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

usernamenotfound

Finally received my Letter Before Claim (LBC).

Almost started on the generic template but then realised the paragraph specifically for Parkingeye LBCCCs.

PARKINGEYE are a little different

"If you get a LBCCC direct from ParkingEye (not from DCBLegal on their behalf) email PEye's litigation team with facts / receipts / blue badge / proof of patronage, to try to resolve the dispute"

I assume in my case this is a pointless endeavour since I already appealed to POPLA and they doubled down on their allegations. On top of this I complained to the property owners (Nightingale) multiple times, with threats of listing them as witness for court, but received no response.

So in my case, I suppose I just wait for the court claim proper?

Gr1pr

Its your choice, but you have already tried almost everything anyway

Coupon-mad

The advice specifically about PEye LBCCCs is in the NEWBIES thread due to my 20 years of experience of posting on MSE. If it wasn't true I'd have removed it! I have seen off loads of PEye cases at LBCCC stage (after POPLA lost appeals) over the years.

What you are missing is that the litigation team has a different mindset, focussing on whether litigation is worthwhile & that team is likely different people than the appeals team.

usernamenotfound

Thanks for the response @Coupon-mad

I will give emailing the litigation team a go in that case. It seems there are multiple disputes along with multiple resolutions at this stage. Is there any template I could utilise for my email, or should I just keep it to my own words regarding being the driver (I have not named the driver yet but since the NTK was POFA compliant, there's no reason to keep this hidden now?), the lack of visible signs, the lack of terms and conditions for visitors, and visiting for only 30 minutes in a half empty car park?

Coupon-mad

IMHO templates are the work of the devil when it comes to complaints and robust responses about case specifics.

However there is a person who has just written theirs in a ParkingEye case same stage as you today. I've no idea which thread. I read them all. You just need to read ParkingEye ones on the list today…

…but I still wouldn't copy theirs too closely! If you want impact, write it yourself & stay away from horrific ChatGPT is my advice.

usernamenotfound

Are you referring to this one?

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81990373#Comment_81990373?utm_source=community-search&utm_medium=organic-search&utm_term=parkingeye

I did a quick search and had a look through the posts today and this was the closest I found.

usernamenotfound

How does this look? (I feel like point 3 needs more otherwise it doesn't hold much weight)

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. Disproportionate Charge

The charge you seek in these specific circumstances is not a genuine pre-estimate of loss, nor is it commercially justified, and is disproportionate.

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]

kryten3000

Lose number 3 but remind them that you are aware of the useful case of Parkingeye v Ghansah M4FC56Q6
where Parkingeye's failure to abide by Paragraph 9(2)(e) of the POFA led to the case being dismissed.

Coupon-mad

Except I think this OP already admitted to driving,

Definitely remove this:

"3. Disproportionate Charge

The charge you seek in these specific circumstances is not a genuine pre-estimate of loss, nor is it commercially justified, and is disproportionate."

usernamenotfound

I haven't admitted to driving just yet. I've made sure to always address myself as the keeper/keeper appellant etc and I have not named the driver in any of my correspondences.

Right, I'll take a look into what "Paragraph 9(2)(e) of the POFA" is all about, and add this into my draft.

Thanks