Thanks. I will look into these.

There is at least one case where the private parking company won:

Combined Parking Solutions -v- Stephen J Thomas (2008)

and they have never stopped quoting it since - although some very unusual circumstances applied.

In letters to people who appeal Excel Parking claim it to be a "precedent" which it is not as it was in the lower court. Furthermore the special circumstances were that Mr Thomas manipulated some of the documentation on his computer -- which did not please the judge who (understandably) distrusted everything else in his evidence and found for the parking company ordering Mr Thomas to pay the parking charge.

That said I am largely against responding in any way unless there is a court claim sent by the court - not just a letter from the parking company threatening "imminent court action.

The reason is that responding at all merely seeks to confirm they have the correct address. Under no circumstances should a driver enter any "appeals" process - which largely comprises the parking company deciding whether you should pay them or not - as all you are doing is providing them with information which they may find useful at a future date.

However it is not true that these charges are illegal or indeed always unenforceable. It is the case that it is very difficult to enforce and the odds are very much stacked in the driver's favour in the unlikely event that the case gets to court.

But there is the basis for a payment to be charged if you park in a car park and do not comply with their terms and conditions.

Assuming the warning signage is unmissable and the terms and conditions posted you can be deemed to be entering into a contract by using the car park and - in theory at least - the terms of that contract can be enforced through the courts if you breach that contract.

Where it all falls apart is that:

1. No element of any charge can be punitive or seen as a fine and judges have historically thrown out the few cases that have come before them on the basis that the amounts charged and further additional "costs" added have been punitive. So Honest John's £10 suggestion may have some merit if it dissuades them from endless communications which many people find distressing, particularly if the keeper was the driver, parked there and has already admitted it.

2. While a stamp and an envelope to send endless letters is cheap the parking company will have to pay to issue proceedings. Given the high chance of losing they are understandably very reluctant to do so.

The 'mark 2' version of CR-V was face lifted in 2005. I believe bigger brakes were introduced as part of the improvements. The brakes are absolutely fine - even when fully loaded.