DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Private parking tickets
*****************************************************
#Post#: 70757--------------------------------------------------
Re: Smart Parking - Insufficient Time Paid - Debt collector
letters x 2
DIR By: LMC11
Date: May 9, 2025, 9:06 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Hi
They have responded with the below. They did not send a letter
by post but someone got my email address.
Thank you for your letter, please find our response below:
Good afternoon,
Thank you for contacting BW Legal and for the information you
have provided.
A PCN is not subject to VAT as it is not an invoice. A PCN is a
reminder of your contractual obligations to adhere to the terms
and conditions of parking and notification that these terms have
been breached due to insufficient paid time.
This PCN is in regards to the breach of the terms and conditions
of the site for the contravention reason of insufficient paid
time, this is not in regards to damages.
The Charge you have been issued with represents the breach of a
core term within the parking contract which was formed when your
vehicle entered and remained on private land in excess of the
grace period and subsequently breached Furthermore, in 2015, the
Supreme Court case of ParkingEye v Beavis confirmed that the
parking charge was not about loss, but a legitimate charge to
deter motorists from breaching the contract under which they are
permitted to use the car park.
It is the overriding objective of the courts for parties to
settle matters amicably without the need for a formal hearing.
This includes raising any disputes and concerns with either
party, prior to the issue of a County Court claim, to ensure
court time is not wasted and additional costs are not incurred
unnecessarily.
In respect of the contents of your correspondence, it is
apparent that a large amount of the information contained
therein has simply been ‘copied and pasted’ from an external
source, which we see on a regular basis. Large portions of your
letter are irrelevant to the claim and therefore nonsensical,
and therefore unreasonable.
This matter will remain due and owing.
Should you have any queries please contact our office on 0113
487 0430.
If you have any further issues or new questions that you would
like us to assist you with, we kindly request that you use the
contact options below to submit a new query.
You can also log into our Customer Portal by clicking here, and
go to the Contact History of your account to view the contact.
 
Yours sincerely,
#Post#: 70758--------------------------------------------------
Re: Smart Parking - Insufficient Time Paid - Debt collector
letters x 2
DIR By: b789
Date: May 9, 2025, 10:40 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Doesn’t matter how they got your email address. What is the
email address they sent it from?
Respond with the following:
--- Quote ---
> Dear Sirs,
>
> Re: Your Letter of Claim dated 14 March 2025 and subsequent
evasive response
>
> Your recent reply to my response under the Pre-Action Protocol
for Debt Claims (“PAPDC”) is as predictable as it is
professionally unacceptable.
>
> Rather than comply with the PAPDC, you have doubled down on
your client’s unreasonable position by issuing a dismissive,
boilerplate non-response. You have not answered a single
question I raised with the clarity or specificity the Protocol
demands. Your attempt to discredit my letter on the basis that
it resembled a commonly used template is legally irrelevant and
patently absurd. The questions posed are pertinent, necessary,
and entirely within the scope of the PAPDC and Practice
Direction – Pre-Action Conduct.
>
> As regulated solicitors, you are required to engage
constructively, not attempt to browbeat consumers into silence.
If your client’s case had any legal merit, you would have no
difficulty providing coherent answers. Your failure to do so
will be a matter of record.
>
> I remind you again:
>
> [indent]• I am the registered keeper. I am under no obligation
to identify the driver and I decline to do so.
> • There is no legal presumption that the keeper was the
driver: see VCS v Edward [2023] (H0KF6C9C).
> • Your client is not relying on PoFA 2012, so cannot pursue me
as the keeper.
> • Therefore, your client has no cause of action against me in
either capacity.[/indent]
>
> Your refusal to acknowledge this basic legal reality is prima
facie evidence of unreasonable conduct.
>
> Should you issue a claim in these circumstances, I will
immediately seek:
>
> [indent]• A costs order under CPR 27.14(2)(g) on the basis of
your unreasonable behaviour;
> • A formal stay of proceedings under paragraph 15 of the
Practice Direction;
> • Disclosure orders compelling the very information your
client should have provided before threatening litigation;
> • And I will file a formal complaint to the Solicitors
Regulation Authority, supported by this correspondence.[/indent]
>
> Furthermore, your conduct now compels me to require additional
information, as allowed under the PAPDC. I repeat my earlier
questions and now demand that your client also provides answers
to the following, to allow me to fully understand the alleged
claim:
>
> [indent]1. Full details of the alleged cause of action.
> 2. Confirmation of whether your client alleges a contract with
me, and if so:
> [indent] a. The date it was formed,
>  b. The parties to it,
>  c. The terms relied upon, and
>  d. A copy of the alleged contract.[/indent]
> 3. Confirmation of whether the claim is brought in contract or
in tort (e.g. trespass).
> 4. A complete breakdown of the amount claimed: principal,
added sums, interest, costs.
> 5. Whether the added £60 sum is a “debt recovery” charge,
contractual fee, or other.
> 6. If it is a “debt recovery” fee:
> [indent] a. Is it paid to a third party or retained by
your client?
>  b. Is it VAT-inclusive?
>  c. If VAT is charged, why am I being asked to cover
your client’s tax liability?[/indent]
> 7. Full details of the alleged contravention:
> [indent] a. Precise duration of stay,
>  b. Evidence relied upon (e.g. ANPR records),
>  c. Any grace or consideration periods applied.[/indent]
> 8. A copy of the signage that allegedly formed the contract.
> 9. A site map showing signage locations.
> 10. Proof of your client’s landowner authority, as required by
the BPA/IPC Private Parking Single Code of Practice.
> 11. Evidence that your client has fully complied with that
Code.
> 12. Confirmation of whether the alleged charge was ever
subject to internal or independent appeal. If so, provide all
correspondence and decisions.
> 13. Whether your client holds DVLA Keeper data; and if so, the
exact date that data was obtained and under what basis.
> 14. Whether your client asserts that keeper liability applies
and, if not, who they allege the driver to be and on what basis.
> 15. Whether your client’s signs were in compliance with the
Consumer Rights Act 2015 and applicable guidance on unfair terms
in consumer contracts.[/indent]
>
> I repeat: you must not issue proceedings until your client has
complied with the PAPDC and supplied full answers to the above.
Any claim issued without proper pre-action disclosure will be
met with an application to strike out, stay, or sanction,
supported by authority including:
>
> [indent]• Webb Resolutions Ltd v Waller Needham & Green [2012]
EWHC 3529 (Ch),
> • Charles Church Developments Ltd v Stent Foundations Ltd
[2007] EWHC 855 (TCC),
> • Daejan Investments Ltd v Park West Club Ltd [2003] EWHC 2872
(TCC).[/indent]
>
> You are now on formal notice: any further failure to comply
will be used against your firm and your client in any
proceedings. I will seek full recovery of costs for your
unreasonable and abusive litigation tactics, and escalate your
professional misconduct to the SRA.
>
> Yours faithfully,
>
> [Your Name]
--- End Quote ---
#Post#: 70767--------------------------------------------------
Re: Smart Parking - Insufficient Time Paid - Debt collector
letters x 2
DIR By: H C Andersen
Date: May 10, 2025, 5:06 am
---------------------------------------------------------
They try and browbeat the keeper and then the keeper adopts a
similar posture to impress them with knowledge, whether correct
and however obtained, to try and cause them to cease.
Subject to the respective dates of the breach and posting of the
NTK being as the OP has stated, then...
Personally, I would try and engage with the substantive part of
their response - bearing in mind it's the only non-standard
communication the keeper has received. Specifically, I am
referring to this section:
A PCN is not subject to VAT as it is not an invoice. A PCN is a
reminder of your contractual obligations to adhere to the terms
and conditions of parking and notification that these terms have
been breached due to insufficient paid time.
This PCN is in regards to the breach of the terms and conditions
of the site for the contravention reason of insufficient paid
time, this is not in regards to damages.
The Charge you have been issued with represents the breach of a
core term within the parking contract which was formed when your
vehicle entered and remained on private land in excess of the
grace period
From the above it would appear that your client is acting on the
basis that despite the fact that a parking charge would be owed
by the driver, they are stating as a fact that the keeper is
liable i.e. 'the charge you have been issued with'. Putting
aside for one moment whether the driver incurred a parking
charge, your client's 'Right to claim unpaid parking charges
from keeper of vehicle' arises only if they have complied with
the mandatory requirements of para. 4 of Schedule 12 to the
Protection of Freedoms Act 2012.
Given that one of these conditions (one might say 'core'
condition) is that a Notice to Keeper must have been given no
later than the end of '..the period of 14 days beginning with
the day after that on which the specified period of parking
ended.' and that in this case the Notice to Keeper was not even
issued until 16 days had elapsed, then it is manifestly obvious
that the creditor has no 'right to claim unpaid parking charges
from the keeper of the vehicle'.
At this point I would refer you to this paragraph in your
letter:
It is the overriding objective of the courts for parties to
settle matters amicably without the need for a formal hearing.
This includes raising any disputes and concerns with either
party, prior to the issue of a County Court claim, to ensure
court time is not wasted and additional costs are not incurred
unnecessarily.
May I suggest that you advise your client that they have no
'right to claim unpaid parking charges from the keeper' before
the court's time is wasted.
#Post#: 72122--------------------------------------------------
Re: Smart Parking - Insufficient Time Paid - Debt collector
letters x 2
DIR By: LMC11
Date: May 18, 2025, 7:21 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Thank You both for your response.
Email they sent their email from noreply@bwlegal.co.uk.
#Post#: 118744--------------------------------------------------
Re: Smart Parking - CCJ proceeding
DIR By: LMC11
Date: May 15, 2026, 5:23 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Hi,
Me again sorry.
After your help. I wrote to BW Legal confirming i was the
registered keeper, not the driver, and that keeper liability
under Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 was not
available because the notice was outside the statutory
timeframe. I also requested key documents, including the Notice
to Keeper, proof of posting, ANPR records, signage, landowner
authority, and a breakdown of the sum claimed.
BW Legal responded on or around 3 July 2025 stating that the
matter had been closed and returned to their client. I
understood that BW Legal were no longer pursuing the matter and
that the serious issues raised had not been answered. I had
since sold the vehicle and moved address.
On 11th May 2026 I received a letter regarding CCJ proceedings
from Smart Parking.
The letter is from HM Courts & Tribunal Services. Particular of
Claims -
1. The defendant (D) in indebted to the Claimant (C) for
Parking charge (PC) issued to vehicle XXX
2. The date of contravention is 17/09/22 and the D was issued
with PC by the C
3. The D is pursued as the driver of the vehicle for breach of
the terms on the signs (the contract). Reason: Insufficient paid
time
4. In the alternative the D is pursued as the keeper pursuant of
POFA 2012, Schedule 4.
AND THE CLAIMANT CLAIMS
1. £160 being the total of the PC and damages
2. Intrest at a rate of 8% per annum pusuant to s.69 of the
county courts acts 1984 from the date hereof at a daily rate of
£0.04 until judgement or sooner payment
3. costs and court fees
Thank You
#Post#: 118745--------------------------------------------------
Re: Smart Parking - Insufficient Time Paid - Debt collector
letters x 2
DIR By: LMC11
Date: May 15, 2026, 5:27 am
---------------------------------------------------------
HTML http://file:///Users/sym/Downloads/Untitled%20design%20(3).png
HTML http://file:///Users/sym/Downloads/Untitled%20design%20(2).png
HTML http://file:///Users/sym/Downloads/Untitled%20design%20(1).png
#Post#: 118753--------------------------------------------------
Re: Smart Parking - Insufficient Time Paid - Debt collector
letters x 2
DIR By: jfollows
Date: May 15, 2026, 7:51 am
---------------------------------------------------------
It will help you if you post documents you’re talking about, per
Reply #2, but if you have a N1SDT county court claim form you
have to file a defence or Acknowledgment of Service within 14+5
days from the date on the form, and if the latter you have an
additional 14 days to file a defence.
#Post#: 119011--------------------------------------------------
Re: Smart Parking - Insufficient Time Paid - Debt collector
letters x 2
DIR By: LMC11
Date: May 18, 2026, 12:26 am
---------------------------------------------------------
The last reply doesn't show the images i have uploaded below. I
was hoping to use option to dispute the whole claim via the
defence form rather than court. Using the defence that they sent
the original PCN outside the 14days, that BW Legal had closed
the case and not information that i requested about the PCN was
provided to me?
HTML https://ibb.co/fG0s7GzG
HTML https://ibb.co/LXBm0fvM
HTML https://ibb.co/SDxSVmpd
Thank You
#Post#: 119012--------------------------------------------------
Re: Smart Parking - Insufficient Time Paid - Debt collector
letters x 2
DIR By: jfollows
Date: May 18, 2026, 12:48 am
---------------------------------------------------------
No chance, this has now gone to court.
You need to file a defence or Acknowledgment of Service by 29
May, if the latter this extends your defence deadline to 12
June.
You have a defence, but it would do no harm to obtain the
original PCN if you still don’t have it, using a Subject Access
Request to Smart, for example. As you have noted, Smart’s PCNs
used to fail to comply with the requirements of PoFA 2012,
usually by being sent too late to transfer liability.
DCB Legal will probably discontinue the claim eventually, but
until they do it’s a live claim and you’ll get a default
judgement against you if you do nothing.
Note that Smart has now engaged DCB Legal whereas originally
they used BW Legal. I have no idea why they changed, but if you
search the forum you will see many cases where DCB Legal
discontinues in the face of a defended claim.
My guess is that Smart is simply making a second attempt to get
your money, trawling through its list of unpaid claims, in the
knowledge that many court claims are ignored.
#Post#: 119125--------------------------------------------------
Re: Smart Parking - Insufficient Time Paid - Debt collector
letters x 2
DIR By: LMC11
Date: May 18, 2026, 11:34 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Sorry for clarification are you saying that i shouldn't use the
'Defence form' "if you dispute the whole claim against the
claimant" ? I should only do acknowledgment of service, and wait
for a court date?
I also no longer live in the UK - the letter was sent to a
correspondence address (if that has any relevance)
*****************************************************
Page 2 of 3
DIR Previous Page
DIR Next Page