DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Private parking tickets
*****************************************************
#Post#: 99647--------------------------------------------------
VRM not registered on the e-Permit system
DIR By: antman40
Date: November 24, 2025, 4:27 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Hello all.
Again, the parking company UKCPM. They are saying a breach of
their Ts&Cs had occurred at Exmouth Street,London E1 0SG.
The initial PCN was not sent and instead have received a "Final
Chance Before Action". The timestamp from their ANPR/CCTV images
does not match the details in the PCN.
They are claiming in the PCN that the vehicle breached on 10th
September 2025 @ 5:18 and the timestamp from their ANPR/CCTV
images in the PCN say 5th September 2025@ 15:15.
Also, the location from their images is not the same location on
GSV images. Exmouth Street, London E1 0SG is a dead-end street
and does not have residential dwellings on the street, also,
looks nothing like the street in their images when compared to
the GSV.
How do I respond to this scam please? Any advice/help much
appreciated. TIA.
HTML https://ibb.co/93cM0nRn
HTML https://maps.app.goo.gl/SbgUW67KSRdwM7Mt8
HTML https://ibb.co/3YmyYGTb
#Post#: 99695--------------------------------------------------
Re: VRM not registered on the e-Permit system
DIR By: b789
Date: November 25, 2025, 5:13 am
---------------------------------------------------------
The "Final chance" letter is of absolutely no use to anyone. The
only document that has any legal referencer is the original
Notice to Keeper (NtK). If the NtK was never received, that is
already a problem for them, and they still have to prove it was
properly issued and posted.
You can safely ignore the threat of debt recovery letters. Debt
collectors are powerless to do anything except to try and
intimidate the low-hanging fruit on there gullible tree into
paying out of ignorance and fear.
The location in the ANPR images certainly does not appear to be
anywhere on Exmouth Street. As for the date and time on the
entry image, it is 05 September at 15:15. It is possible that
the date shown on the reminder notice (10 September at 05:15) is
the date they issued the PCN, Which is why only the original NtK
is of any use.
Without seeing the original NtK, it is impossible to say exactly
what the alleged contravention is. You need to send a formal
complaint to UKCPM as follows:
--- Quote ---
> Subject: Formal complaint and request for information –
Parking Charge [PCN reference], VRM [VRM]
>
> Dear Sir or Madam,
>
> I am writing as the registered keeper of vehicle [VRM]
regarding Parking Charge [PCN reference] and your recent “Final
Chance Before Action” email/letter. I am under no legal
obligation to name the driver to an unregulated private parking
firm and decline to do so.
>
> This is a formal complaint about serious inaccuracies in your
correspondence and the data you are processing about me.
>
> No Notice to Keeper received
> Your “Final Chance Before Action” refers to an earlier Parking
Charge Notice / Notice to Keeper. I have never received any such
Notice to Keeper. Please confirm:
> [indent]– The date on which you say any original Notice to
Keeper was created and posted; and
> – Provide a copy of that Notice to Keeper and proof of
posting.[/indent]
>
> Unless a properly served and fully compliant Notice to Keeper
was issued under Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act
2012 (PoFA), you cannot hold me, as keeper, liable for any
parking charge. Any claim would require you to identify and
prove the driver.
>
> Contradictory dates and times
> Your “Final Chance Before Action” states that the alleged
contravention occurred on 10 September 2025 at 05:18. However,
the ANPR/CCTV images you have provided are timestamped 05
September 2025 at 15:15.
>
> These are clearly inconsistent and appear either to relate to
two different alleged events or to a serious fault in your ANPR
or back-office systems. Please explain:
> [indent]– The exact date and time on which you say any breach
occurred; and
> – Why your photographic evidence shows a completely different
date and time.[/indent]
>
> Unless and until you can reconcile this, you do not have a
coherent cause of action.
>
> Incorrect location
> Your correspondence alleges that the vehicle was parked in
breach of terms at “Exmouth Street, London E1 0SG”.
> The location shown in your images does not match Exmouth
Street. Exmouth Street is a short dead-end street which, when
checked on Google Street View, has no residential frontages and
looks nothing like the street shown in your photographs.
>
> Please therefore:
> [indent]– Confirm the precise location (including full postal
address and any development name) where you say this vehicle was
parked; and
> – Explain why the images you rely on do not match the
appearance of Exmouth Street, London E1 0SG.[/indent]
>
> Inaccurate data and unlawful processing
> Given the mismatched dates, times and apparent wrong location,
it appears you may be pursuing the wrong vehicle or a charge
based on fundamentally inaccurate data. Continuing to process
and share my personal data in the face of such obvious
discrepancies would breach the accuracy principle in Article
5(1)(d) UK GDPR. You are therefore required to:
> [indent]– Investigate these issues urgently;
> – Correct or delete any inaccurate data; and
> – Confirm in writing that this Parking Charge has been
cancelled and that my personal data obtained from the DVLA will
not be further processed or shared in relation to this
matter.[/indent]
>
> Hold action and escalation
> While this formal complaint is under investigation, you must
place the matter on hold and must not pass it to any debt
recovery agents. If you fail to address the above points and
persist in pursuing this defective charge, I will treat that as
unreasonable behaviour and will:
> [indent]– Report the matter, with copies of all
correspondence, to your trade association;
> – Raise a misuse-of-data complaint with the DVLA and the
Information Commissioner’s Office; and
> – Rely on your conduct when seeking costs if you choose to
issue a county court claim.[/indent]
>
> Required outcome
> In light of the conflicts within your own evidence and the
absence of any properly served Notice to Keeper, the only
reasonable outcome is that you cancel this Parking Charge and
confirm this to me in writing. If you refuse to cancel, you must
provide the following within 28 days of the date of this email:
> [indent]– A copy of the original Notice to Keeper and proof of
posting;
> – A complete set of ANPR/CCTV images and logs for the vehicle
on all dates you rely on;
> – A clear explanation reconciling the conflicting dates and
times; and
> – A clear explanation of the exact site and address to which
the images relate, together with a contemporaneous site plan and
photographs of the signage you rely on.[/indent]
>
> If I do not receive a satisfactory response within 28 days, I
will proceed with the complaints outlined above without further
notice.
>
> Yours faithfully,
>
> [Full name]
> Registered keeper of [VRM]
--- End Quote ---
#Post#: 129904--------------------------------------------------
Re: VRM not registered on the e-Permit system
DIR By: antman40
Date: September 8, 2026, 8:49 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Hello.
I have received a letter from BW Legal demanding payment. I
replied informing them of their clients inaccuracies such as not
receiving the Notice to Keeper, inaccurate location and not
having the opportunity to appeal to the IAS. BW Legal replied
with the correspondence I have attached below, they have sent
the NtK almost 1 year later? The NtK was not sent from the
outset.
What I would like to know if the NtK is PoFA non-compliant and
it seems like it is the location that would make this Parking
Charge unenforceable as they have not got it accurate, and
probably not the issue date of the "Final Chance Before Action"
letter dated 27th September 2025.
I would appreciate your assistance with this. Thank you. x
HTML https://ibb.co/nM7xxs9h
HTML https://ibb.co/hJmgfKCN
HTML https://ibb.co/N2J99qL5
HTML https://ibb.co/VYMCBxX0
HTML https://ibb.co/tPbMgX8j
#Post#: 129951--------------------------------------------------
Re: VRM not registered on the e-Permit system
DIR By: Sander333
Date: September 8, 2026, 11:09 am
---------------------------------------------------------
The crux of the matter here is possibly at least two ore sues.
The yellow lines do not indicate no parking nut ordinarily no
waiting unless loading or unloading. They will possibly say
differently. To send the original NTK with time lapse is most
unusual. Is you V5c up to date from original date last year of
course they will say that if not that is not their problem as
outlined if it was then did you just ignore. The reminder
appears on the face of it is just the time and date it was sent
but why so quickly after the original was issued. It was sent
long before the appeal date had expired. I cannot see any
signage which may be of assistance in this post. The location
you state is in dispute needs to be addressed. Ignore debt
collectors and await any LBC for advice.
#Post#: 129966--------------------------------------------------
Re: VRM not registered on the e-Permit system
DIR By: antman40
Date: September 8, 2026, 1:19 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Thank you for your response.
The V5C has stayed the same and has never changed. I don't
normally ignore parking charges, and in this matter no NtK was
sent and no opportunity to appeal to the IAS.
I have gathered GSV images from the actual location where the
vehicle was photographed. It shows the signs position and the
actual street name, this road doesn't junction with or lead onto
the street they claim a parking contravention occurred. No proof
of a car park, no proof the vehicle was parked, no proof of
street name just an entry and exit from a different street.
I will sit it out and await for a Letter of Claim.
Thanks again.
HTML https://ibb.co/bSkCZGL
HTML https://ibb.co/21pvrkVT
HTML https://ibb.co/SDNq9myN
#Post#: 132178--------------------------------------------------
Re: VRM not registered on the e-Permit system
DIR By: antman40
Date: October 5, 2026, 6:55 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Hello and hope you all are well.
I have received a Letter Of Claim from BW Legal. Would this be
the same as a Letter Before Claim (LBC) or is it just another
demand for payment?
Can you please give advice on this?
Thank you.
HTML https://ibb.co/99zsPDYp
#Post#: 132185--------------------------------------------------
Re: VRM not registered on the e-Permit system
DIR By: Dave65
Date: October 5, 2026, 8:27 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Yes it is and must be replied to.
Again no details of the claim.
#Post#: 132187--------------------------------------------------
Re: VRM not registered on the e-Permit system
DIR By: jfollows
Date: October 5, 2026, 8:34 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Yes,
HTML https://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/procedure-rules/civil/rules/pd_pre-action_conduct#6.1<br
/>directs that the letter should be
--- Quote ---
> the claimant writing to the defendant with concise details of
the claim. The letter should include the basis on which the
claim is made, a summary of the facts, what the claimant wants
from the defendant, and if money, how the amount is calculated;
--- End Quote ---
and this clearly isn't the case, and you can respond simply by
--- Quote ---
> the defendant responding within a reasonable time – 14 days in
a straightforward case and no more than 3 months in a very
complex one. The reply should include confirmation as to whether
the claim is accepted and, if it is not accepted, the reasons
why, together with an explanation as to which facts and parts of
the claim are disputed
--- End Quote ---
and include a short point about their non-compliant letter if
you like.
They will ignore your response, it's just something you're doing
to be seen to have done and to make your position clear, so
don't go overboard. After all, they couldn't be bothered to do a
proper job.
#Post#: 132267--------------------------------------------------
Re: VRM not registered on the e-Permit system
DIR By: antman40
Date: October 6, 2026, 8:54 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Hello.
Sorry, I missed this, it came together in the post with my
initial upload.
Would this be their "Details of Claim" and how shall i respond?
HTML https://ibb.co/B53vn3Mm
*****************************************************
Page 1 of 1