Yet another scumbag parking eye letter - Fox House, Derby - LBCCC Stage

usernamenotfound

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81994844#Comment_81994844

So I've researched Paragraph 9(2) (e):
The notice must—

state that the creditor does not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver and invite the keeper—

(i)to pay the unpaid parking charges; or

(ii)if the keeper was not the driver of the vehicle, to notify the creditor of the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver and to pass the notice on to the driver;

And as much as I would like to put this point in, will it be an invalid point if the NTK has this written on the back?

"As we do not know the driver's name or current postal address, if you were not the driver at the time, you should tell us the name and current postal address of the driver and pass this notice to them."

Or is there something I am overlooking or misunderstanding? Maybe it applies to the LBCCC as well as the NTK? Basically, I'm not sure how impactful my reminder to them will be, nor how I would word it. Please advise.

Coupon-mad

No, it DOES apply to yours. ParkingEye were held not to have included this:

"invite the keeper—

(i) to pay the unpaid parking charges; or

usernamenotfound

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81996996#Comment_81996996

My mistake, thank you for clarifying.

I had assumed the "; or" bit meant that the creditor was given the choice of stating (i) or (ii) exclusively, law nomenclature is too complicated for me.

usernamenotfound

How about this? (Point 3 - now changed to non-compliance with 9(2)(e) - is still less meaty than 1 and 2, maybe this is fine, otherwise any advice would be appreciated)

Dear Parkingeye Litigation Team,

I am writing regarding the Letter Before County Court Claim reference: [Reference number here]

I am the registered keeper of the vehicle in question, and I would like to formally dispute this charge and request that the matter be resolved without further escalation.
The driver was visiting a resident at the property and remained on site for less than 30 minutes. At the time of parking, the signage throughout the car park was inadequate and unclear. There was insufficient visible information to reasonably inform visitors of any parking restrictions, terms, or enforcement conditions.

My grounds of defence are set out in full below.

1. No Valid Contract Formed — Inadequate Signage - Which was not prominently displayed throughout the site

A private parking charge is a contractual matter. For a binding contract to arise, its terms must have been brought clearly and prominently to the motorist's attention before they decided to remain on site. The Supreme Court in ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67 emphasised that the outcome in that case turned on its specific facts — including approximately 20 large, prominently illuminated signs with clear lettering throughout the Chelmsford retail park. The Court was careful to stress that the decision was limited to those particular facts.

The alleged contravention occurred at Fox House Derby, between 13:01 to 13:30 on 30/10/2025. I put you to strict proof that your signage was adequately illuminated and legible to a motorist arriving in those specific conditions.

I further put you to strict proof as to: the size of the lettering for the parking charge amount; the number and positioning of all signs; and whether signs were visible and readable from the point at which a driver must decide whether to remain. I specifically note that the driver was parked in space number 8, you must provide proof from the perspective of this parked space.

I will then provide evidence via a video recording of the route the driver took toward the entrance, showing a clear lack of signs to dispute your proof.

2. The driver had a legitimate reason for being on the premises as a visitor to a resident and stayed less than 30 minutes

Given the circumstances of visiting a resident, who had taken ill and needed to receive assistance and medical care, the charge is neither fair nor enforcable.

With over 100 flats at Fox House, invited visitors, tradespeople, doctors, cleaners, nurses, postmen, taxi drivers or couriers should be expected to able to park for a time limit.

As there are no contractual terms offered to visitors. No obligations can be related to anyone except residents.

Therefore, if no valid contract was formed, no charge is enforceable.

3. Failure to comply with Paragraph 9(2)(e) of the POFA

I would like to note that the NTK does not invite the keeper to pay the unpaid parking charges, this is mandatory for the notice and I will remind you that the case of Parkingeye v Ghansah M4FC56Q6 was dismissed due to the notice's failure to abide by Paragraph 9(2)(e) of the POFA.

If this matter is taken to court, I will have exactly the same ground of defence which from following precedent, the same consistent outcome will most likely occur via stare decisis, and this case will be dismissed.

Summary

I request that the parking charge be cancelled and that no further action be taken.
Please confirm in writing that this matter has been closed.

If you refuse this request, I wish to note that the propensity to pay in my case is zero, and any court proceedings will be vigorously defended. Pursuing this claim will cost you the court fee and preparation time, which will most certainly result in a loss for you.

I look forward to your prompt response and hope this matter can be resolved amicably.

Kind regards,

[Name]

usernamenotfound

Just confirming that I've now sent the above to enforcement@parkingeye.co.uk

Will update if they come back to me.

usernamenotfound

Just another update on this thread. Also, now that it's moved to LBCCC territory, should I rename this thread? (if possible)

I have not had a reply to my email from enforcement@parkingeye.co.uk

But for some odd reason, I've received another letter from the post (dated 28 May 2026) with the following:

"We are writing in relation to the Parking Charge incurred on 30 October 2025 at 13:30, at Fox House, Derby car park. As a gesture of goodwill, on a without prejudice basis, we will reduce the parking charge amount to £60.00 if paid within the next 14 days. Upon receipt of this payment the case will be closed, and you will receive no further correspondence in relation to the Parking Charge. If this payment is not received within 14 days, then the full outstanding balance will become due."

What part of propensity to pay = zero do they not understand, did they even read the email I sent? Or are actually getting scared now and are trying to bribe me into paying a smaller sum?

Please advise - i.e. can this letter be used against them in court or should I just ignore?

Umkomaas

Please advise - i.e. can this letter be used against them in court or should I just ignore?

Was the letter marked ‘Without Prejudice, Save as to Costs?

Can you confirm that ParkingEye are fronting the claim themselves, not using DCB Legal please?

usernamenotfound

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82019921#Comment_82019921

ParkingEye are fronting the claim themselves. This letter I received is also from them.

This letter was not marked "Without Prejudice, Save as to Costs"

The only paragraphs I've excluded were how "payments can be made" and "please allow 24 hours from the date of this correspondence for any balance updates to reflect on our systems".

usernamenotfound

Here is the letter (without my name & address)

Umkomaas

PE are very court savvy, and I guess, if they were thinking there was any prospect of this actually getting to court, they would have used the WPSATC heading in their letter. I’d keep playing a straight bat to this (I wouldn’t respond if you have no intention of paying) and let them make their next move (discontinuation perhaps?).