gopher.createaforum.com/1/forums/ftla/p/7342/3

DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Private parking tickets
*****************************************************
#Post#: 104772--------------------------------------------------
Re: Forest housing association - E11 2QT - Time in car park
DIR By: ahsan
Date: January 6, 2026, 9:15 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Can someone please suggest what should be the next step from
this point onward, getting a bit nervous...
#Post#: 105169--------------------------------------------------
Re: Forest housing association - E11 2QT - Time in car park
DIR By: ahsan
Date: January 9, 2026, 4:38 am
---------------------------------------------------------
[member=26]b789[/member] I hope you are well.
Can I please get some help on the next step regarding the notice
of claim I've received?
Front:
HTML https://drive.google.com/file/d/1dHSMD_Z55_N27woCi8IfRO3bNCd6xHlC/view?usp=drive_link
Back:
HTML https://drive.google.com/file/d/1cfqdcoGsimiNMW5L0QBv0tjAZ8J3KtFB/view?usp=drive_link
Thanks in advance
#Post#: 105177--------------------------------------------------
Re: Forest housing association - E11 2QT - Time in car park
DIR By: DWMB2
Date: January 9, 2026, 5:03 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Do not use their forms or paperwork. Instead, reply in the form
of a letter, sent by email to the email address at the bottom of
the Letter Before Claim. I'd keep your response to the point -
set out that you dispute their claim in its entirety, with your
position remaining that the vehicle was engaged in loading,
supported by the persuasive appeal case of Jopson v Homeguard.
You should also dispute the �30 charge as an attempt at double
recovery, the �100 charge should include the cost of debt
recovery.
Do feel free to show us a draft, and if you do some searching on
here for other examples of responses to letters of claim you can
take inspiration from them.
#Post#: 105269--------------------------------------------------
Re: Forest housing association - E11 2QT - Time in car park
DIR By: ahsan
Date: January 9, 2026, 12:34 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Hi all,
I have drafted a response to send via email to
enforcement@parkingeye.co.uk.
Can you please review and suggest any amends if needed before I
send them?
Thanks in advance.
================================Draft
I write in response to your Letter Before County Court Claim. I
dispute your client�s claim in its entirety and no debt is
admitted.
1. No breach � vehicle engaged in loading/unloading, not parking
At all material times the vehicle was engaged in legitimate
loading/unloading activity in the course of making deliveries to
residents. Temporary stopping for this purpose does not
constitute �parking� in law.
This position is supported by the persuasive and directly
applicable authority of Jopson v Homeguard Services Ltd [2016]
B9GF0A9E, in which HHJ Harris QC held that brief stopping for
loading/unloading is not parking and falls outside the scope of
typical private parking restrictions, particularly in
residential settings. That judgment expressly distinguishes
ParkingEye v Beavis and remains routinely relied upon at County
Court level.
Your reliance on ANPR entry/exit timestamps is legally and
evidentially insufficient. ANPR does not evidence any stationary
period, unattended vehicle, or acceptance of contractual terms.
No parking event is proved, and accordingly no contract was
formed and no breach occurred.
2. Beavis is wholly distinguishable
ParkingEye v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67 concerned a retail car park
with a clear commercial justification related to space turnover.
This case concerns a residential housing association site and a
vehicle engaged in necessary delivery activity. There is no
legitimate interest in penalising unloading, and any attempt to
rely on Beavis is misconceived.
3. Unfair and prohibitive signage
Signage at the site is prohibitive (�Residents only�) and makes
no provision whatsoever for deliveries. Such signage is
incapable of forming a contract with delivery drivers and fails
the transparency and fairness requirements under sections 62�68
Consumer Rights Act 2015. A prohibitive notice can only sound in
trespass (which your client has no standing to pursue), not
contract.
4. Abuse of process � unlawful double recovery
The additional �30 claimed is expressly disputed. The Supreme
Court in Beavis confirmed that the parking charge itself
includes the operator�s costs of enforcement. Any further sum
constitutes double recovery and is unrecoverable, as
consistently held in County Court authorities (including, inter
alia, Excel v Wilkinson).
Even if (which is denied) any parking charge were due, the
maximum recoverable sum would be the original �100, and that too
is denied for the reasons set out above.
5. POPLA decision not determinative
You are no doubt aware that POPLA decisions are not binding on
the courts. POPLA failed to apply Jopson correctly and applied
Beavis indiscriminately. The court will determine the matter
afresh on the evidence and law.
6. Pre-Action position
In light of the above, your client has no reasonable prospects
of success. Should proceedings be issued, I will seek an
immediate strike-out or summary judgment and will rely on this
correspondence when the court considers costs under CPR
27.14(2)(g).
I therefore invite you to confirm, within 14 days, that the
claim is discontinued. Any further pursuit will be robustly
defended.
#Post#: 105557--------------------------------------------------
Re: Forest housing association - E11 2QT - Time in car park
DIR By: ahsan
Date: January 12, 2026, 11:59 am
---------------------------------------------------------
@everyone any feedback on the draft, the 28 days deadline to
respond is not too far?
Thanks.
#Post#: 105571--------------------------------------------------
Re: Forest housing association - E11 2QT - Time in car park
DIR By: jfollows
Date: January 12, 2026, 1:19 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[member=26]b789[/member] has not been active here since 3
January.
#Post#: 105573--------------------------------------------------
Re: Forest housing association - E11 2QT - Time in car park
DIR By: DWMB2
Date: January 12, 2026, 1:23 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
That looks like a decent draft.
#Post#: 105906--------------------------------------------------
Re: Forest housing association - E11 2QT - Time in car park
DIR By: ahsan
Date: January 14, 2026, 12:50 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
was hoping [member=26]b789[/member](I hope they are in good
health) can review the draft before I send them via email.
Can you think I can go ahead and send this the draft, just
thinking that in case they go to court the draft doesn't come
and bite us.
Thanks.
#Post#: 106467--------------------------------------------------
Re: Forest housing association - E11 2QT - Time in car park
DIR By: ahsan
Date: January 19, 2026, 3:31 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Hi all,
anyone can confirm if I'm OK to go ahead and respond to parking
eye via email or would you suggest some amends which could help
in case they go to court? I have only a couple of days left
before the 28 days deadline?
Thanks in advance
#Post#: 106507--------------------------------------------------
Re: Forest housing association - E11 2QT - Time in car park
DIR By: InterCity125
Date: January 19, 2026, 6:50 am
---------------------------------------------------------
I would send it.
*****************************************************
Page 4 of 5
DIR Previous Page
DIR Next Page