Can someone please suggest what should be the next step from this point onward, getting a bit nervous...
@b789 I hope you are well.
Can I please get some help on the next step regarding the
notice of claim I've received?
Front:
Back:
Thanks in advance
Do not use their forms or paperwork. Instead, reply in the form of a letter, sent by email to the email address at the bottom of the Letter Before Claim. I'd keep your response to the point - set out that you dispute their claim in its entirety, with your position remaining that the vehicle was engaged in loading, supported by the persuasive appeal case of Jopson v Homeguard. You should also dispute the £30 charge as an attempt at double recovery, the £100 charge should include the cost of debt recovery.
Do feel free to show us a draft, and if you do some searching on here for other examples of responses to letters of claim you can take inspiration from them.
Hi all,
I have drafted a response to send via email to enforcement@parkingeye.co.uk.
Can you please review and suggest any amends if needed before I send them?
Thanks in advance.
================================Draft
I write in response to your Letter Before County Court Claim. I dispute your client’s claim in its entirety and no debt is admitted.
1. No breach – vehicle engaged in loading/unloading, not parking
At all material times the vehicle was engaged in legitimate loading/unloading activity in the course of making deliveries to residents. Temporary stopping for this purpose does not constitute “parking” in law.
This position is supported by the persuasive and directly applicable authority of Jopson v Homeguard Services Ltd [2016] B9GF0A9E, in which HHJ Harris QC held that brief stopping for loading/unloading is not parking and falls outside the scope of typical private parking restrictions, particularly in residential settings. That judgment expressly distinguishes ParkingEye v Beavis and remains routinely relied upon at County Court level.
Your reliance on ANPR entry/exit timestamps is legally and evidentially insufficient. ANPR does not evidence any stationary period, unattended vehicle, or acceptance of contractual terms. No parking event is proved, and accordingly no contract was formed and no breach occurred.
2. Beavis is wholly distinguishable
ParkingEye v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67 concerned a retail car park with a clear commercial justification related to space turnover. This case concerns a residential housing association site and a vehicle engaged in necessary delivery activity. There is no legitimate interest in penalising unloading, and any attempt to rely on Beavis is misconceived.
3. Unfair and prohibitive signage
Signage at the site is prohibitive (“Residents only”) and makes no provision whatsoever for deliveries. Such signage is incapable of forming a contract with delivery drivers and fails the transparency and fairness requirements under sections 62–68 Consumer Rights Act 2015. A prohibitive notice can only sound in trespass (which your client has no standing to pursue), not contract.
4. Abuse of process – unlawful double recovery
The additional £30 claimed is expressly disputed. The Supreme Court in Beavis confirmed that the parking charge itself includes the operator’s costs of enforcement. Any further sum constitutes double recovery and is unrecoverable, as consistently held in County Court authorities (including, inter alia, Excel v Wilkinson).
Even if (which is denied) any parking charge were due, the maximum recoverable sum would be the original £100, and that too is denied for the reasons set out above.
5. POPLA decision not determinative
You are no doubt aware that POPLA decisions are not binding on the courts. POPLA failed to apply Jopson correctly and applied Beavis indiscriminately. The court will determine the matter afresh on the evidence and law.
6. Pre-Action position
In light of the above, your client has no reasonable prospects of success. Should proceedings be issued, I will seek an immediate strike-out or summary judgment and will rely on this correspondence when the court considers costs under CPR 27.14(2)(g).
I therefore invite you to confirm, within 14 days, that the claim is discontinued. Any further pursuit will be robustly defended.
@everyone any feedback on the draft, the 28 days deadline to respond is not too far?
Thanks.
@b789 has not been active here since 3 January.
That looks like a decent draft.
was hoping
@b789(I hope they are in good health) can review the draft before I send them via email.
Can you think I can go ahead and send this the draft, just thinking that in case they go to court the draft doesn't come and bite us.
Thanks.
Hi all,
anyone can confirm if I'm OK to go ahead and respond to parking eye via email or would you suggest some amends which could help in case they go to court? I have only a couple of days left before the 28 days deadline?
Thanks in advance
Hi all,
I have sent them the draft I shared above via email.
Can someone please share what will happen next?
They will respond to it, probably rejecting.
In the meantime, I would recommend browsing the forum and looking at other cases to get an understanding of what the process looks like. One of the key benefits of a forum is that it provides a public resource that you can use to read about cases other than your own.
Hi all,
They have rejected my response to notice of claim and today I've received this letter:
Can someone please advise the next step?
now that
@b789 is not active on regular basis, I hope it's not every man for himself when it comes to private parking threads on the forum...
Really worried now about this ticket...
Google Docs 
Like x 1
View List