8
« on: January 09, 2026, 06:34:21 pm »
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.
Show Posts
