Chalon Way West Retail Park - ParkingEye

[billnit]

This case concerns a Parking Charge Notice (private parking firm) issued by ParkingEye Ltd, relating to an alleged contravention on Wednesday, 08 October 2025. The notice itself is dated Saturday, 11 October 2025, and I first became aware of it via received initial notice.

The notice appears to have been issued as By post (ANPR/camera). Driver identified status: NO. Equality Act considerations: No. The location is stated as Chalon Way West Retail Park - St Helens.

A preliminary Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) assessment indicates COMPLIANT: Likely PoFA timing compliant for paragraph 9 (postal NtK, no windscreen NtD). Route applied: PoFA paragraph 9 (postal NtK, no windscreen NtD). The notice is treated as given on Tuesday, 14 October 2025 (6 days after the alleged event).

Current stage:
- Notice responded to: Yes
- Debt recovery letters: No
- Letter of Claim: No
- County Court claim: Yes

Response/appeal already sent (verbatim where possible):

to:enforcement@parkingeye.co.uk
Wed, 24 Dec 2025, 13:32

Dear Sirs,

I am the keeper of the vehicle and I dispute your 'parking charge'. I deny any liability or contractual agreement and I will be making a complaint about your predatory conduct to your client landowner.

As your Notice to Keeper (NtK) does not fully comply with ALL the requirements of PoFA 2012, you are unable to hold the keeper of the vehicle liable for the charge. Partial or even substantial compliance is not sufficient. There will be no admission as to who was driving and no inference or assumptions can be drawn. Parkingeye has relied on contract law allegations of breach against the driver only.

The registered keeper cannot be presumed or inferred to have been the driver, nor pursued under some twisted interpretation of the law of agency. Your NtK can only hold the driver liable. Parkingeye have no hope at POPLA, so you are urged to save us both a complete waste of time and cancel the PCN.

Regards,
xxxxx


-----------------------------
from: PE_Enforcement <enforcement@parkingeye.co.uk>
to:xxxx <xxxx@gmail.com>
date: 24 Dec 2025, 13:32

PLEASE NOTE THIS IS AN AUTOMATED RESPONSE Thank you for your email.  Parkingeye can confirm receipt of your correspondence. The Parkingeye Enforcement Team will endeavour to respond to your query at the earliest opportunity. However, please note that it may take up to 10 working days to provide this response. Should your query be in relation to a non-enforcement matter, we request that this is directed to the appropriate department or personnel to ensure  it is dealt with in the most timely manner possible.  Privacy Queries Please note that if your query relates to Parkingeye’s approach to privacy and you are a motorist that has received a Parking Charge or visited a car park managed by Parkingeye, then we will endeavour to pass your query to our Privacy Team, where appropriate. For your information, our privacy policy can be found at: www.parkingeye.co.uk/privacy-policy As this inbox is not monitored by our Privacy Team, should you wish to provide further information relating to your privacy query then we would  ask that this is sent directly to our Privacy Team via either of the three channels noted below: Web: www.parkingeye.co.uk/privacy-policy and complete the online form. Post: Write to Privacy Team, Parkingeye, PO Box 117, Blyth, NE24 9EJ. Email: privacy@parkingeye.co.uk

----------------------------------
from: Parkingeye Ltd <no-reply@parkingeye.net>
to:xxxx@gmail.com
date: 5 Jan 2026, 12:05
subject: Parking Charge Notice - xxxx

Reference: Parking Charge Notice - xxxx

Dear Sir / Madam,

We are writing to you to in relation to the Parking Charge incurred on 08 October 2025 at xxxx, at Chalon Way West Retail Park - St Helens car park.

Please find attached information concerning your appeal.

Kind Regards,

Parkingeye Team

--------------------------------

Letter attachment to above email:

05 January 2026
Reference: Parking Charge Notice - xxxx
Dear Sir / Madam,
We write further to your recent correspondence concerning the above referenced Parking Charge. We recently sent you a Letter Before Claim which informed you that this Parking Charge remains outstanding and had now been processed for further action.
We note from your reply to our Letter Before Claim that you dispute the outstanding sum.
After reviewing your correspondence, it is our position that the Parking Charge remains open. As a Letter Before Claim has now been issued, we are unable to consider any further correspondence.
The Letter Before Claim also included information regarding our appeals procedure which explains that al appeals must be received within 28 days from the date of our initial correspondence. As the time to appeal has expired, we are unable to consider any appeals points at this stage.
Payment can be made by telephoning our offices on 0330 555 4444, by visiting www.parkingeye.co.uk, or by posting a cheque/postal order to the below address. Please note that you must quote the above Parking Charge reference on the reverse of the cheque or postal order.
Yours faithfully,
Parkingeye Team

County Court claim deadlines: issue date Tuesday, 08 September 2026, deemed service Sunday, 13 September 2026, AoS deadline 4pm Monday, 28 September 2026, defence deadline without AoS 4pm Monday, 28 September 2026, and defence deadline with AoS 4pm Monday, 12 October 2026.

Additional notes provided:
Originally posted on https://www.ftla.uk/private-parking-tick...st-helens/

Since ParkingEye email/letter on 5 January, no further correspondence at all. Only CC claim form. Have responded to acknowledgement of claim, but unsure of defence needing to be submitted. Previous FTLA forum suggest low chance of success.

Seems I missed original appeal deadline. I also did not see the response to my email to PE 5 Jan until checking recently after receiving claim form.

Attachments are here:
https://ibb.co/cXvBMkBr
https://ibb.co/FkLrJgZ5
https://ibb.co/MDnZFt8M
https://ibb.co/n8qxk45W
https://ibb.co/d8fRLT5

Please can I have advice on the strongest next steps and defence points for this case.

[b789]

@billnit, you have a live County Court claim now and, as you have already filed the AoS, you will need to file a defence by 4pm on Monday 12 October. I can provide you with a suitable defence.

You should, however, understand that ParkingEye are handling this claim themselves rather than passing it to one of the usual bulk-litigation solicitors. They presumably believe they have a case worth pursuing, so nobody should assume that simply filing a defence will make them go away. That does not mean the claim cannot be successfully defended.

There is already a potentially significant problem with their case. You have not identified the driver, so ParkingEye need to establish keeper liability under Schedule 4 of PoFA. Their NtK appears to fail paragraph 9(2)(e) because it does not contain the mandatory invitation to the keeper to pay the parking charge. This exact defect has already caused ParkingEye a problem in ParkingEye Ltd v Ghansah, M4FC56Q6 (2025), where the claim was dismissed in December 2025 because ParkingEye were pursuing the defendant as keeper and their NtK did not contain the invitation to pay required by PoFA 9(2)(e).

There is also the question of the amount claimed. The NtK demanded £100, yet ParkingEye have now claimed £130, before adding the £35 court fee and £50 legal representative's costs. Their Particulars do not explain where that additional £30 has come from or the contractual basis upon which they say it is owed. That will also be challenged.

One thing I do need you to clarify. ParkingEye's letter dated 5 January expressly states that they had sent you a Letter Before Claim and that they received your reply to that Letter Before Claim. Please find and post both that LoC and the response you sent to it, if you have them, as they may contain something relevant to the defence.

In the meantime, do not identify the driver and do not contact ParkingEye further.

[billnit]

@billnit, you have a live County Court claim now and, as you have already filed the AoS, you will need to file a defence by 4pm on Monday 12 October. I can provide you with a suitable defence.

You should, however, understand that ParkingEye are handling this claim themselves rather than passing it to one of the usual bulk-litigation solicitors. They presumably believe they have a case worth pursuing, so nobody should assume that simply filing a defence will make them go away. That does not mean the claim cannot be successfully defended.

There is already a potentially significant problem with their case. You have not identified the driver, so ParkingEye need to establish keeper liability under Schedule 4 of PoFA. Their NtK appears to fail paragraph 9(2)(e) because it does not contain the mandatory invitation to the keeper to pay the parking charge. This exact defect has already caused ParkingEye a problem in ParkingEye Ltd v Ghansah, M4FC56Q6 (2025), where the claim was dismissed in December 2025 because ParkingEye were pursuing the defendant as keeper and their NtK did not contain the invitation to pay required by PoFA 9(2)(e).

There is also the question of the amount claimed. The NtK demanded £100, yet ParkingEye have now claimed £130, before adding the £35 court fee and £50 legal representative's costs. Their Particulars do not explain where that additional £30 has come from or the contractual basis upon which they say it is owed. That will also be challenged.

One thing I do need you to clarify. ParkingEye's letter dated 5 January expressly states that they had sent you a Letter Before Claim and that they received your reply to that Letter Before Claim. Please find and post both that LoC and the response you sent to it, if you have them, as they may contain something relevant to the defence.

In the meantime, do not identify the driver and do not contact ParkingEye further.

Thanks @b789. I have checked through everything, and am sure I have neither received, nor replied to any Letter Before Claim - whether by email or post (unless they are referring to their 14 November letter). The only other piece of other correspondence not already provided (but mentioned in my original post) was my email to PE on 24 December, to which they replied with email and letter on 5 Jan 26. My email is here - https://ibb.co/VctGMf1G

[b789]

Thanks @billnit. That clears up what you actually sent on 24 December. ParkingEye plainly treated that email as your response to a Letter Before Claim, because their 5 January letter expressly says so. However, if you are certain that you never received an LoC, then simply say so. Your 24 December email certainly doesn't read as though you were knowingly responding to one.

You mention a 14 November letter. Please post that as well, because I want to establish exactly what ParkingEye sent you before your 24 December email. If that was not an LoC, there is then an obvious question as to what LoC ParkingEye were referring to on 5 January and when/how they claim it was sent.

None of this changes the main defence point I have already identified. Your 24 December email was actually useful because you expressly identified yourself only as the keeper, challenged PoFA compliance and specifically stated that there would be no admission as to who was driving. ParkingEye therefore knew perfectly well that driver identity was not admitted.

That makes their reliance upon Schedule 4 particularly important. Their NtK does not contain the mandatory PoFA 9(2)(e)(i) invitation to the keeper to pay, and we now have the sealed order in ParkingEye Ltd v Ghansah where ParkingEye's claim was dismissed for that very defect when pursuing the defendant as keeper.

So please post the 14 November letter. After that, I think we have enough to start putting your defence together.

[Brenda_R2]

You should, however, understand that ParkingEye are handling this claim themselves rather than passing it to one of the usual bulk-litigation solicitors. They presumably believe they have a case worth pursuinig, so nobody should assume that simply filing a defence will make them go away. That does not mean the claim cannot be successfully defended.

@b789 for newcomers here it might be worth elaborating on this very valid point.  Maybe a sticky?

Whilst the claim in question is almost certainly defendable due to fatal PFA flaws, perhaps a post expanding on the logistics and thought processes behind "I am Brenda's parking services and I fancy my chances of rinsing this punter" versus "yeah I'm going to lose this unless the punter fesses up who was driving so I'll farm it out to some wannabee solicitors"?

[b789]

@Brenda_R2, yes, probably worth explaining because I don't want anyone interpreting what I said as meaning that a claim issued directly by ParkingEye must be a strong claim.

There is an important distinction between the legal merits of a claim and the operator's commercial decision to litigate it.

Most PPCs operate a bulk debt-enforcement model. After the usual PCN/debt-recovery process, huge numbers of unpaid charges are passed to bulk recovery firms such as DCB Legal or Gladstones. The solicitor is then dealing with a portfolio of claims on the operator's behalf. The fact that one of those firms has issued a claim tells us very little, by itself, about whether anyone has sat down and critically examined that particular NtK, signage, landowner contract, PoFA compliance etc. before proceedings were commenced.

ParkingEye are somewhat different because they have a substantial in-house enforcement/litigation operation and often issue County Court claims in their own name without routinely needing an external solicitor to conduct the process for them. That makes their economics different. They already have the infrastructure, systems and staff to pursue unpaid charges themselves.

However, I would not make the leap from that to "ParkingEye have issued it themselves, therefore a lawyer must have reviewed it and decided it is a winner." Much of their high-volume litigation operation is still systemised and template-driven.

What I meant in @billnit's case is simply that I would take a ParkingEye claim seriously and would not assume that filing a half-decent defence will automatically cause them to discontinue. They have the machinery to take claims through the court process themselves and have historically demonstrated a willingness to do so.

The irony in this particular case is that their confidence, automated process or whatever else led to proceedings does not cure a statutory defect. ParkingEye are expressly pleading that "Pursuant to Sch 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, notice has been given to the registered keeper, making them liable". If the driver remains unidentified, that proposition depends upon ParkingEye satisfying the conditions Parliament imposed for keeper liability.

Here their own NtK omits the mandatory 9(2)(e)(i) invitation to the keeper to pay. We also have the sealed order in ParkingEye Ltd v Ghansah, M4FC56Q6, where in December 2025 ParkingEye pursued the defendant as keeper and the court dismissed the claim specifically because its NtK "does not include the invitation to pay required by POFA paragraph 9.(2)(e)".

So the useful lesson isn't really "in-house claim = strong; outsourced claim = weak." It is: understand the claimant's litigation model, but then ignore the apparent confidence demonstrated by issuing proceedings and examine whether they can actually prove the cause of action they have pleaded.

@billnit's case is a good illustration. ParkingEye may fancy their chances, but they still have to explain how an unidentified keeper became liable under Schedule 4 when their own NtK apparently omitted one of Schedule 4's mandatory requirements.

[billnit]

thanks @b789 and @Brenda_R2

Having looked, I can see that the 14 November letter I mentioned is the last two pages of the attachment already provided - https://ibb.co/d8fRLT5

Hope this helps. Thanks.

[b789]

Thanks @billnit. Yes, I can see what you mean now. The 14 November letter is already included as the final two pages of the attachment you originally provided, so there is nothing further you need to upload.

That leaves an interesting discrepancy in ParkingEye's 5 January response. They expressly state:

We recently sent you a Letter Before Claim…"

and then:

We note from your reply to our Letter Before Claim that you dispute the outstanding sum."

Yet you are clear that you never received any separate Letter Before Claim and your 24 December email was simply the correspondence you have now shown us. It certainly does not purport to be a response to an LoC.

I don't think we need to spend too much time on that at this stage. The important point is that we now understand the chronology and have the relevant correspondence.

More importantly, your 24 December email expressly identifies you only as the keeper, expressly refuses to identify the driver, and specifically puts ParkingEye on notice that you dispute keeper liability under PoFA. They nevertheless subsequently issued a claim expressly pleading that Schedule 4 makes you liable as registered keeper.

That brings us straight back to the substantive problem for ParkingEye: their own NtK does not contain the mandatory [/b]paragraph 9(2)(e)(i) invitation to the keeper to pay[/b]. That is the same omission which resulted in ParkingEye's claim against an unidentified keeper being dismissed inParkingEye Ltd v Ghansah in December 2025.

I think we now have enough information to concentrate on drafting your defence.

[b789]

@billnit, here is the defence you can copy and paste into the MCOL defence webform:

1. The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to the relief claimed, or at all. The Defendant was the registered keeper (RK) of the vehicle. The Claimant expressly pleads that the Defendant is liable as RK pursuant to Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA). That is denied.

2. The Claimant has failed to comply with the mandatory requirements of PoFA. In particular, its Notice to Keeper (NtK) fails paragraph 9(2)(e), as it does not contain the required invitation to the keeper to pay the unpaid parking charge. Consequently, the Claimant cannot transfer any liability incurred by the driver to the Defendant as keeper.

3. PoFA imposes no obligation upon a keeper to identify the driver. There is no presumption that the RK was the driver and no adverse inference can properly be drawn from a keeper declining to identify the driver. If the Claimant cannot establish keeper liability under PoFA, it is put to strict proof by factual evidence that the Defendant was the driver.

4. The Defendant had already expressly notified the Claimant, by email dated 24 December 2025, that the Defendant was responding as keeper, that the NtK did not comply with PoFA and that the driver would not be identified. The Claimant nevertheless issued proceedings expressly relying upon PoFA keeper liability.

5. The Defendant will refer to ParkingEye Ltd v Ghansah, Claim No. M4FC56Q6, County Court at Clerkenwell & Shoreditch, in which this same Claimant's claim against a keeper was dismissed by order dated 29 December 2025 because its NtK did not contain the invitation to pay required by PoFA paragraph 9(2)(e). The Defendant is aware that this is not a binding authority but puts the Claimant, which conducts its litigation internally, on notice that the Defendant is aware of that case and will rely upon the sealed order as relevant to the identical defect raised here.

6. The Defendant further disputes the quantum claimed. The NtK demanded £100, whereas the PoC claim £130 before the separately stated court fee and legal representative's costs. The additional £30 is unexplained and no contractual or other legal basis for it is pleaded. The Claimant is put to strict proof of its entitlement to that additional sum.

7. The Defendant denies receiving any Letter Before Claim (LoC). The Claimant's letter dated 5 January 2026 nevertheless positively asserts that an LoC had been sent and characterises the Defendant's email dated 24 December 2025 as a reply to it. The Claimant is put to strict proof that a compliant LoC was sent, including production of the LoC and evidence of its dispatch. The Defendant reserves the right to rely upon any failure to comply with the applicable pre-action requirements when the Court considers conduct, case management and costs.

8. The Claimant is put to strict proof of the contractual terms relied upon, that those terms were adequately communicated by the signage in place at the material time, and that the Claimant had sufficient authority from the landholder to enter into contracts and pursue parking charges in its own name.

9. Whether the driver incurred a parking charge and whether the Defendant is liable for it are separate matters. The Claimant has expressly pleaded PoFA as the basis for transferring liability to the Defendant as RK. The NtK does not comply with the mandatory requirements of PoFA and the Claimant has pleaded no factual basis establishing that the Defendant was the driver.

10. Accordingly, the Defendant denies any liability to the Claimant and respectfully invites the Court to dismiss the claim.

The defence is just the "hooks" that you will later hang your Witness Statement (WS) facts on.

[billnit]

@billnit, here is the defence you can copy and paste into the MCOL defence webform:

1. The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to the relief claimed, or at all. The Defendant was the registered keeper (RK) of the vehicle. The Claimant expressly pleads that the Defendant is liable as RK pursuant to Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA). That is denied.

2. The Claimant has failed to comply with the mandatory requirements of PoFA. In particular, its Notice to Keeper (NtK) fails paragraph 9(2)(e), as it does not contain the required invitation to the keeper to pay the unpaid parking charge. Consequently, the Claimant cannot transfer any liability incurred by the driver to the Defendant as keeper.

3. PoFA imposes no obligation upon a keeper to identify the driver. There is no presumption that the RK was the driver and no adverse inference can properly be drawn from a keeper declining to identify the driver. If the Claimant cannot establish keeper liability under PoFA, it is put to strict proof by factual evidence that the Defendant was the driver.

4. The Defendant had already expressly notified the Claimant, by email dated 24 December 2025, that the Defendant was responding as keeper, that the NtK did not comply with PoFA and that the driver would not be identified. The Claimant nevertheless issued proceedings expressly relying upon PoFA keeper liability.

5. The Defendant will refer to ParkingEye Ltd v Ghansah, Claim No. M4FC56Q6, County Court at Clerkenwell & Shoreditch, in which this same Claimant's claim against a keeper was dismissed by order dated 29 December 2025 because its NtK did not contain the invitation to pay required by PoFA paragraph 9(2)(e). The Defendant is aware that this is not a binding authority but puts the Claimant, which conducts its litigation internally, on notice that the Defendant is aware of that case and will rely upon the sealed order as relevant to the identical defect raised here.

6. The Defendant further disputes the quantum claimed. The NtK demanded £100, whereas the PoC claim £130 before the separately stated court fee and legal representative's costs. The additional £30 is unexplained and no contractual or other legal basis for it is pleaded. The Claimant is put to strict proof of its entitlement to that additional sum.

7. The Defendant denies receiving any Letter Before Claim (LoC). The Claimant's letter dated 5 January 2026 nevertheless positively asserts that an LoC had been sent and characterises the Defendant's email dated 24 December 2025 as a reply to it. The Claimant is put to strict proof that a compliant LoC was sent, including production of the LoC and evidence of its dispatch. The Defendant reserves the right to rely upon any failure to comply with the applicable pre-action requirements when the Court considers conduct, case management and costs.

8. The Claimant is put to strict proof of the contractual terms relied upon, that those terms were adequately communicated by the signage in place at the material time, and that the Claimant had sufficient authority from the landholder to enter into contracts and pursue parking charges in its own name.

9. Whether the driver incurred a parking charge and whether the Defendant is liable for it are separate matters. The Claimant has expressly pleaded PoFA as the basis for transferring liability to the Defendant as RK. The NtK does not comply with the mandatory requirements of PoFA and the Claimant has pleaded no factual basis establishing that the Defendant was the driver.

10. Accordingly, the Defendant denies any liability to the Claimant and respectfully invites the Court to dismiss the claim.

The defence is just the "hooks" that you will later hang your Witness Statement (WS) facts on.

Thank you @b789. I have filed my defence today, and await further reply.