Yes this is what I submitted:
To Elms Legal,
I am writing to formally dispute the Parking Charge Notice issued by Excel Parking Services, in respect of which you have been instructed to act as debt collector. I categorically dispute this charge and set out my full grounds below.
I request that this letter is passed to Excel Parking Services immediately, as they are the issuing party and the only party with authority to cancel this charge.
Background
On the date in question, I visited the car park as a genuine, paying customer on two separate occasions:
1. First, to use Pure Gym for approximately one hour.
2. Following a period away from the car park of approximately thirty minutes, I returned to use Lidl, remaining for under ten minutes.
My total cumulative time within the car park across both visits was significantly under the permitted two-hour maximum. I also departed the car park well before the two-hour limit from my initial entry would have elapsed. At all times I was an active, bona fide customer of businesses located within or directly served by this car park.
Grounds for Dispute
1. Total stay within permitted limits. The charge has been issued solely on the basis of the no re-entry condition, not because I exceeded the maximum permitted stay. My overall presence in the car park was well within the two-hour limit. The purpose of a maximum stay policy is to prevent a vehicle from monopolising a space for an unreasonable period — something that did not occur in this case.
2. Legitimate customer throughout. I was a paying customer of businesses in the car park on both visits. Enforcing this charge penalises exactly the type of customer the car park exists to serve, and is contrary to the reasonable expectations of those businesses and their customers.
3. Disproportionate charge. The Supreme Court ruling in ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67 established that a parking charge must represent a legitimate interest and must not be disproportionate. In this instance, given that my total stay was within the permitted maximum and I was a genuine customer throughout, this charge serves no legitimate purpose and is wholly disproportionate.
4. Signage. Under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 and the BPA/IPC Code of Practice, parking operators are required to ensure that all terms, including any no re-entry condition, are displayed on signage that is clear, prominent, and unambiguous. I formally request that Excel Parking Services provide evidence that the no re-entry signage met these requirements and was clearly visible upon entry to the car park.
Formal Request
I formally request that this Parking Charge Notice is cancelled in full and that all collection activity is suspended immediately pending resolution of this dispute. I am aware that it is improper for a debt collector to continue pursuing a debt that is formally and actively disputed.
