Thank you for welcoming me, and for the guidance regarding Jopson v Homeguard—that distinction between loading vs. parking aligns perfectly with what happened here.
Given that the 30-day window to respond to DCB Legal's Letter of Claim is open, what is the recommended, succinct wording to submit via their online portal to formally dispute this claim and set up the Jopson v Homeguard loading defense?
P.S. As requested, here are the redacted documents via ImgBB links, along with the transcribed text of my initial appeal and Parkingeye's rejection:
Image Letter of Claim a hosted on ImgBB
Image Letter of Claim b hosted on ImgBB
Image Reminder Letter hosted on ImgBB
Image IMG 3850 edited 1 hosted on ImgBB
Image IMG 4332 edited 2 hosted on ImgBB
https://ibb.co/TDm2vynM1. Original Appeal Submission (March 2022)
> To Whom it may concern,
> The PCN [REDACTED] (received on 24/03/2022) has no sufficient evidence of parking contravention, as there are: no clear explanation of the contravention in question, no full address at which the contravention in question has occurred, no evidence of illegal parking of the vehicle in question.
> Please see attached photographic evidence showing no adequate road markings or signs suggesting that you are entering a car park, nor are there any gates to go through or any warning signs of CCTV or ANPR system in operation by Parkingeye when entering the site in question. The vehicle in question has entered the Britannia Point building loading bay on the 5th of March, 2022 from Christchurch Road, with the emergency lights on, in order NOT TO PARK but to load the furniture, bought from a resident of the Britannia Point block of flats above the Costa Coffee, at which the loading bay is located. That resident has authorised the vehicle in question to park there (see photographic evidence provided) while loading the furniture from their door leading to the loading bay - which is a part of their building, and is the shortest and safest, in fact the only permitted way to operate such a task. The vehicle in question has not been left unattended while on site with emergency lights on because there was no intention to park. Your video recordings should show that it was a genuine loading of furniture from the Britannia Point building with the resident's permission and participation as they were helping with loading.
> If you would like to proceed with your PCN further, I would like to officially complain to Parkingeye management for using their authority inappropriately, as it is obvious that there was no contravention, and for issuing PCN in question illegally due to insufficient evidence provided and/or time given to respond, as the PCN was received more than two weeks after the event took place. I would like to request a hard copy of the whole 19 minutes of video evidence held by Parkingeye ltd, showing the vehicle in question entering, staying and leaving the parking area in question where the contravention of the vehicle in question is identifiable. I would also like to see clear evidence stating that the residents of Britannia Point are prohibited to use their loading bay for loading purposes.
> Please also provide evidence of signs placed by the Christchurch Road entrance of the car park in question, displaying the rules of the car park in question and that CCTV and/or ANPR system is in operation by Parkingeye ltd, so a driver entering the car park in question is able to read the terms of the car park and react in time upon entering it without causing obstruction to the traffic.
> Please send the video to the same postal address, as on the PCN [REDACTED]. This evidence, along with the others, will be presented when appealing to a tribunal or other court(s), if required.
---
2. Parkingeye Rejection Letter (March 2022)
> Dear Sir / Madam,
> Thank you for your appeal in relation to the Parking Charge incurred on 05 March 2022 at 11:58, at Britannia Point, Colliers Wood car park.
> We have reviewed the details outlined in your appeal, but we are not in receipt of sufficient evidence to confirm that the terms and conditions were not breached. These terms are clearly displayed on the signage located throughout the above car park.
> Parkingeye are a member of the British Parking Association and can confirm that there is adequate signage at this site that is visible, appropriately located and in line with the guidelines set out in the BPA Code of Practice.
> We are writing to advise you that your recent appeal has been unsuccessful and that you have now reached the end of our internal appeals procedure.
> If you wish to have your case independently assessed, please be advised, there is an independent appeals service (POPLA) which is available to motorists who have had an appeal rejected by a British Parking Association Approved Operator. Contact information and further information can be found enclosed. See also
www.popla.co.uk> By law we are also required to inform you that Ombudsman Services (
www.ombudsman-services.org/) provides an alternative dispute resolution service that would be competent to deal with your appeal. However, we have not chosen to participate in their alternative dispute resolution service. As such should you wish to appeal then you must do so to POPLA, as explained above.
> Please note, if the Parking Charge was issued in Scotland/Northern Ireland, only the driver can appeal to POPLA (Parking on Private Land Appeals).
> As a gesture of goodwill, we have extended the discount period for a further 14 days from the date of this correspondence. If you appeal to POPLA and your appeal is unsuccessful you will not be able to pay the discounted amount in settlement of the Parking Charge, and the full value of the charge will be outstanding. If you have already paid the reduced amount, the Parking Charge will be increased to the full amount and the remaining balance will be due.