Parking eye fine AMPR advise please (new to this )

blobfish007

@Gr1pr my parents said last night to send a letter to parking eye and dcbl l ive realised after finding this website I should never have done that. This is the letter though just though it could effect the outcome maybe and you need to see it … 

Dear Sir/Madam,

​I am writing to formally contest the above-referenced Notice of Debt Recovery. The demand as per the letter dated  25th September 2025 is challenged on three fundamental grounds: the minor nature of the alleged overstay (de minimis), breach of the industry-standard grace period, and an unreasonable and unconscionable delay in enforcement.

​I contest the charge on the basis that my alleged overstay was negligible. I drove into the car park solely to pick up the pub landlord’s son (Jack Pollard). This was a brief stop, not a parking stay, and I did not exit the vehicle.

● ​The alleged overstay time was 1 minute and 6 secondsbeyond the stated free parking period.

● ​As per the BPA Code of Practice (Section 13, 13.3), members must allow a minimum 10-minute grace periodat the end of the paid-for or permitted parking time. This allowance is specifically to afford drivers time to exit the car park without fear of receiving a penalty.

● ​Since my vehicle was present for only 1 minute and 6 seconds past the limit, your decision to issue a penalty violates the spirit and letter of this Code of Practice. Enforcing a charge for such a trivial overstay is unreasonable, disproportionate, and contrary to established industry guidelines.

​I understood from the landlord of the premises (Kenny Pollard) in April 2024 that the charge would be cancelled. Following this, I heard nothing from your company for over seventeen months.

● ​This lack of communication for over a year and four months, followed by a sudden escalation and threat of court action, constitutes an unreasonable delay. While there is no statutory time limit for simple contractual claims, parking operators who are members of the BPA are expected to pursue charges within a reasonable timeframe. The delay of 17 months, particularly where the alleged contravention occurred on 29th March 2024 and your enforcement body did not attempt to contact me again until 25th September 2025, is prejudicial to my ability to respond and gather evidence.

● ​I hold the reasonable belief that, due to the assurance of cancellation and the subsequent period of silence, the matter had been closed.

● ​This practice of long delay followed by a sudden, escalated demand for payment is unfair and falls below the standards expected of an accredited parking operator.

​I believe the Parking Charge Notice is unfair, disproportionate, and unenforceable based on the minimal time overstay, the reasonable expectation of cancellation, and the excessive delay in pursuing the alleged debt.

​Please be aware that due to the sudden, disproportionate, and historical nature of this demand, the communication breakdown, and the threat of legal action, I am now seeking independent legal advice to review this matter.

Coupon-mad

Just ignore them.

Await the claim form and defend it.

DO NOT LET YOUR PARENTS WRONGLY TELL YOU THAT THIS RISKS A CCJ. Informed decisions only, not chatgpt/Googling & NOT reading or asking CITIZENS ADVICE who are sadly hopeless in these cases.

Read the MSE Guide linked at the top of the page. It was fact-checked by me this Summer and it got the OK from Martin Lewis himself.

blobfish007

@Gr1pr my parents advised to send a email / letter to parking eye and dcbl. This was my letter. Dear Sir/Madam,

​I am writing to formally contest the above-referenced Notice of Debt Recovery. The demand as per the letter dated  25th September 2025 is challenged on three fundamental grounds: the minor nature of the alleged overstay (de minimis), breach of the industry-standard grace period, and an unreasonable and unconscionable delay in enforcement.

​I contest the charge on the basis that my alleged overstay was negligible. I drove into the car park solely to pick up the pub landlord’s son (Jack Pollard). This was a brief stop, not a parking stay, and I did not exit the vehicle.

● ​The alleged overstay time was 1 minute and 6 secondsbeyond the stated free parking period.

● ​As per the BPA Code of Practice (Section 13, 13.3), members must allow a minimum 10-minute grace periodat the end of the paid-for or permitted parking time. This allowance is specifically to afford drivers time to exit the car park without fear of receiving a penalty.

● ​Since my vehicle was present for only 1 minute and 6 seconds past the limit, your decision to issue a penalty violates the spirit and letter of this Code of Practice. Enforcing a charge for such a trivial overstay is unreasonable, disproportionate, and contrary to established industry guidelines.

​I understood from the landlord of the premises (Kenny Pollard) in April 2024 that the charge would be cancelled. Following this, I heard nothing from your company for over seventeen months.

● ​This lack of communication for over a year and four months, followed by a sudden escalation and threat of court action, constitutes an unreasonable delay. While there is no statutory time limit for simple contractual claims, parking operators who are members of the BPA are expected to pursue charges within a reasonable timeframe. The delay of 17 months, particularly where the alleged contravention occurred on 29th March 2024 and your enforcement body did not attempt to contact me again until 25th September 2025, is prejudicial to my ability to respond and gather evidence.

● ​I hold the reasonable belief that, due to the assurance of cancellation and the subsequent period of silence, the matter had been closed.

● ​This practice of long delay followed by a sudden, escalated demand for payment is unfair and falls below the standards expected of an accredited parking operator.

​I believe the Parking Charge Notice is unfair, disproportionate, and unenforceable based on the minimal time overstay, the reasonable expectation of cancellation, and the excessive delay in pursuing the alleged debt.

​Please be aware that due to the sudden, disproportionate, and historical nature of this demand, the communication breakdown, and the threat of legal action, I am now seeking independent legal advice to review this matter.

blobfish007

I know now after reading the newbie thread I shouldn’t have made any contact but I sent that before I found this website and had a read which was silly looking back now 

Gr1pr

Not really 

The correct actions would have been

1) get the pub landlord or landowner or brewery to cancel the original NTK PCN letter  ( which you apparently no longer have   ), known as plan A in the newbies sticky thread in announcements 

This should still be your focus of attention,  getting the business or landlord or landowner to cancel your PCN 

2) plan B was to appeal it as stopped to load a passenger from the business,  so not parked,  because you as the driver never parked, never intended to park, but only stopped briefly to load a passenger from the premises 

3) possibly followed by a popla appeal ( plan C )  if Parking Eye rejected the plan B appeal 

Yes ideally you should have sought our advice first,  so do so in future 

Yes you should always keep paperwork and evidence 

You definitely should not pay them a penny  !

Loading and Unloading is not parking 

Its not a Penalty,  it's an invoice from a private parking company claimant for the alleged breach of the parking contract on that private property 

blobfish007

I can’t follow the plan A B or C as I was told it was going to get sorted over the phone by the land lord and I got the original £100 ticket last year so I’m way out of appeal time is your advice just ignore it now even though I’ve sent the email to both companies and then if they choose to take it further follow the template on this website to defend and I have a good chance on winning in my situation. 

kryten3000

If you were waiting for a passenger you were not parked.  Loading and unloading of goods and passengers is not parking.  You were presumably also there at the invitation of the landlord.

I see Parkingeye tried their usual trick of discounting to £20 because they were "unable to cancel" - which is in itself a lie.  The landowner should have absolute say over who gets a PCN but many companies don't honour this or use contractual clauses to prevent cancellations.

blobfish007

@kryten3000 yes he told me on the phone he would get the £100 to £20 last year and pay it himself as I did him a favour turns out he never payed it and is now saying he never said he would do any of that. Last time I ever help him out !! Unfortunately the landlord won’t offer any statement saying that I was there only to collect his son that I can use as evidence.  

kryten3000

blobfish007 said:

@kryten3000 yes he told me on the phone he would get the £100 to £20 last year and pay it himself as I did him a favour turns out he never payed it and is now saying he never said he would do any of that. Last time I ever help him out !! Unfortunately the landlord won’t offer any statement saying that I was there only to collect his son that I can use as evidence.  

That's a pity, but the good news is that it's DCBL at this stage who will pass to DCB Legal.

We know DCB Legal routinely discontinue defended claims unlike Parkingeye who also do their own litigation in house.  Just wait for their Letter of Claim and in the meantime have a read of this: 

https://247advice.uk/Debt-Recovery/

blobfish007

Thanks for the advice and reading to do. Hopefully they choose not to send a letter of claim over 1 min 6 seconds. Definitely feeling confident enough to not pay the £170 and I’m sure I’ll be on here asking for more advice is the letter of claim comes through 😂