DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Private parking tickets
*****************************************************
#Post#: 129468--------------------------------------------------
Re: Parking Eye / DCB Legal Court Claim – Charge Was Supposedly
Cancelled
DIR By: Tarli
Date: September 3, 2026, 7:00 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Hi, thanks for your response. I have attached all evidence here
so please review and let me know your thoughts -
HTML https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/19NMnhEl4zjCuGdHaXZ3FCap6-aIDzfVZ?usp=sharing
An interesting point I came across when collecting evidence that
I've not previously thought about but might be very important,
is that I don't think I've ever had a physical letter from
Parking Eye delivered to me. My vehicle was a company car so the
NTK came through the lease company Novuna via email, it's in the
evidence attached dated 14-03-22, and then I have the letter
sent from Novuna to PE dated 22-03-22 providing my details and
giving authorisation to communicate with me. So to answer your
question, since the initial NTK which was received from my lease
company, I've not received any follow up correspondence from PE,
hence why I am challenging it.
To address your other points,
I have attached the WhatsApp response from the Swim company
owner, and a letter he provided from me confirming my use of the
hotel facilities. This letter was provided following me
receiving the DCBL notice as I didn't need it for the original
appeal that was done through the Swim company.
To expand on that point and my initial appeal, yes it was done
through the Swim company directly to the Holiday Inn, the
landowner and not to PE, as this was the guidance we had from
the swim company. PE has only been introduced to the hotel
carpark in Oct 2021 and we were advised there was a 6mths period
we could challenge any fines, this was verbal from the swim
company. Hence why when the notice came through I challenged
through them and not PE directly. The swim company spoke with
the Holiday Inn directly and I was advised it was cancelled.
This happened to a number of the parents attending lessons.
The last contact I had with the swim company was them providing
the letter confirming I was using the hotel facilities. Another
detail for this that I touch on previously but not in detail, is
that the hotel closed to the public in 2023 and now houses
refugees, so both myself and the swim company have been unable
to contact them or attend the premises to follow this up or get
any further information on what action was previously taken.
#Post#: 129471--------------------------------------------------
Re: Parking Eye / DCB Legal Court Claim – Charge Was Supposedly
Cancelled
DIR By: tincombe
Date: September 3, 2026, 7:12 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Stop drafting, you're wasting time and effort.
My vehicle was a company car so the NTK came through the lease
company Novuna via email,
My goodness! A completely different light on the whole issue.
One step at a time:
To whom is the NTK you posted dated 14 March 2022 addressed?
#Post#: 129472--------------------------------------------------
Re: Parking Eye / DCB Legal Court Claim – Charge Was Supposedly
Cancelled
DIR By: Tarli
Date: September 3, 2026, 7:26 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Sorry...
Its addressed to the lease company.
I've been racking my brain trying to remember if I received a
letter or not but genuinely can't remember. I'm normally pretty
good at keep them for evidence, I have all other letters so
makes me think I didn't.
I know I definitely didn't receive any follow up stating the
fine was still outstanding or due to progress to debt collection
or I would've followed it up.
#Post#: 129477--------------------------------------------------
Re: Parking Eye / DCB Legal Court Claim – Charge Was Supposedly
Cancelled
DIR By: tincombe
Date: September 3, 2026, 8:05 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Back to square 1.
You are on completely the wrong tack as regards any claim
against the keeper.
But you have to acknowledge service, so at least engage with
this procedure.
Your defence:
You were not the driver;
You were the hirer but cannot be considered to be the 'keeper'
under Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 Sch.
#Post#: 129484--------------------------------------------------
Re: Parking Eye / DCB Legal Court Claim – Charge Was Supposedly
Cancelled
DIR By: Tarli
Date: September 3, 2026, 8:31 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Thanks for your advice, really helpful.
Would there be any repercussions for my partner who was the
driver?
How is this for a defence -
Alternative Draft Defence – Driver/Keeper Liability Only
1. Defence
1.
relief claimed, or any relief at all.
2.
material date.
3.
was not sent directly to the Defendant, but to the lease
company.
4.
ParkingEye. The Defendant was therefore identified, at most, as
the hirer/user of the vehicle.
5.
purposes of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012.
6.
pursue the Defendant if it has fully complied with the statutory
requirements required to transfer liability from the driver to a
keeper or hirer.
7.
Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, including the
requirements applicable to hire vehicles.
8.
notices and documents required by Schedule 4 were served
correctly on the Defendant within the relevant statutory
timescales.
9.
Hirer/Keeper and any subsequent correspondence relied upon were
properly served on the Defendant after the lease company
provided the Defendant’s details.
10.
correspondence from ParkingEye confirming that the charge
remained outstanding, that any cancellation had not been
actioned, that the amount had increased, or that the matter
would be escalated.
11.
Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, the Defendant cannot be held
liable as keeper or hirer.
12.
requests that the claim be dismissed.
TIA
#Post#: 129494--------------------------------------------------
Re: Parking Eye / DCB Legal Court Claim – Charge Was Supposedly
Cancelled
DIR By: InterCity125
Date: September 3, 2026, 9:07 am
---------------------------------------------------------
4 - should only reference 'hirer of the vehicle' - remove the
word 'user'.
9 - should only reference a NtH - remove the NtK bit as a
parking operator can only issue a NtH once the lease company
have supplied the hirers details - there is no facility under
POFA to issue a second NtK in the hirer's name.
6 - ditto above.
Also, introduce a line space between each defence points -
Judge's do like a wall of words - keep them happy with spacing!
#Post#: 129526--------------------------------------------------
Re: Parking Eye / DCB Legal Court Claim – Charge Was Supposedly
Cancelled
DIR By: Tarli
Date: September 3, 2026, 1:42 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Thanks so much, I've made the relevant changes.
To play devils advocate, what happens if PE did issue me the
correct letter? Like I've said I don't recall receiving it but I
assume they will need to provide evidence also, so if the
correct letter is provided by them how would that affect my
defence? Is it worth including anything relating to my original
defence around the supposed cancellation? Or is it a stronger
case to stick with this route?
Any advice on the next steps would be great too please, re: the
Acknowledging of service and entering my defence for review? Can
someone explain what will happen please as I'm unsure of the
process and next steps, what it actually entails?
TIA
#Post#: 129531--------------------------------------------------
Re: Parking Eye / DCB Legal Court Claim – Charge Was Supposedly
Cancelled
DIR By: tincombe
Date: September 3, 2026, 4:09 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
That's not a defence IMO.
Your defence is as I posted.
You were not the driver;
You were not the keeper.
The rest goes into your witness statement IMO.
Do not take weight of evidence literally and try and make the
judge's life easy.
#Post#: 129533--------------------------------------------------
Re: Parking Eye / DCB Legal Court Claim – Charge Was Supposedly
Cancelled
DIR By: Tarli
Date: September 3, 2026, 4:43 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Ok thanks.
So I now acknowledge the service and literally just add those 2
points to my defence?
What is the process then if you don’t mind me asking, do I wait
to see if the decision is to get it dismissed? And if not it
would proceed to mitigation and that’s when I provide a witness
statement?
If you could shed some light on the process that would be great
please.
TIA
#Post#: 129568--------------------------------------------------
Re: Parking Eye / DCB Legal Court Claim – Charge Was Supposedly
Cancelled
DIR By: tincombe
Date: September 4, 2026, 6:29 am
---------------------------------------------------------
just add those 2 points to my defence?
IMO, they are your defence, or at least the main part!
Let's be clear: their claim is against you (read the Claim Form)
as either:
Driver, or
Keeper.
You are NEITHER. That's it, they have fallen at the first
hurdle.
You were not the driver. They have no evidence that you were,
but if pressed on the matter you could state truthfully that the
vehicle was driven by your wife, but I wouldn't volunteer this.
You were not the keeper either. The keeper is a legal concept
and is presumed to be the registered keeper. They have no
evidence that you were the keeper, because you weren't, you were
the hirer under a lease agreement. The ONLY way in which they
could hold you liable as hirer* is if ss13 and 14 of Sch 4 to
PoFA have been complied with:
HTML https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2012/9/schedule/4
They haven't.
You have never been served with a Notice to Hirer and you have
not been provided with the mandatory documents which would
enable you to examine the creditor's claim.
IMO, everything else is secondary.
*****************************************************
Page 2 of 3
DIR Previous Page
DIR Next Page