Chalon Way West Retail Park - ParkingEye

[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.