About 6 months ago, I had a solicitor's letter claiming that a vehicle I once bought as a donor had been parked somewhere and they were chasing me for costs. I replied telling them that the donor had been registered with the DVLA as scrapped years before the parking offence was alleged. I heard nothing for months but then I got an email from them today:

quote:

---

Thank you for your email. Please provide evidence supporting your claims within 14 days from the date of this email.



Failure to do so may result in our Client issuing court proceedings, without further warning.

---

Can't you ask them for evidence that it was illegally parked?
Put the reg number on the DVLA check site?or you a check site like this one

[Edited on 18-8-21 by 40inches]

quote:

---

Originally posted by 40inches
Can't you ask them for evidence that it was illegally parked?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by smart51

quote:

---

Originally posted by 40inches
Can't you ask them for evidence that it was illegally parked?

---

I have! Is it right that they have to prove guilt, and not me prove innocence?

---

There may be something in HERE that may be of help?

If its a private car park and they send any more letters reply back telling them you have provided all you can and you won't enter in to further communications. The private parking charges are a largely unenforceable. I parked in a free but private carpark years back amd got letters for ages. I ignored them all and every domoften a new debt recovery agent will buy the fine and I'll get a new letter from a new companty which gets ignored too.
Do you have the full details of where and when it was parked and what the car was. Was it anpr or ticketed? I got sent photos (without asking) of mine.

I have kept the original letter, which I recall does give the date the parking was alleged. ISTR it was a couple of years before the letter. The donor vehicle was a scooter. I wonder if there is a ringer out there with the old number plate.

A quick look on the DVLA website shows the tax (SORN) ran out in 2013 so if it was parked in 2018 (or whenever) it had been running around untaxed and unMOTed for years. Do these solicitors do no due diligence before sending out letters?

Unless they have dated photographic evidence they have no case. They aren't the police, they have no powers. Ignore them or if you want write back to them informing them of F Off.

Fire it into the bin

Don’t just ignore it. The law changed a while ago and whilst it was once the case you could chuck private parking fines into the bin now they can take it to court fairly easily and you might end up with a CCJ/debt collection agencies coming after you, etc. I was sent a ticket about 2 years ago and went through the processes to get it cancelled but there was a fair amount of work for me to do.

The money saving expert forum has lots of good information about what you need to do. From memory it’ll differ depending on who the car park operator is, etc although if the first you’ve heard is a solicitors letter then it’s further down the process than I had to deal with. I would suggest at least looking on the MSE site and seeing what their advice is, and following it.

I do not think you should ignore the e-mail either. If they do issue a small claim, any judge will take a dim view of a failure to put forward an explanation when invited to do so.

Many 'letters of claim' are a bluff but many are not. If you have any assets (i.e. own a house of earn a wage) it is not a good idea to ignore threats of proceedings. I have acted in a case where a £80 fine for crossing a bus lane racked up a six figure sum in legal costs.

Since 2012 the registered keeper of a vehicle can (in certain circumstances) be liable for private parking charges incurred by the driver of the vehicle. The landowner/parking company must follow a set procedure. There is good online info on that - see 'parkingcowboys'.

You do not tell us the basis of the claim. Was it said to ba a private car park or was the scooted just dumped on somebody's land? If the latter then the claim is in 'trespass' and they would need to show that you dumped it.

Efforts to argue that all private parking charges are unenforcible spectacularly failed in the supreme court (at vast expense to the stubborn man who took it all the way - hats off).

However.....in your case you will be asserting that the vehicle parked (presumably with the reg plate you had) was either not registered in your name at all (i.e. you had properly notified the DVLA that it had been scrapped) OR that the vehicle parked was a ringer (because you had dismantled the original). Your photo archive has compelling evidence of the second point and I would not hesitate to send those photos and any links to posts to the solicitors. If you had taken the engine and back wheel off what was left to park!!

There is no 'guilty or not guilty' in a civil court. Facts need to be proved to the standard where they are more likely than not. The person who asserts a fact needs to prove it. In this case the parking company will assert that a vehicle with the relevant registration was parked on the land. I would assume they have a record or photos of that. You will have to prove that this was not the vehicle registered to you. That said it should not be hard.

I would ask them to produce copies of the original notices that they served. They needed to serve a notice on you in a fixed time if they are relying on a private parking charge.

I'd resend the information that the vehicle did not exist at that time and why, but also add something along the lines of "As this clearly means that what was my vehicle cannot have been parked there, either a mistake has been made or someone is using false numberplates. In either case, this is nothing to do with me and future correspondance to me will incur a processing fee of £xx, plus £yy per hour of my time needed." If they persist, keep a track of it all and when it is sorted out, bill them.

quote:

---

Originally posted by SteveWalker

In either case, this is nothing to do with me and future correspondence to me will incur a processing fee of £xx, plus £yy per hour of my time needed." If they persist, keep a track of it all and when it is sorted out, bill them.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Theshed


Efforts to argue that all private parking charges are unenforcible spectacularly failed in the supreme court (at vast expense to the stubborn man who took it all the way - hats off).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by SteveWalker
I'd resend the information that the vehicle did not exist at that time and why, but also add something along the lines of "As this clearly means that what was my vehicle cannot have been parked there, either a mistake has been made or someone is using false numberplates. In either case, this is nothing to do with me and future correspondance to me will incur a processing fee of £xx, plus £yy per hour of my time needed." If they persist, keep a track of it all and when it is sorted out, bill them.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by loggyboy

quote:

---

Originally posted by Theshed


Efforts to argue that all private parking charges are unenforcible spectacularly failed in the supreme court (at vast expense to the stubborn man who took it all the way - hats off).

---

Thats the scaremongering case they use. That case was a stupid one to try to defend as it was a paid parking issue. A lot of these 'invoice' based fines are for free parking and set up a very differnt set of criteria to show the 'offence' caused loss of earnings to the land owner, which is the prime reason the case you mention failed. Now im jumping to a conclusion that the OPs invoice is based on a free parking offence. Ive successly defended 2 free parking claims, one by responding and one by ignoring. Both using the moneysavingexpert sites guidance.

---

A unilateral demand for payment does not mean anything, but one stated to them in advance of further correspondence, when they are clearly targeting the wrong person has a lot more meaning. The wrongly targeted person clearly has done nothing wrong and has no obligation to spend their time dealing with it, so having been advised that they've got the wrong person, continuing to chase them, after warning, does give rise to a valid claim for payment.

Sorry to be so emphatic but....No it does not. It is not possible to impose a contract unilaterally. It is necessary for the terms offered to be accepted. A solicitor continuing to conduct correspondence with a person who has sent such a letter is in no sense whatsoever accepting an obligation to pay.

That said, chasing for debts which are not due can, in extreme circumstances (and I mean extreme) contravene the Protection from Harassment Act - this case will warm the heart.

https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2009/46.html

But after sending a letter warning that they have got the wrong person and advising of charges if they continue to send correspondence that needs to be dealt with, further correspondence could be deemed accepting that contract - just as parking in a car park is deemed contractual acceptance of the rules on the notice on the wall.

Obviously this would not apply to efforts targeting the right person, who was just trying to avoid paying, but an innocent party having to spend time dealing with this has a right to be compensated for any effort they make after the sender of the letters has been informed of their mistake, but continues to fail to properly check into their information.

I'm back home after a few days away. The DVLA are living down to their usual standards of competence.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Theshed
You do not tell us the basis of the claim. Was it said to ba a private car park or was the scooted just dumped on somebody's land? If the latter then the claim is in 'trespass' and they would need to show that you dumped it.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Theshed
I would ask them to produce copies of the original notices that they served. They needed to serve a notice on you in a fixed time if they are relying on a private parking charge.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by SteveWalker
But after sending a letter warning that they have got the wrong person and advising of charges if they continue to send correspondence that needs to be dealt with, further correspondence could be deemed accepting that contract - just as parking in a car park is deemed contractual acceptance of the rules on the notice on the wall.

Obviously this would not apply to efforts targeting the right person, who was just trying to avoid paying, but an innocent party having to spend time dealing with this has a right to be compensated for any effort they make after the sender of the letters has been informed of their mistake, but continues to fail to properly check into their information.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by smart51


If the DVLA have told the solicitors that I am still the registered keeper of the donor vehicle, it does put me in a situation. I'd love to see what photos they have of "it". What would you advise asking the solicitors in order to get their "evidence" from them?

[Edited on 20-8-2021 by smart51]

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by smart51
I'm back home after a few days away. The DVLA are living down to their usual standards of competence.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Theshed
You do not tell us the basis of the claim. Was it said to ba a private car park or was the scooted just dumped on somebody's land? If the latter then the claim is in 'trespass' and they would need to show that you dumped it.

---

The original letter is dated 29th April 2021. In summary:

Client: Euro Parking Services Ltd.
Claimed amount: £160.00 including £60 "for time / resources spent facilitating the recovery of the unpaid parking charge notice(s)"
Date of charge: 11/12/2019
The schedule of unpaid parking notices dives a PCN Number and a street name (though not a town)

It also includes a loveley phrase: "Our client is satisfied it has sufficient evidence to support any Court proceedings". I'm sure they are

quote:

---

Originally posted by Theshed
I would ask them to produce copies of the original notices that they served. They needed to serve a notice on you in a fixed time if they are relying on a private parking charge.

---

Would this letter count as the original notice?



The DVLA

They got back to me the next day to ask me for my middle name. Then the day after to say I am the registered keeper of the vehicle and I cannot inform them of its destruction by email. The forms were submitted for it's scrapping at the same time as the forms for the new vehicle were submitted. Odd then that they haven't chased me for tax or SORN in all these years.

On a separate note, the new vehicle was MOTed up to last year and is currently on SORN. It's nice to know the little beast has been used over the last few years.

I've asked the DVLA to check the new vehicle, first to see if there is a link on their system to the donor vehicle and second to check that they don't still have me as the registered keeper.

If the DVLA have told the solicitors that I am still the registered keeper of the donor vehicle, it does put me in a situation. I'd love to see what photos they have of "it". What would you advise asking the solicitors in order to get their "evidence" from them?

[Edited on 20-8-2021 by smart51]

---

I suspect it is a much simpler explanation.
using ANPR (number plate recognition) will often misread plates*. and if they only check that its a 'valid' plate, they can very easily go after the wrong target.

* typical reasons for misreading plates:
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/909024/ANPR_-_Evaluation_Approved_Version_2.0.pdf


"
Reason for misread plate
Number plate partly out of field of view
Fixings (inappropriately located)
Fixings (damaged or rusting)
Mud
Delamination
Cracks
Water damage
Illegal font
Illegal character spacing
Illegal spacing
Illegal background
Illegal plate layout
Illegal logos
Foreign plate
Different reads in visible and IR images
Character appearance alterations (blacktape, IR-absorbing tape, ink etc.)
Alterations to retroreflective properties of
background or characters
Other
"

[Edited on 21/8/21 by gremlin1234]

Finally, the solicitors have sent me a photo of the parking indecent. It shows a large white transit van parked on double yellow lines, and not a small silver scooter. They clearly didn't do even the most basic due diligence in checking that the vehicle in the picture was the one I used to own.

I have asked them to confirm in writing their clients mistake and that there will be no further action in this case.

Now make sure that the DVLA has your scooter as being scrapped.

To make the registered keeper liable for a parking invoice (NOT A FINE), they need to comply with POFA.

They've completely failed to do that, as they didn't inform the keeper within the allowed time frame.

"A notice to keeper must be served not earlier than 28 days after, and not more than 56 days after, the service of that notice to driver."

Follow the guidance on the Newbie Parking Forum on money saving expert.

In amongst the bundle of evidence in today's email is a copy of a letter sent to my old address. It is dated 12/12/19, the day after the van was parked. It has Parking Charge Notice (PCN) and Notice To Keeper (NTK) in the heading. They say the registration was recorded by Manual Number Plate Recognition (MNPR) on foot patrol.

I believe them that they sent the letter, but I didn't receive it because I no longer lived at the address they posted it to. I didn't update the DVLA of my change of address with specific reference to that vehicle because it had been dismantled 6 years earlier and I had returned the log book to them at that time. Where does that put me in terms of liability? I didn't ignore the original letter because I didn't receive it.

I wouldn't worry, the evidence from them is clearly not your scrapped vehicle. Re-iterate this to them using a suitable template from the parking forum.

It's not you. You're not liable. If they take you to court, go show them the evidence and then collect a payout from them for your time and effort when they obviously lose.

"Manual number plate recognition". ROFL! = Bloke with a pad and paper that needs a trip to specsavers.

quote:

---

Originally posted by BenB
"Manual number plate recognition". ROFL! = Bloke with a pad and paper that needs a trip to specsavers.

---

how about:

it has been demonstrated beyond doubt: it was not my vehicle that was parked at the time. I consider any further communication from you to be vexatious.
I shall therefore be charging from this point in time £100 per correspondence (apart from simple acknowledgment of receipt, or response saying sorry, we got it wrong).
this charge will double with each communication. -ie email, phone call, or physical mail in either direction.

The DVLA have finally given me an answer (rather than asking me a question a day to avoid answering). They say they have had no notification that the chassis of the donor vehicle had been scrapped. This is despite me submitting all the paperwork about the donor vehicle (including surrendering the V5) during the registration of the new vehicle. I've only used a donor vehicle once. Is it normal to have to scrap the chassis of the donor separately to stating it was dismantled and used as a donor vehicle?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Theshed

quote:

---

Originally posted by SteveWalker
But after sending a letter warning that they have got the wrong person and advising of charges if they continue to send correspondence that needs to be dealt with, further correspondence could be deemed accepting that contract - just as parking in a car park is deemed contractual acceptance of the rules on the notice on the wall.

Obviously this would not apply to efforts targeting the right person, who was just trying to avoid paying, but an innocent party having to spend time dealing with this has a right to be compensated for any effort they make after the sender of the letters has been informed of their mistake, but continues to fail to properly check into their information.

---

No, sorry not a hope in hades that this would crate a contract.

---

Because it is not the same situation. You are attempting to draw an analogy and it simply does not work. To amount to acceptance of an offer (a necessary ingredient of a contract) by conduct rather then words, the action needs to be ONLY consistent with acceptance. As a solicitor has a right to send a letter without accepting a contract so continuing to correspond is not only consistent with accepting the offer. Parking a car on land where a charge is displayed and where the driver has no right to park his/her car otherwise, is only consistent with accepting the terms. I acknowledge that the difference is subtle but it is real. I hope I do not come across as too snotty - not my intention - but the reality is that sending out unilateral demands for payment in response to a letter from a solicitor is really not a good idea.

To me the question is when they send a"notice to keeper" what is the keeper keeping? To me it's the vehicle not the reg number. The ref number just cross references to a VIN. Isn't everyone in this situation in agreement that the vehicle parked was clearly not the vehicle owned. When the parking companies get the keeper details presumably it also states vehicle details?

quote:

---

Originally posted by BenBWhen the parking companies get the keeper details presumably it also states vehicle details?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by smart51

quote:

---

Originally posted by BenBWhen the parking companies get the keeper details presumably it also states vehicle details?

---

The "Notice To Keeper" that they eventually sent to me has in big letters at the top the reg no plus vehicle make and model. It says Piaggio X8. The vehicle in the photo is clearly a Ford Transit. I wouldn't expect the average person to know what a Piaggio X8 was, but the top search on google would give you a clue.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Toys2In the photo that they sent, is the number plate of the transit legible?

---

The answer to this is found in the Freedoms Act 2012. In Schedule 4 there are definitions which include:

“keeper” means the person by whom the vehicle is kept at the time the vehicle was parked, which in the case of a registered vehicle is to be presumed, unless the contrary is proved, to be the registered keeper

In other words the fact that a car is registered to you at the DVLA is not conclusive proof that you were the keeper.

'The vehicle' in my view means the car/bike that was actually parked and not include a vehicle on false plates. In this case it should be straight forward to prove that you were not the keeper of that vehicle. I would suggest a firm but polite letter.

What farce. I'd be sending a letter to their head office saying their staff need to be trained how to tell a van from a scooter.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Schrodinger
Now make sure that the DVLA has your scooter as being scrapped.

---