DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Private parking tickets
*****************************************************
#Post#: 123743--------------------------------------------------
Re: Parkingeye PCN - Non-payment - Cockhedge Shopping Centre
DIR By: jfollows
Date: July 4, 2026, 11:23 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Yes, upload the docs please.
You have 14+5 days from the date on the form to file a defence
or Acknowlegement of Service, and if you file AoS you have a
further 14 days to file a defence, which needs to be specific to
the Particulars of Claim on the N1SDT form.
Did you receive a Letter of Claim from DCB Legal?
#Post#: 123745--------------------------------------------------
Re: Parkingeye PCN - Non-payment - Cockhedge Shopping Centre
DIR By: txl08
Date: July 4, 2026, 11:32 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Hi Thanks,
Will upload the docs once I've hidden the personal info.
I think I've messed up I did get a letter a few weeks ago but I
put it aside without reading it properly and forgot about it and
now I can't find it.
#Post#: 123749--------------------------------------------------
Re: Parkingeye PCN - Non-payment - Cockhedge Shopping Centre
DIR By: jfollows
Date: July 4, 2026, 11:46 am
---------------------------------------------------------
If the claim is in the name of DCB Legal then not responding to
a Letter of Claim is not fatal because it won’t ever get as far
as court as long as you follow the process.
If it’s in the name of Parking Eye it’s more serious because
they tend to keep the ones they expect to win in-house.
Remember, there is a mandatory mediation step, which someone
will have to attend.
#Post#: 123752--------------------------------------------------
Re: Parkingeye PCN - Non-payment - Cockhedge Shopping Centre
DIR By: txl08
Date: July 4, 2026, 12:17 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Unfortunately the claimant is Parking Eye.
Doc images attached, I didn't include all of the response forms.
HTML https://i.ibb.co/WvJ2LXVV/IMG-6300.jpg
HTML https://i.ibb.co/1JPZ6frR/IMG-6301.jpg
HTML https://i.ibb.co/4gsg99t1/IMG-6302.jpg
#Post#: 123758--------------------------------------------------
Re: Parkingeye PCN - Non-payment - Cockhedge Shopping Centre
DIR By: jfollows
Date: July 4, 2026, 12:42 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
You have to file a defence or AoS by 20 July.
If you file AoS you have until 3 August to file a defence.
Do not use a boilerplate/template defence, instead construct
something which responds to the stated Particulars of Claim
(woeful) and specifics to your case and builds on the appeals
you have already constructed.
DCB Legal will almost certainly discontinue rather than paying
the court fee, but that’s some way down the line and your
research will have shown you what’s involved between now and
then.
It’s DCB Legal who is handling this, not Parking Eye. Of course
Parking Eye is the claimant, but they’ve farmed the work out to
DCB Legal.
#Post#: 123778--------------------------------------------------
Re: Parkingeye PCN - Non-payment - Cockhedge Shopping Centre
DIR By: InterCity125
Date: July 5, 2026, 1:27 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Did you ever get a copy of the original PCN?
#Post#: 124293--------------------------------------------------
Re: Parkingeye PCN - Non-payment - Cockhedge Shopping Centre
DIR By: txl08
Date: July 10, 2026, 9:07 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: InterCity125 link ---
>
> Did you ever get a copy of the original PCN?
>
--- End Quote ---
No, the first letter we got was a 'reminder' the 'original' PCN
was never received.
I have gathered/found all correspondence I have regarding this:
July-25 PCN "Reminder" issue date 16/7/26. This was appealed
online in August (and rejected). Subsequent appeal was ignored.
Aug-25 Letter from parking eye stating they are now able to
recover from registered keeper.
Sep-25 LETTER BEFORE CLAIM, from Parking Eye, juts found this
came in September but I overlooked/misfiled it.
Feb-26 DBL "Final reminder" payment demand
Apr-26 Another DBL "Final reminder" payment demand. I thought
this was letter before claim that I'd lost but I found it and it
was just a 'reminder'.
Jun-26 County court claim form
#Post#: 124299--------------------------------------------------
Re: Parkingeye PCN - Non-payment - Cockhedge Shopping Centre
DIR By: InterCity125
Date: July 10, 2026, 9:35 am
---------------------------------------------------------
I would immediately send a Subject Access Request to PE
requesting all info including the original PCN.
#Post#: 124300--------------------------------------------------
Re: Parkingeye PCN - Non-payment - Cockhedge Shopping Centre
DIR By: txl08
Date: July 10, 2026, 9:57 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Here is my defence, based on previous appeals. Please can you
let me know if it's any good?
1. Preliminary & Clarification of Parties
The Defendant is the Registered Keeper of the vehicle with
registration mark [].
The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to the relief
claimed, or any relief at all.
2. Response to Particulars of Claim
Paragraph 1 & 2: Lack of Service & Contradictory Timelines
Paragraphs 1 and 2 are denied. The Claimant states the date of
the alleged contravention was 12/07/2025.
The Claimant asserted in subsequent correspondence that the
first postal communication was issued on 16/07/2025. However,
the Defendant never received any such original Notice to Keeper
(NtK).
The only document received by the Defendant was a "Reminder
Notice" dated 25/07/2025. The Claimant is put to strict proof to
reconcile their administrative timeline and demonstrate that a
compliant original NtK was lawfully served.
Paragraph 3: Driver Liability & Signage
Paragraph 3 is denied. The Defendant was not the driver of the
vehicle at the material time and is under no legal obligation to
identify the driver to a private entity.
It is denied that any "prominently displayed terms" were
breached. The signage at this location is restrictive,
ambiguous, and contractually void (see Section 3 below).
Paragraph 4: Keeper Liability under PoFA 2012
Paragraph 4 is denied. The Claimant has failed to satisfy the
strict statutory requirements of the Protection of Freedoms Act
2012 (PoFA), Schedule 4 to transfer liability from the driver to
the Registered Keeper.
Under PoFA Schedule 4, paragraph 9(5), a mandatory 14-day window
applies for the service of a Notice to Keeper where no parking
ticket was given on the vehicle.
The Claimant is put to strict proof that an original, compliant
NtK was generated and actually entered the postal system via
independent evidence (e.g., a Royal Mail certificate of posting
or franking manifest) to establish the presumption of service. A
mere system printout or log from the Claimant's own database
does not suffice. Without this, keeper liability cannot apply.
3. Substantive Defence Points
A. Breach of the Equality Act 2010 & Single Code of Practice
The vehicle was utilizing a designated disabled bay late in the
evening to set down/collect a disabled occupant.
Under Sections 4.1 and 4.2 of the Private Parking Single Code of
Practice (PPSCoP) and the Equality Act 2010, parking operators
have a strict statutory duty to make reasonable adjustments.
This includes ensuring terms are visible at a
lower/wheelchair-accessible level from disabled bays and
ensuring clear guidance exists regarding concessions or
additional time.
No readable terms or payment/registration terminals were visible
or accessible from the disabled bay in question. Expecting a
disabled motorist to navigate away from the bay to a remote,
unlit, or inaccessible "reception" terminal constitutes unlawful
indirect discrimination.
B. Uncertainty of Terms ("0 hours 0 minutes" Max Stay)
The Claimant’s paperwork dynamically states that a charge is
triggered if a vehicle remains longer than a "0 hours 0 minutes
max stay time".
A contractual term dictating a maximum stay of zero minutes is
absurd, structurally impossible to comply with, and void for
uncertainty.
Furthermore, the Claimant’s notices fail to identify a singular
breach, instead providing a contradictory menu of mutually
exclusive infractions (e.g., failed to pay vs. failed to input
VRM vs. overstaying). Under the Consumer Rights Act 2015 (ss. 62
& 68), these terms lack core transparency and are unenforceable.
C. Forbidding Signage (No Contractual Offer)
The Claimant states that parking between 6:00 PM and 2:00 AM
(Monday–Saturday) is strictly reserved for "Buzz Bingo patrons
only."
If the driver was not a patron, the signage is entirely
prohibitive and forms no contractual offer; it merely forbids
parking. A breach of a forbidding sign sounds strictly in
Trespass, for which only the actual landowner can sue for
liquidated damages (which would be £0.00). The Claimant cannot
invent a contractual fee where no contract was offered.
If the driver was a permitted patron, the issue lies entirely
with the Claimant’s inaccessible terminal configuration and
systemic failure to accommodate disabled motorists.
D. Artificial Inflation of the Claim (Abuse of Process)
The Claimant is claiming a principal sum of £170.00,
representing the initial £100 parking charge artificially
inflated by £70.00 described as "damages" or debt collection
costs.
PoFA Schedule 4, Paragraph 4(5) explicitly caps the maximum sum
recoverable from a registered keeper at the amount specified in
the original Notice to Keeper (typically £100).
The addition of arbitrary "debt collection fees" or "damages"
represents double recovery, violates the Civil Procedure Rules,
and constitutes an abuse of the court process. The claim should
be struck out on this basis alone.
4. Conclusion
The Claimant failed to engage with the Defendant’s formal
appeal/complaint, refused to provide the requested evidence, and
failed to issue a POPLA verification code as mandated by PPSCoP
Clause 11.2 and 8.4.
The Court is invited to dismiss the claim in its entirety and
award the Defendant costs under CPR 27.14(2)(g) due to the
Claimant's unreasonable, predatory conduct and incoherent
pleadings.
#Post#: 124301--------------------------------------------------
Re: Parkingeye PCN - Non-payment - Cockhedge Shopping Centre
DIR By: txl08
Date: July 10, 2026, 9:58 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: InterCity125 link ---
>
> I would immediately send a Subject Access Request to PE
requesting all info including the original PCN.
>
--- End Quote ---
OK will do.
*****************************************************
Page 4 of 5
DIR Previous Page
DIR Next Page