Parkingeye PCN KFC Portsmouth North Harbour

Ok thank you.

I have responded and will await their claim.

For new people with the same problem (PCN issued at same location, KFC at Portsmouth Harbour), I highly recommend using this tool: https://www.ninjapcn.co.uk/ which I personally developed, to check the postcode of the parking charge.

In this specific instance it looks like the PCN is issued by a private parking operator on statutory land governed by byelaw, so PoFa doesn't apply.

Regards,
Michele

I’d be surprised if it were statutory land, presumable Binnacle Way North Harbour PO6 4SR, to the west of what used to be IBM North Harbour, north of the M27 and south of the A27. Nowhere near Portsmouth Harbour (about 5 miles away). I’d want to see the byelaws to be sure. Reclaimed land built on in the 1970s I think; I started working for IBM in North Harbour in 1984.

Yes, Reply #42 shows the redacted contract for the address above even though the original PCN is no longer viewable.

North Harbour is land immediately to the north of the natural harbour and on the mainland rather than on Portsea Island.

hm yeah it's definitely not harbour byelaw. My tool flags it as forestry land but it might be a false positive. Need to double check it.

https://alondoninheritance.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/Portsdown-Hill-7.jpg shows the area of land reclaimed in the 1980s which includes Binnacle Way.

Yes indeed. I adjusted the tolerances on the tool. Byelaws don't apply at this site.

DCB Legal have replied to my formal response to their Letter Of Claim thus

"We write to acknowledge safe receipt of your formal response to our Letter of Claim sent to you in respect of this matter.

Having considered your response, our position in respect of this matter remains as per our Letter of Claim. We note that despite your points of dispute, there is an absence of any evidence in support of the same so that we may consider this with our Client. If you do have evidence which you believe supports your dispute, please furnish us with the same within the 30 days afforded to you.

As it stands, the initial 30 day timeframe under the Pre-Action Protocol remains, and County Court proceedings will be issued following expiry of this 30 day period, without any further reference to you."

To me this looks just like a cut and paste job. I will update this post when they issue the County Court proceedings.

Hi all

An update on this case. As expected following DCB Legal's response to my Letter of Claim reply, I have now received an N1SDT Claim Form from the Civil National Business Centre, issued 7 September 2026.

I have attached the claim form below with my personal details and MCOL password redacted.

I intend to defend the claim in full and would be very grateful for your advice on the next steps, particularly the timing of the Acknowledgment of Service and preparation of the defence.

Many thanks again for your help.

https://ibb.co/W44BYnjL

AoS or defence by 4pm on 28 September
Defence by 4pm on 12 October as long as AoS previously filed

So why are you not liable to pay this? 9(2)(e)(1)?

Yes, 9(2)(e)(i) is one of the grounds, but I believe there were several grounds developed earlier in the thread.

As I understand them:

1) The NtK fails to comply with PoFA Sch 4 para 9(2)(e)(i), so ParkingEye cannot transfer liability from the unidentified driver to me as keeper.
2) The signage was prohibitive outside the permitted hours (“NO PARKING OUTSIDE OF THESE TIMES”), so the argument is that there was no contractual offer capable of acceptance before 10am and therefore no contract to pay a parking charge.
3) ParkingEye did not satisfactorily establish landowner authority. The contract they produced was dated March 2021 with a 36-month initial term, and the copy supplied to me had relevant sections redacted. POPLA said it automatically renewed, but I couldn't find that provision in the copy ParkingEye provided to me.
4) ParkingEye has not identified or produced evidence that I was the driver, which becomes relevant if keeper liability under PoFA has not been established.
5) I had also challenged the adequacy of the signage/evidence showing that the relevant contractual terms were sufficiently brought to the driver's attention.

Those were essentially the grounds I previously raised at POPLA. Are these still the appropriate points to form the basis of the court defence, or would you narrow/change them at this stage?

Are these still the appropriate points to form the basis of the court defence, or would you narrow/change them at this stage?

I've not had chance to properly look back through the thread to assess the strength of each, but as a general rule, quality over quantity.

If you have 4 solid arguments, present 4. If you've got 2 solid arguments, and 2 "kitchen sink, worth a go" arguments, present the 2. If you present weak arguments "just in case" you run the risk of annoying the judge.

Thanks. I've now managed to find the original ParkingEye POPLA evidence pack and contract that I uploaded previously.

I've also run everything past ChatGPT – the NtK, PE's evidence pack, landowner contract, POPLA decision and the court claim – and asked it to look at the possible defence points again, particularly with your quality-over-quantity comment in mind.

Its suggestion is to narrow things down quite a bit:

1. PoFA 9(2)(e)(i) – this looks like the main point. The NtK tells the driver that they are required to pay, and tells the keeper to provide the driver's details if they weren't driving, but doesn't actually invite the keeper to pay the unpaid parking charge as required by 9(2)(e)(i). PE are pursuing me as keeper under Schedule 4.

2. Particulars of Claim – PE just say that “the vehicle breached the terms on the signs” without actually saying what the alleged breach was. ChatGPT suggested this may be worth including under CPR 16.4 and CEL v Chan.

3. The additional £70 – the NtK was £100 and PE's own POPLA evidence shows £100 outstanding, whereas the court claim starts at £170. As PE are pursuing the keeper under PoFA, paragraph 4(5) appears to limit the amount recoverable from the keeper under Schedule 4 to the amount specified in the NtK.

It suggested dropping the other arguments I previously raised – particularly the prohibitive signage/no-contract argument because of the more recent VCS v Ozog appeal decision, and probably also the general signage and landowner-authority points after looking at PE's evidence.

Does that sound like the right way to narrow the defence down? Or is ChatGPT getting anything wrong or missing anything important?

I can upload the PE evidence pack/contract again if it would help.

I'd be tempted to still raise the contract issue. The 'Initial Term' is for 36 months, from 23rd March 2021, expiring 22nd March 2024. The (barely legible) small print says under Clause #5 (term) that the contract will be automatically extended by a period of 12 months each year after this Initial Term unless written notice to cancel is received. However, it says that the agreement will only continue in force for the Initial Term and any Extended Terms 'subject to Clause 13'. Clause 13 is entirely redacted. Given the clause relating to termination of the agreement is entirely redacted, have ParkingEye proved on the balance of probabilities that the term had been extended? One might ask the court to consider why ParkingEye would choose to redact this part of the contract.

It suggested dropping the other arguments I previously raised – particularly the prohibitive signage/no-contract argument because of the more recent VCS v Ozog appeal decision

Have you read the VCS vs Ozog judgement? It's not in my view a slam-dunk dismissal of all prohibitive signage arguments. As an entertaining starting point, VCS actually lost the appeal, despite the fact the defendant didn't even turn up. It was an airport case, where the defendant had allegedly breached a 'No Stopping' condition communicated by VCS' signs around the airport. The judge concluded that the signs at the airport communicated a valid contractual offer, namely a contractual licence to access the land:


Could you, based on the signage at the site in your case, argue that no similar licence was being granted to the driver of your vehicle at the time of the contravention? Can you show us the signs again?

I'm not saying you should or shouldn't include the arguments - it depends how confident you are arguing the point, and how technical you want your arguments to be (although if you're presenting a PoFA 9(2)(e)(i) argument you're arguably already going quite technical).

Thanks. These are the clearest Street View images I can get of the signage. They're from April 2022, so obviously pre-date the parking event (13 August 2024), although the wording appears to match the signage in ParkingEye's evidence pack.

The wording is: “2 hour max stay between 10am–11pm” and “NO PARKING OUTSIDE OF THESE TIMES”. The vehicle entered at 09:12.


https://ibb.co/27bqLWCx
https://ibb.co/6JbQCXCQ