10-04-2026, 07:32 PM
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:
and then:
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.
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.
Never argue with stupid people. They will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience. - Mark Twain
