DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Private parking tickets
*****************************************************
#Post#: 121060--------------------------------------------------
Staff car park - charged because not enough money on the
account, but only 24 hours to top up
DIR By: LoveTheseParkingFirms
Date: June 8, 2026, 1:14 am
---------------------------------------------------------
I will not confirm if the registered keeper is the driver
(unless you tell me there is no advantage in not doing so).
The car in question has a staff parking permit to park at a
certain university in England.
With this permit, you must still pay every time you park.
The registered keeper has an account with the Evology parking
system, which is a trading name of Parkingeye.
Users must top up their Evology account online, and then the
system automatically deducts payment from the prepaid balance
every time you park.
The driver parked on 26-May.
On Friday 29-May, Evology sent an email that they were unable to
collect payment for the 26-May parking, and would try 3 more
times.
On Sunday 31-Jun the registered keeper topped up the balance
again. By now, Evology had already tried to collect payment 3
times. The keeper can see this from the statement, logging into
their Evology online account.
The keeper has contacted the landowner (the university).
However, based on similar experiences to other people, it is
reasonable to assume the landowner will do nothing.
I can think of two main points:
1) The registered keeper topped up their Evology account
promptly (email received on Friday, topped up on Sunday).
Evology sent an email notification on 29_may at 13.06, then
tried to take a payment for the last time on 30 May at 13.06.
The email notification did not clarify that the user had 24
hours. These time stamps are confirmed from the Evology
statements. The willingness to pay seems clear to me. Notifying
the user late, giving them only 24 hours, but not even telling
them so, is neither fair nor reasonable.
2) The university car park is vast, with multiple entrances.
Neither the notice received nor the evology statement show which
of the many entrances was used, where the car was parked, nor
where the signs are. I am not sure to what extent any of this
can be used in an appeal.
Thanks!
HTML https://i.postimg.cc/rdcgYPGt/Parking-charge-notice-2026-05-26-A.png
HTML https://postimg.cc/rdcgYPGt
HTML https://i.postimg.cc/1gPMYj0q/Parking-charge-notice-2026-05-26-B.png
HTML https://postimg.cc/1gPMYj0q
#Post#: 121074--------------------------------------------------
Re: Staff car park - charged because not enough money on the
account, but only 24 hours to top up
DIR By: LoveTheseParkingFirms
Date: June 8, 2026, 4:28 am
---------------------------------------------------------
PS The amount in question is the grand sum of £2.00, made up of
a £1.61 parking charge and a £0.39 convenience fee.
There has never been any way to pay this amount after the system
tried to collect it automatically.
Would it make sense to send the £2.00 payment? I can do it only
by sending a postal cheque in the email, since their online
system does not allow me to pay an amount other than £48. And,
if this costs them time and money to process, it's not my fault,
is it...
Seriously, I ask because I understand that Parkingeye are very
litigious and might take the registered keeper or driver to
court. If that happens, is it any defence to show that there was
intention to pay, that the correct amount was paid, but that
there is no way a £2 charge can balloon into £48, or £80, or
whatever other amounts they will try to add on top if this gets
to court?
#Post#: 121075--------------------------------------------------
Re: Staff car park - charged because not enough money on the
account, but only 24 hours to top up
DIR By: jfollows
Date: June 8, 2026, 4:37 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Parking Eye won’t have got the £2 anyway, their usual modus
operandi is that all the money paid for parking goes to the land
owner, in return for which Parking Eye get the right to pursue
anyone breaking the rules and gets to keep the money. So they
won’t care about £2 now.
#Post#: 121078--------------------------------------------------
Re: Staff car park - charged because not enough money on the
account, but only 24 hours to top up
DIR By: LoveTheseParkingFirms
Date: June 8, 2026, 4:43 am
---------------------------------------------------------
I get it that they won't care. That was not the question. The
question was whether paying £2 now would make a difference if
this ever goes to court.
Would it be a stronger argument with the court, to the extent it
would allow me to say: see, I didn't want to cheat the system -
even if their online system didn't notify me that I only had 24
hours to pay, I still paid the £2 ?
Or is this (whether I pay £2 now) most likely going to have no
impact on whether the court finds in my favour or not?
#Post#: 121081--------------------------------------------------
Re: Staff car park - charged because not enough money on the
account, but only 24 hours to top up
DIR By: jfollows
Date: June 8, 2026, 5:11 am
---------------------------------------------------------
It’ll be down to terms and conditions, signage and Evology, but
I can see from
HTML https://autopay.evologyparking.com/Pages/Terms
--- Quote ---
> 27. Where you have not selected Auto-Top up as your Payment
Preference and the process in clause 24 would not result in a
Balance sufficient to cover the Automated Billing Parking
Tariff, We shall not seek to take payment via your Payment
Preference, and We will notify You, by either email or SMS, to
advise that a payment request has been received and Your Balance
is insufficient to settle the Automated Billing Parking Tariff.
We will provide a period of up to 24 hours for You to make a
successful Manual Top-Up to Your Balance to cover the cost of
the Automated Billing Parking Tariffs; or to revise or review
Your Payment Preference including the Payment Card details.
--- End Quote ---
If this is applicable here, you didn’t need to be told you only
had 24 hours because you’d signed up and agreed to the terms and
conditions.
#Post#: 121089--------------------------------------------------
Re: Staff car park - charged because not enough money on the
account, but only 24 hours to top up
DIR By: LoveTheseParkingFirms
Date: June 8, 2026, 5:36 am
---------------------------------------------------------
[member=636]jfollows[/member], thank you for the detail.
As far as you know, is there any precedent / case history of
fighting these terms in court?
Parkingeye is notoriously litigious so I would think the odds of
them taking me to court are not small.
Official Companies House Records for Parkingeye show, for the
year 2024, a £61 million turnover, with a 64.6% gross profit
margin and a 27.4% net operating margins.
My understanding is that such margins are rare and tend to
suggest a position of market dominance.
It also suggests that the charges they add are bs and do not
reflect their true costs, but are simply an attempt at
extracting the maximum value legally allowed.
Anyway, I get it that venting is useless, so the only relevant
question I have is if you know of any precedent where these
charges have been successfully challenged in court as excessive.
Or if the advice is to suck it up and pay now, because otherwise
they will win in court and charge me even more.
#Post#: 121090--------------------------------------------------
Re: Staff car park - charged because not enough money on the
account, but only 24 hours to top up
DIR By: jfollows
Date: June 8, 2026, 5:42 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Supreme Court:
HTML https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/uksc-2015-0116<br
/>ruled that the charges were appropriate, not excessive.
Challenge needs to be on a technicality - poor signage, failure
to comply with PoFA 2012, failure to comply with the industry
code of practice.
Parking Eye will take you to court. If they do it themselves,
the usually mean it, but if they engage DCB Legal then the case
will usually be discontinued before the court fee has to be
paid, but there are a lot of steps until then, including
constructing and submitting a defence. Search the forum if you
want to know more.
#Post#: 121092--------------------------------------------------
Re: Staff car park - charged because not enough money on the
account, but only 24 hours to top up
DIR By: LoveTheseParkingFirms
Date: June 8, 2026, 5:47 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Sorry, I should have been clearer. I know about Parkingeye vs
Beavis.
I should have asked: is there any precedent on challenging in
court whether it is fair and reasonable to give users only 24
hours to top up, and to charge them even if they have topped up
after 48 hours?
I don't think Parkingeye vs Beavis addressed that, right?
#Post#: 121093--------------------------------------------------
Re: Staff car park - charged because not enough money on the
account, but only 24 hours to top up
DIR By: jfollows
Date: June 8, 2026, 5:49 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: LoveTheseParkingFirms link ---
>
> Sorry, I should have been clearer. I know about Parkingeye vs
Beavis.
> I should have asked: is there any precedent on challenging in
court whether it is fair and reasonable to give users only 24
hours to top up, and to charge them even if they have topped up
after 48 hours?
>
> I don't think Parkingeye vs Beavis addressed that, right?
>
--- End Quote ---
Correct.
As above, I think their argument will be that you read and
explicitly agreed to their terms and conditions when you signed
up. I don’t think a court will say this isn’t fair or
reasonable.
#Post#: 121096--------------------------------------------------
Re: Staff car park - charged because not enough money on the
account, but only 24 hours to top up
DIR By: DWMB2
Date: June 8, 2026, 5:54 am
---------------------------------------------------------
I'm not aware of any cases on that point that have been appealed
to a high enough court for the case to set precedent. You may
find some County Court cases, which of course don't set
precedent, but may be useful.
The starting point from Evology/PE would be that you agreed to
the terms and thereby agreed to ensure that the autopay account
had a sufficient balance to cover parking (and to top up within
24 hours where it does not). You would need to convince the
court that this was an inherently unfair term under the Consumer
Rights Act. Is there a reason the account wasn't topped up at
the time the driver parked?
*****************************************************
Page 1 of 2
DIR Next Page