DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Private parking tickets
*****************************************************
#Post#: 97166--------------------------------------------------
CCJ – Paid for parking but mistyped car reg (one letter off)
DIR By: awf185
Date: November 6, 2025, 5:52 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Hi everyone,
I’ve had a County Court claim come through from Euro Car PArks .
I paid for parking, but I made a small typo in the car
registration — just one letter off. I’m the registered keeper
and not admitting who was driving.
Particulars of Claim (with reg redacted):
1. The Defendant (D) is indebted to the Claimant (C) for a
Parking Charge (PC) issued to vehicle [REDACTED] at Walsall -
Waterfront.
2. The date of contravention is 09/08/2024 and the D was issued
with a PC by the Claimant.
3. The Defendant is pursued as the driver of the vehicle for
breach of the terms on the signs (the contract). Reason: No
Valid Pay And Display/permit Was Purchased.
4. In the alternative, the Defendant is pursued as the keeper
pursuant to POFA 2012, Schedule 4.
The Claimant claims:
1. £170.00 being the total of the PC and damages.
2. Interest at 8% p.a. under s.69 County Courts Act 1984 at
£0.04 per day until judgment or payment.
3. Costs and court fees.
Key facts of the parking fine:
Location: Walsall – Waterfront (site code 330104), terminal
WLW07L
Date/time: Friday 09/08/2024 – payment made at 18:33 (bank
record) / approx. 18:34 (machine)
Amount paid: £3.00 (evening tariff, up to 4 hours)
Car reg entered at the machine/app: [REG-L] – same as my real
reg but with one letter different
Car reg on the claim form: [REG-Y]
My actual car reg: [MY-REG]
Court timeline:
Issue date: 31/10/2025
Deemed served: 05/11/2025
AoS filed: 06/11/2025 (defend all)
Defence deadline: 03/12/2025 at 4pm
What I’ve got as evidence:
- Bank statement showing £3.00 paid at 18:33 on 09/08/2024
- The parking company’s own machine log showing [REG-L] at
18:34, Tx ID 144163, terminal WLW07L, site 330104
- Proof that [REG-L] isn’t an existing registration (so it’s
clearly a typo)
What I’ve done so far:
Submitted the AoS online (defend all)
Sent a CPR 31.14 request to the solicitors asking for:
• the contract/signage and landowner authority
• ANPR data
• unredacted keyed car reg/payment logs for 18:20–18:45
• payment reconciliation for Tx ID 144163
• DVLA/KADOE data for [REG-Y]
• breakdown of the amount claimed
• explanation why the [REG-L] payment wasn’t matched or refunded
I also mentioned the Private Parking Sector Single Code of
Practice (June 2024) – it says operators shouldn’t pursue
charges for accidental keying errors. Minor keying errors should
be cancelled, and major errors should only result in a £20 admin
charge if payment was made.
Can someone please check over my defence points below?
Any advice on how to phrase the bit about burden of proof and
payment reconciliation?
Should I chase the solicitors next week if they ignore the CPR
request, or ask for a short extension under CPR 15.5?
If anyone knows Walsall Waterfront, is there anything notable
about the signage or ANPR setup there?
Defence outline (draft)
Deny the claim in full.
I’m the keeper of [MY-REG]. The Particulars refer to [REG-Y] and
allege “No Valid Pay & Display/permit Was Purchased.”
The parking fee was paid. Any issue arises purely from a typo
when entering the car registration.
The claimant’s own log shows [REG-L] at 18:34. My bank shows
payment at 18:33. They’re put to strict proof of non-payment.
Particulars are vague and don’t meet CPR 16.4/PD16 requirements.
The claimant must prove that [REG-Y] exists and explain why a
paid transaction under [REG-L] wasn’t reconciled or refunded,
given [REG-L] doesn’t correspond to any real vehicle.
If relying on keeper liability, they must show full compliance
with POFA 2012 Sch 4.
Any sums beyond the original PCN are unrecoverable double
recovery (POFA Sch 4 para 4(5)).
They must also prove standing (landowner authority) and adequate
signage.
The Single Code says accidental keying errors shouldn’t be
enforced; for major errors, the max charge is £20 where payment
was made.
I’ll ask the court to dismiss the claim. Alternatively, limit it
to the original PCN only, with costs for unreasonable conduct
under CPR 27.14(2)(g).
Evidence ready to upload (all redacted):
Claim form
Machine log showing [REG-L] entry (Tx ID 144163, WLW07L, site
330104)
Bank statement showing 18:33 payment
Screenshot proving [REG-L] isn’t a valid car reg
Any signage photos (if I can get them)
Any feedback would be really appreciated
#Post#: 97179--------------------------------------------------
Re: CCJ – Paid for parking but mistyped car reg (one letter off)
DIR By: InterCity125
Date: November 7, 2025, 2:46 am
---------------------------------------------------------
It might be worth posting up the PCN if you have it. It can then
be examined for non PoFA compliance.
Your defence is clearly very strong so would expect them to
discontinue.
#Post#: 97190--------------------------------------------------
Re: CCJ – Paid for parking but mistyped car reg (one letter off)
DIR By: Dave65
Date: November 7, 2025, 4:06 am
---------------------------------------------------------
So, what has gone on prior to this court claim?
What have you received and what have you done?
As this could have been dealt with earlier.
#Post#: 97318--------------------------------------------------
Re: CCJ – Paid for parking but mistyped car reg (one letter off)
DIR By: awf185
Date: November 7, 2025, 1:08 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: InterCity125 link ---
>
> It might be worth posting up the PCN if you have it. It can
then be examined for non PoFA compliance.
>
> Your defence is clearly very strong so would expect them to
discontinue.
>
--- End Quote ---
[img]
HTML https://imgpile.com/p/Uouysyc[/img]
The PCN has been approved as compliant by PoFA
#Post#: 97319--------------------------------------------------
Re: CCJ – Paid for parking but mistyped car reg (one letter off)
DIR By: jfollows
Date: November 7, 2025, 1:25 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: awf185 link ---
>
> [quote author=InterCity125 link=topic=8681.msg97179#msg97179
date=1762505173]
> It might be worth posting up the PCN if you have it. It can
then be examined for non PoFA compliance.
>
> Your defence is clearly very strong so would expect them to
discontinue.
>
--- End Quote ---
[img]
HTML https://imgpile.com/p/Uouysyc[/img]
The PCN has been approved as compliant by PoFA
[/quote]
Says who?
Maybe it does comply, but you need to post it so that we can
verify this.
#Post#: 97320--------------------------------------------------
Re: CCJ – Paid for parking but mistyped car reg (one letter off)
DIR By: awf185
Date: November 7, 2025, 1:27 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: Dave65 link ---
>
> So, what has gone on prior to this court claim?
>
> What have you received and what have you done?
>
> As this could have been dealt with earlier.
>
--- End Quote ---
Thanks, [member=1555]Dave65[/member] — here’s the timeline and
what I’ve done.
What I received
- PCN from Euro Car Parks (keeper notice) – Walsall Waterfront
- Reminder and debt collector letters
- Letters from the solicitors (including the Letter of Claim)
- County Court Claim Form
What I did
Appealed to Euro Car Parks as keeper (paid tariff; car reg
mistyped by one letter). Rejected
Appealed to POPLA with bank statement (18:33 payment on
09/08/2024), machine log showing the mistyped reg at ~18:34 (Tx
ID 144163, WLW07L, site 330104), proof the mistyped reg isn’t a
real vehicle, and the Single Code point about keying errors.
Rejected
Ignored debt collector demands
Sent a Subject Access Request to ECP
Filed Acknowledgment of Service (defend all)
Sent a CPR 31.14 request to the solicitor for contract/signage,
landowner authority, ANPR, unredacted keyed reg logs, payment
reconciliation for Tx 144163, DVLA/KADOE for the pleaded reg,
and a breakdown of sums
Drafting defence covering payment made, keying error, no loss or
legitimate interest, POFA compliance, signage and standing, and
unrecoverable add-ons
Why it wasn’t resolved earlier:
- ECP rejected despite proof of payment and obvious keying error
- POPLA also rejected
- Driver identity not admitted; proceeding to defend in court
- POPLA refused my appeal. They say their role is only to decide
if the PCN was issued “correctly” at first instance based on the
operator’s evidence, not to source evidence or apply court
rules.
- They relied on the operator’s payment reports saying “no
payment traced” to my car reg, and on signage stating the full,
correct reg must be entered.
- They accepted I paid, but said my ticket wasn’t valid because
the car reg was mistyped.
- They cited BPA Code guidance and Beavis, saying the charge
doesn’t have to represent loss.
#Post#: 97323--------------------------------------------------
Re: CCJ – Paid for parking but mistyped car reg (one letter off)
DIR By: jfollows
Date: November 7, 2025, 1:30 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
You need to post documentation rather than paraphrasing if you
want advice here.
#Post#: 97328--------------------------------------------------
Re: CCJ – Paid for parking but mistyped car reg (one letter off)
DIR By: awf185
Date: November 7, 2025, 1:36 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: jfollows link ---
>
> You need to post documentation rather than paraphrasing if you
want advice here.
>
--- End Quote ---
Fair point, here's the PCN.
HTML https://imgpile.com/p/RELE1e5
HTML https://imgpile.com/p/Uouysyc
My rushed submission to POPLA:
For the purpose of my report I have summarised the appellant’s
grounds into the following points,
and have checked each point before coming to my conclusion. The
appellant has stated that: • They
paid for parking and had a valid ticket. • The ticket displays
their partial vehicle registration
number, which they assume mimics the way receipts do not show
the full credit card number. • The
payment machine did not work so they paid by phone. • The
operator has not honoured its
agreement by allowing motorists to pay by phone, then issuing
them with Parking Charge Notices
(PCNs). • They will be making a complaint to the landowner. The
appellant has also requested the
following evidence: • An explanation of the allegation and
evidence; • A close up photograph of the
sign; • A record of payments made from three hours prior to the
entry of their vehicle and three
hours after its exit; • Provide a copy of the contract between
the operator and the motorist setting
out the terms and conditions; • A copy of the PCN setting out
its reason for issue, address and date
and time of the event; • detail how the PCN was brought to their
attention; • state whether the PCN
was issued under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 and state
which liability type they are being
held liable under; • state the amount of the PCN; • explain the
factual or legal basis for the amount
being claimed; and • provide a calculation for the amount of the
charge and any interest. To
support their appeal, the appellant has provided: • A screenshot
of their bank statement; • A copy
of the operator’s response to their appeal; and • A photograph
of a sign. This evidence has been
considered in making my determination. After reviewing the
operator’s evidence, the appellant has
referred to the operator’s transaction report and pointed out
which transaction belongs to their
vehicle. The appellant has requested a copy of the full,
unredacted report.
POPLA's response:
Before I begin my assessment of this appeal, I must advise that
it is not POPLA’s role to source
specific evidence on behalf of either party; POPLA’s role is
solely to assess whether a PCN was
issued correctly in the !rst instance. While I can see that the
appellant has requested various
pieces of evidence within their grounds of appeal and comments,
I will solely be addressing the key
grounds of appeal raised. When assessing an appeal, POPLA
considers whether the parking
operator issued the PCN correctly and if the driver complied
with the terms and conditions for the
use of the car park as set out on the signs. When parking in a
private car park, the motorist forms a
contract with the operator by remaining on the land for a
reasonable period. For the avoidance of
doubt, the signage at the site sets out the terms and conditions
of this contract. Both the appellant
and the operator have provided photographs of the signage. In
this speci!c car park, the terms and
conditions state that motorists must purchase a valid ticket for
their full, correct vehicle registration
number, or have a valid paybyphone payment. The signs also state
that a £100 PCN will be issued
for a breach of the terms. Within its evidence !le, the operator
has provided a copy of the PCN
detailing all of the relevant information as requested by the
appellant. For the avoidance of doubt,
the operator is holding the appellant liable for the PCN as the
keeper of the vehicle under the
Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 as driver details were not
provided within their appeal. In this
case, I can see that the PCN was issued for failing to purchase
a valid ticket. The operator has also
provided screenshots of its payment reports, which demonstrate
that a payment had not been
made in connection with the appellant’s vehicle that day. Within
their appeal to POPLA, the
appellant has provided a screenshot of a bank transaction,
demonstrating a transaction made to
the operator during their stay. Although I can see that the
appellant paid for parking, it is evident
that they did not provide their full, correct vehicle
registration number when doing so. By the
appellant’s own admission, their ticket/receipt contained their
partial vehicle registration number.
The ticket would therefore not have been valid for the
appellant’s vehicle. It is important to explain
that the site is managed by automatic number plate recognition
cameras and it is therefore
imperative that motorists provide their full, correct vehicle
registration numbers when paying for
parking. As the appellant did not do so, a PCN was automatically
issued by the system as a
payment could not be traced in connection with their vehicle.
While I acknowledge that the
appellant has indicated that the payment machine was not
working, the appellant was able to pay
For the purpose of my report I have summarised the appellant’s
grounds into the following points,
and have checked each point before coming to my conclusion. The
appellant has stated that: • They
paid for parking and had a valid ticket. • The ticket displays
their partial vehicle registration
number, which they assume mimics the way receipts do not show
the full credit card number. • The
payment machine did not work so they paid by phone. • The
operator has not honoured its
agreement by allowing motorists to pay by phone, then issuing
them with Parking Charge Notices
(PCNs). • They will be making a complaint to the landowner. The
appellant has also requested the
following evidence: • An explanation of the allegation and
evidence; • A close up photograph of the
sign; • A record of payments made from three hours prior to the
entry of their vehicle and three
hours after its exit; • Provide a copy of the contract between
the operator and the motorist setting
out the terms and conditions; • A copy of the PCN setting out
its reason for issue, address and date
and time of the event; • detail how the PCN was brought to their
attention; • state whether the PCN
was issued under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 and state
which liability type they are being
held liable under; • state the amount of the PCN; • explain the
factual or legal basis for the amount
being claimed; and • provide a calculation for the amount of the
charge and any interest. To
support their appeal, the appellant has provided: • A screenshot
of their bank statement; • A copy
of the operator’s response to their appeal; and • A photograph
of a sign. This evidence has been
considered in making my determination. After reviewing the
operator’s evidence, the appellant has
referred to the operator’s transaction report and pointed out
which transaction belongs to their
vehicle. The appellant has requested a copy of the full,
unredacted report.for parking. The operator’s transaction
reports also demonstrate that many other motorists were
able to pay by machine/by phone. I am therefore satis!ed that
there were working payment
methods. With regards to legitimate use, section 17 of the
British Parking Association Code of
Practice sets out how parking operators must address appeals
from motorists who have paid, but
did not provide their full, correct vehicle registration number
when doing so. In this case, the
appellant did not provide the operator with any evidence of
their payment at the !rst stage of
appeal. As the operator was unable to locate a transaction with
a similar vehicle registration
number to the appellant’s within its reports, it was unable to
determine whether a payment was
actually made for the vehicle, for the correct location. As
such, the operator was not able to take
this into consideration and respond to the appellant’s appeal
accordingly. I acknowledge that the
appellant has provided a copy of the operator’s response to
their appeal, but this does not a"ect
the validity of the PCN. In terms of POPLA’s role, we can only
assess whether the parking conditions
were breached. I understand that the appellant has stated that
they will make a complaint to the
landowner, but this cannot have any bearing on my decision.
Furthermore, the appellant appears
to be questioning the amount of the parking charge. For the
avoidance of doubt, the charge does
not represent a loss. The Supreme Court considered private
parking charges in a high-pro!le case,
Parking Eye v Beavis, and decided that a charge did not need to
re#ect any actual loss incurred by a
parking operator or landowner; the charge simply needed to be in
the region of £85. The Court’s
full judgement in the case is available online should the
appellant want to read it. After considering
the evidence from both parties, I am satis!ed that the appellant
did not make a valid payment for
their vehicle and therefore did not comply with the terms and
conditions of the site. As such, the
parking charge has been issued correctly and I must refuse the
appeal.
#Post#: 97341--------------------------------------------------
Re: CCJ – Paid for parking but mistyped car reg (one letter off)
DIR By: b789
Date: November 7, 2025, 2:53 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Jeez… do I really have to wade through all that for an ECP claim
issued by DCB Legal?
You do NOT have a CCJ. Do you even understand exactly what a CCJ
is and how you do get one? I will explain in a moment but for
now, the ONLY thing I need to know is the issue date on the
claim. Once I know that, I will give you the exact instructions
on how to respond and defend with the necessary deadlines.
If you follow the advice, you will not be paying a penny to ECP.
So, the issue date of the claim please.
#Post#: 97342--------------------------------------------------
Re: CCJ – Paid for parking but mistyped car reg (one letter off)
DIR By: b789
Date: November 7, 2025, 2:54 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
What CCJ? Do you have any understanding of how someone gets a
CCJ? Nothing we advise on here will make anyone get a CCJ.
--- Quote ---
> A County Court Judgment (CCJ) does not just happen—it follows
a clear legal process. If someone gets a Parking Charge Notice
(PCN) from a private parking company, here's what happens step
by step:
>
> [indent]1. Parking Charge Notice (PCN) Issued
>
> [indent]• The parking company sends a letter (Notice to
Keeper) demanding money.
> • This is not a fine—it’s an invoice for an alleged breach of
contract.[/indent]
>
> 2. Opportunity to Appeal
>
> [indent]• The recipient can appeal to the parking company.
> •If rejected, they may be able to appeal to POPLA (if BPA
member) or IAS (if IPC member).
> • If an appeal is lost or ignored, the parking company demands
payment.[/indent]
>
> 3. Debt Collection Letters
>
> [indent]• The parking company might send scary letters or pass
the case to a debt collector.
> • Debt collectors have no power—they just send letters and can
be ignored.
> • No CCJ happens at this stage.[/indent]
>
> 4. Letter Before Claim (LBC)
>
> [indent]• If ignored for long enough, the parking company (or
their solicitor) sends a Letter Before Claim (LBC).
> • This is a warning that they may start a court case.
> • The recipient has 30 days to reply before a claim is filed.
> • No CCJ happens at this stage.[/indent]
>
> 5. County Court Claim Issued
>
> [indent]• If ignored or unpaid, the parking company may file a
claim with the County Court.
> • The court sends a Claim Form with details of the claim and
how to respond.
> • The recipient has 14 days to respond (or 28 days if they
acknowledge it).
> • No CCJ happens at this stage.[/indent]
>
> 6. Court Process
>
> [indent]• If the recipient defends the claim, a judge decides
if they owe money.
> • If the recipient ignores the claim, the parking company wins
by default.
> • No CCJ happens yet unless the recipient loses and ignores
the court.[/indent]
>
> 7. Judgment & Payment
>
> [indent]• If the court rules that money is owed, the recipient
has 30 days to pay in full.
> • If they pay within 30 days, no CCJ goes on their credit
file.
> • If they don’t pay within 30 days, the CCJ stays on their
credit file for 6 years.[/indent][/indent]
>
> Conclusion
>
> CCJs do not appear out of thin air. They only happen if:
>
> [indent]• A parking company takes the case to court.
> • The person loses or ignores the case.
> • The person fails to pay within 30 days.[/indent]
>
> If you engage with the process (appeal, defend, or pay on
time), no CCJ happens.
--- End Quote ---
*****************************************************
Page 1 of 4
DIR Next Page