety of the claim. The Defendant respectfully asks the Court
to dismiss the claim.
*****************************************************
Page 3 of 3
DIR Previous Page