Stop panicking about the "credit reference agency". There is nothing, I repeat NOTHING, they can do that will affect or have any impact whatsoever on your credit report. The absolutely only way anything could have ANY impact. on your credit report would be if they issued a court claim and you either did not respond or if you did and lost and a CCJ was issued AND you did not pay it within 30 days, only then would it have any impact on your credit. If it is paid within 30 days, there is no record of it. It is completely expunged from the record.
What they can do is refer to a credit reference agency to do a soft search to confirm your current address for service. That does not "mark" your credit record. As for "referral to debt recovery", don't get me started. Debt collectors are powerless to do anything except to try and intimidate the low-hanging fruit on the gullible tree into paying out of ignorance and fear. A debt collector is a third party unconnected with any contract allegedly breached by the driver they and are unable to do anything.
I would respond, even if just to frustrate them, with the following:
Subject: Final pre-action reply – non-engagement noted
Dear ParkingEye,
Your latest letter repeats demands and even retains a template placeholder (“£X”). My position is unchanged.
For the avoidance of doubt:
• I will not engage with debt collection agents.
• You have my correct postal address for service; you do not need CRA tracing. Any suggestion that my credit file could be affected absent a judgment unpaid after one calendar month is misleading and will be relied upon as unreasonable conduct.
• If you issue, the claim will be defended.
For the record, your recent letters contain statements that are potentially misleading and/or aggressive (e.g. implying adverse credit consequences outside of a judgment unpaid after one calendar month). I am preserving all correspondence and will share it with enforcement bodies—including Trading Standards (via Citizens Advice) and the Competition and Markets Authority—for assessment under current consumer protection law (including the DMCC Act 2024).
No further pre-action correspondence will be entered into. Issue proceedings or desist.
Yours faithfully,
[Name]
[Postal address]
For what it's worth and as evidence of their PAPDC failure, respond with the following email:
Your ref: [PCN/Ref]
Site: Challaborough Bay Pay & Display, Kingsbridge
Date of your latest letter: [insert date]
By email and post: enforcement@parkingeye.co.uk
Subject: Final pre-action reply – repeated non-engagement and defective £130 figure
Dear ParkingEye,
Liability is denied.
You have now twice refused to provide the core documents I requested before action: (i) contemporaneous photographs of the actual entrance and terms signage as displayed on the material date, (ii) the exact clause(s) you allege were breached (verbatim, cross-referenced to the signage), and (iii) the landowner contract conferring authority to issue PCNs and to litigate in your own name. Your latest letter simply repeats demands and asserts that you “will not enter into further correspondence”. That is not engagement with the Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims.
Your £130 figure remains defective. You identify a £100 “Parking Charge” plus a £30 “LBCC administration fee”. That £30 is a pre-issue overhead and an attempt at double recovery. It is not recoverable in addition to the principal. If you proceed, you are put on notice that any claim will be defended on fact and law and that I will seek costs for unreasonable conduct (CPR 27.14(2)(g)) relying on this correspondence.
For the avoidance of doubt:
• The £30 add-on is not accepted and will be opposed.
• If you intend to rely on PoFA Schedule 4, you are put to strict proof that the NtK states a period of parking (not merely ANPR in/out) and was served in accordance with the statute.
• Your ANPR times (15:49–16:06) do not evidence a period of parking and include circulation/consideration time.
This is my final pre-action reply. Either:
(a) within 14 days, provide the three items above in full (i)–(iii) and confirm that any claim will be limited to the principal plus the fixed court fee and fixed, permitted legal representative’s costs on issue; or
(b) issue proceedings. Further template demands will be retained as evidence of unreasonable conduct but will not be answered.
I do not consent to service of proceedings by email.
Yours faithfully,
[Name]
[Postal address]
[Email]
Their “we will not be making payment of the sum referred to within your correspondence” is nonsense. You didn’t invoice them for anything. Typical boilerplate paragraph dropped into the wrong template.
Send one final, short chaser that (a) corrects their “sum you claim” error, (b) records that they’ve twice ignored core PAPDC-relevant document requests, and (c) gives a final, reasonable window (14 days) to produce the three key items (signage as displayed on the day, the exact clause allegedly breached, and landowner authority). Make clear you won’t grant further extensions and will seek CPR 27.14(2)(g) costs for unreasonable conduct if they issue without providing them.
Do not keep rolling 30-day extensions. One clear ultimatum is enough. If they still don’t comply and then issue, you use their non-cooperation to support costs and case management orders.
Email the following response and CC yourself:
Your ref: [PCN/Ref]
Site: Challaborough Bay Pay & Display, Kingsbridge
Date of your latest letter: [insert date]
By email: enforcement@parkingeye.co.uk
Subject: Your latest LBC correspondence – non-response to document requests and incorrect “sum claimed” assertion
Dear ParkingEye,
Your letter states you “will not be making payment of the sum referred to within [my] correspondence.” I have made no demand for payment of any sum from ParkingEye. Please correct your records and stop repeating this irrelevant template paragraph.
You have now twice failed to provide the core documents I requested that you will rely upon. For the final time before proceedings, provide within 14 days:
a) Contemporaneous, date-stamped photographs of the actual entrance and terms signage as displayed on the material date, at driver eye height and showing location relative to the bay/route used (not artwork/stock images).
b) The exact clause(s) you say were in force and allegedly breached, set out verbatim and cross-referenced to the signage supplied. Also confirm your pleaded legal basis (contractual sum by performance vs breach/trespass).
c) The landowner authority in force on the material date, unredacted as to parties, land description/boundaries, dates, consideration, and with express authority (if any) for ParkingEye to issue PCNs, to litigate in your own name, and to recover the sums now claimed.
You continue to demand £130 comprised of a £100 “Parking Charge” and a £30 “LBCC administration fee”. Identify the legal basis on which you contend a separate £30 pre-issue administration sum is recoverable in addition to the approved parking charge, and confirm whether VAT is (a) chargeable or (b) excluded, and why. If you cannot identify a proper basis, confirm the claim is limited to the principal, the court issue fee and the fixed, permitted legal representative’s costs on issue.
If you issue proceedings without first providing the items at 2(a)–(c) and a coherent explanation of 3), I will draw this correspondence to the court’s attention and seek appropriate sanctions for unreasonable conduct, including costs under CPR 27.14(2)(g). No further extensions will be agreed. I will not use a web portal.
Yours faithfully,
[Name]
[Postal address]
[Email]
No. You received a Parking Charge Notice (PCN) which was issued as a Notice to Keeper (NtK). Because your appeal was not upheld, they say you owe them a debt. Before they can issue a claim for that alleged debt in the county court, they are required, under the Pre Action Protocols for Debt Claims (PAPDC) to issue a Letter of Claim (LoC) which details the reason they are alleging you owe them a debt and they must give you 30 days to respond before they can issue the actual claim.
You have shown us only the cover letter part of the LoC. What else have they said about the alleged debt and why it is owed? We don't need to know about any other forms that were included with the LoC and you can safely discard those forms.
So, the LoC refers to the PCN, not any other LoC.
You can respond to the LoC with the following:
Your ref: [PCN/Ref]
Site: Challaborough Bay Pay & Display, Kingsbridge
Date of your Letter Before Claim: 29 August 2025
By email and post: enforcement@parkingeye.co.uk
ParkingEye Ltd, PO Box 117, Blyth, NE24 9EJ
Subject: Response to your Letter Before County Court Claim – figures queried and documents required
Dear ParkingEye Enforcement Team,
I acknowledge receipt of your Letter Before County Court Claim. Liability is denied.
Your figures are incoherent. You say the principal sum is £100, assert that under the Private Parking Single Code of Practice you are “entitled to add up to £70 to cover the cost of recovering a debt”, then declare an “additional fee of £30… now due” and demand £130. Identify precisely what the £30 represents, the legal basis for it, and whether VAT is included. If you contend that any part of this is a “debt recovery” add-on, explain why such a bolt-on is not an impermissible attempt at double recovery given that ParkingEye’s business model and the approved charge already include the cost of running your scheme. Confirm also whether you intend to pursue any sum beyond the principal, the fixed court fee and the fixed, permitted legal representative’s costs on issue.
Further, you must state the legal character of the £100: do you claim it as consideration under a contractual term, or as damages for breach? Your letter is silent on this, yet it is fundamental to any cause of action.
Please now provide the following, in full, legible and unredacted, within 30 days. I will not use your web portal.
1. A complete copy of the original Notice to Keeper exactly as served (all pages and images), including the wording relied upon to invoke Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 and proof of service/delivery dates.
2. A contemporaneous, date-stamped photograph of the actual terms signage at the location on the material date (not artwork or a stock image) showing the full wording, the parking charge amount, the entrance signs and the signs’ positions relative to the bay/route used.
3. The exact clause(s) of the terms you say were in force and that you allege were breached, set out verbatim and cross-referenced to the signage supplied, together with clarification of whether you plead breach of contract, trespass, or a contractual sum by performance.
4. The written agreement in force on the material date between the landowner (or party with title) and ParkingEye, showing the land description and boundaries, commencement/expiry, consideration, and the express authority (if any) to issue PCNs, to pursue proceedings in your own name, and to recover the sums now claimed.
5. A full breakdown of all sums now claimed, identifying the legal basis for each head of loss or sum, whether the principal is consideration or damages, and whether any alleged “debt recovery” element attracts VAT. If you rely on any trade association code for add-ons, identify the specific provision and explain how it creates a recoverable legal entitlement.
If you commence proceedings without first addressing the above and rectifying the inconsistencies in your figures, I will draw this letter to the court’s attention and seek sanctions for unreasonable conduct, including costs pursuant to CPR 27.14(2)(g).
All future correspondence should be sent by post to my address and/or by email to [your email]. I will not engage with third-party debt collection agents.
Yours faithfully,
[Name]
You have to consider what your chances of successfully defending this should ParkingEye eventually decide to take you to court of the alleged debt. Lets look at the bare bones of the circumstances:
The driver entered, attempted to pay, and could not due to:
• payment machine failure,
• lack of alternative viable methods (no signal for QR app or helpline),
• and no available onsite assistance.
• The driver did not accept the contract (no payment made, no tariff selected).
• The total stay was 16 minutes, which exceeds the minimum 5-minute consideration period.
An appeal to POPLA has almost zero chance of being successful. This case will likely be rejected by POPLA on technical grounds if ParkingEye can demonstrate that:
• signage was visible,
• terms were clear,
• the vehicle remained over the 5-minute consideration threshold without completing payment.
POPLA assessors tend to apply the Code rigidly and will never consider mitigating circumstances unless they amount to a procedural breach or unlawful conduct.
In my opinion, the only way you have any chance of getting this unfair PCN cancelled is if it goes to court. There are two outcomes, depending on how ParkingEye decide to handle litigation on the matter.
If they think their case is weak, they will eventually use the bulk litigation firm of incompetent legal wannabes, DCB Legal to issue a claim. If they do that, you have won, because as long as you follow the advice and defend the claim properly, they will, in due course discontinue.
However, if ParkingEye think they have a strong case, then they will handle the claim in-house with their own litigation team. Should this be the case, then it is highly likely that it would proceed al the way to a hearing.
At a hearing, you have the best chance of winning this because, unlike ParkingEye or their incestuous so-called "independent" appeals service, POPLA, a judge is the only truly independent arbiter and will decide any claim on the facts.
In the small claims court, this is where you would have a far stronger chance, especially with:
• evidence of the failed payment attempt (machine photos),
• witness evidence of no signal,
• your health context,
• and a properly structured argument around impossibility of performance and no contract formed.
The judge will also be able to decide on mitigating issues and, in my opinion, you probably have a better than 50% chance of being successful.
However... this is a long protracted process and is likely to last for anything from 9 months to over a year before it is finally decided. In the meantime, you will be receiving debt recovery letters threatening all sorts of nonsense but enough to scare anyone not familiar with this process. Debt collectors can be safely ignored. They are powerless to actually do anything except to try and persuade the low-hanging fruit on the gullible tree to pay up out of ignorance and fear.
After ignoring all debt collector letters, at some stage you will receive a Letter of Claim (LoC). At this point you will know whether they think they have a fair chance at recovering the alleged debt. If the LoC is issued by ParkingEye's in-house litigation team, then it is likely to end up in court. However, if the LoC comes from the incompetents at DCB Legal, it's a slam dunk that as long as the claim is defended, they will discontinue before they have to pay the trial fee.
This is not guesswork. This is all based on many years of dealing with these unregulated private parking companies and their bottom dwelling, bulk litigation brethren.
So, you have to decide whether you are prepared to fight this all the way, with our advice or you can go it alone and either pay up or fight with advice from elsewhere.