DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Private parking tickets
*****************************************************
#Post#: 65657--------------------------------------------------
Re: Going to court: ParkingEye - Parking without authorisation -
threads merged
DIR By: b789
Date: April 4, 2025, 9:00 am
---------------------------------------------------------
OK, so assuming your AoS isn received before 4pm on Monday 7th
April, you now have until 4pm on Tuesday 22nd April to submit a
defence.
--- Quote ---
> Here is the suggested defence. You only need to edit your name
and the claim number. You sign the defence by typing your full
name for the signature and date it.
>
> When you're ready you send it as a PDF as an attachment in an
email to claimresponses.cnbc@justice.gov.uk and CC in yourself.
The claim number must be in the email subject field and in the
body of the email just put: "Please find attached the defence in
the matter of ParkingEye Ltd v [your full name] Claim no.:
[claim number]."
>
> [quote]
> [center]IN THE COUNTY COURT[/center]
> [right]Claim No: [Claim Number][/right]
>
> [center]BETWEEN:
>
> ParkingEye Ltd
> Claimant
>
> - and -
>
> [Defendant's Full Name]
> 
Defendant
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------
>
> DEFENCE[/center]
>
> 1. The Defendant is the registered keeper and was the driver
of the vehicle in question. The Defendant denies liability for
the entirety of the claim and puts the Claimant to strict proof.
>
> 2. The Defendant confirms that the selection of “I intend to
defend part of this claim” on the Acknowledgement of Service was
made in error. The Defendant defends the claim in full.
>
> 3. The Particulars of Claim (PoC) fail to comply with Civil
Procedure Rule (CPR) 16.4 and Practice Direction 16 paragraph
7.5. The PoC are vague, incoherent, and lack the necessary
detail required to adequately understand the case being brought.
In particular:
>
> [indent](a) No copy of the alleged contract or signage is
annexed;
>
> (b) The terms said to have been breached are not stated;
>
> (c) The conduct giving rise to the alleged breach is unclear;
>
> (d) There is no specification of the exact duration of the
alleged contravention;
>
> (e) There is no explanation for the additional £25 added to
the £100 parking charge;
>
> (f) The PoC fail to state whether the Defendant is pursued as
the driver or under keeper liability provisions.[/indent]
>
> 4. The claim is therefore embarrassing as pleaded and
discloses no reasonable cause of action. The Defendant reserves
the right to seek an order under CPR 3.4 to strike out the
claim.
>
> 5. It is denied that any contract was formed. The Defendant
will provide evidence that the vehicle was not parked in the
conventional sense but was briefly present in connection with
loading and unloading goods from a neighbouring premises. The
driver remained with the vehicle throughout and was willing and
able to move it at any time.
>
> 6. These facts are analogous to those considered in Jopson v
Homeguard Services Ltd [2016] B9GF0A9E, in which HHJ Glen
confirmed that a temporary presence for the purpose of
loading/unloading is not “parking” in the ordinary sense and
does not fall within the scope of prohibitive parking terms
unless expressly and prominently stated.
>
> 7. The signage relied upon is not admitted and is put to
strict proof. It is the Defendant’s position that the terms were
not clearly or prominently displayed, nor were they capable of
forming a binding contractual agreement with a motorist engaged
in a short-term, attended delivery in an otherwise empty car
park while the site was closed.
>
> 8. The amount claimed exceeds the sum specified on the signage
and in any Notice to Keeper (NtK). The Claimant seeks £125 when
the signage and NtK referred only to a charge of £100. Pursuant
to Paragraph 4(5) of Schedule 4 to the Protection of Freedoms
Act 2012, the maximum sum recoverable from a registered keeper
is the amount stated in the NtK. Any claim for an additional £25
renders the notice non-compliant and invalid for the purposes of
establishing keeper liability under PoFA. The Defendant puts the
Claimant to strict proof of the legal basis for this additional
charge, which appears to be an unrecoverable and unlawful
surcharge, contrary to both statute and the principles
established in ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67.
>
> 9. The Defendant avers that this claim is speculative and
improperly inflated. It is a standard form, mass-issued claim
lacking in case-specific detail, issued many months after the
alleged event and with no explanation for the delay. The
Defendant has suffered significant personal distress during this
period and views the Claimant’s conduct as aggressive and
oppressive.
>
> 10. The Defendant respectfully invites the Court to strike out
or dismiss the claim in its entirety.
>
> Statement of truth
>
> I believe that the facts stated in this Defence are true. I
understand that proceedings for contempt of court may be brought
against anyone who makes, or causes to be made, a false
statement in a document verified by a statement of truth without
an honest belief in its truth.
>
> Signed:
>
>
> Date:
--- End Quote ---
[/quote]
#Post#: 66220--------------------------------------------------
Re: Going to court: ParkingEye - Parking without authorisation -
threads merged
DIR By: gingernut
Date: April 9, 2025, 2:37 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Thank you so, so much for this. I just have a couple of
questions:
1) "The Defendant will provide evidence that the vehicle was not
parked in the conventional sense but was briefly present in
connection with loading and unloading goods from a neighbouring
premises"
I don't have any hard evidence, only mine and my client's word,
is that ok?
I was also there for 30 or 40 minutes in total - the client was
late due to delivering important medication to his partner
elsewhere in the city - should I change/delete the word
"briefly?"
2) "a motorist engaged in a short-term, attended delivery in an
otherwise empty car park while the site was closed."
I was not delivering anything, but collecting, should I change
that?
3) "The driver remained with the vehicle throughout"
I think did leave the van on a couple of occasions, for perhaps
two or three minutes, to help move furniture my client otherwise
wouldn't have been able to. Should I adjust the wording at all?
I'm doing all this from memory and I really don't want them to
get the CCTV footage out and make me out a liar from some minor
detail.
Thanks again.
#Post#: 66260--------------------------------------------------
Re: Going to court: ParkingEye - Parking without authorisation -
threads merged
DIR By: b789
Date: April 9, 2025, 5:51 am
---------------------------------------------------------
1. As long as your client would be prepared to sign a statement
that you were there for the stated purpose, that is enough. No
need to change it otherwise.
2. The term is "loading and/or unloading" so it really doesn't
matter.
3. They cannot use CCTV to try and evidence that. Don't
overthink this.
#Post#: 66299--------------------------------------------------
Re: Going to court: ParkingEye - Parking without authorisation -
threads merged
DIR By: gingernut
Date: April 9, 2025, 8:21 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Thank you so much for all this, I am incredibly grateful.
#Post#: 67156--------------------------------------------------
Re: Going to court: ParkingEye - Parking without authorisation -
threads merged
DIR By: gingernut
Date: April 15, 2025, 4:29 am
---------------------------------------------------------
When I wrote this post I also wrote to the health centre,
explaining the situation and pleading for help. I've just
received the following:
"Our Facilities Manager has had a response as follows from
Parking Eye. We will notify them that you will accept this
charge, as it cannot be completely cancelled, and this is the
best they will offer you:
I can offer a reduced charge on this case of £70. Due to the
charge being out standing for so long I can not cancel this
charge."
What would you do? My partner desperately wants me to just pay
70 for simplicity so we can just move on from this. I
understand where she's coming from, but from a position of legal
ignorance.
#Post#: 67164--------------------------------------------------
Re: Going to court: ParkingEye - Parking without authorisation -
threads merged
DIR By: jfollows
Date: April 15, 2025, 5:09 am
---------------------------------------------------------
I would stick to my guns, because all their tactics are designed
to intimidate you with vague threats into paying. Understand
that their business model is entirely based on collecting money
from people who break their rules. But it’s your money and if
you think that £70 is worth it to avoid ear ache from your
partner, that’s your choice. But why did you come here in the
first place if so?
#Post#: 67167--------------------------------------------------
Re: Going to court: ParkingEye - Parking without authorisation -
threads merged
DIR By: b789
Date: April 15, 2025, 5:25 am
---------------------------------------------------------
You've been given advice. A claim has been issued. You've
defended. You have to decide what you want to do.
#Post#: 67456--------------------------------------------------
Re: Going to court: ParkingEye - Parking without authorisation -
threads merged
DIR By: gingernut
Date: April 16, 2025, 3:47 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
I'm sorry if I've come across as needy, ungrateful, or have
otherwise caused offence. I only ask because I'm so far out of
my depth I truly have no idea which is the better option. I'm
not completely risk-averse, but I have absolutely no idea how
much of a risk it would be to keep fighting rather than pay.
I have literally no clue of how likely I am to actually be taken
to court, and if that happened, absolutely no clue of how likely
i would be to to win, or lose and then have to pay many hundreds
of pounds. If I had the vaguest inclin of the probabilities I
would weigh them up and make a decision.
I have no concept of what would happen inside a courtroom, if I
would basically be a spectator, if I would have to speak, defend
myself, if I'd pay a solicitor, or have one provided, I really
can't exaggerate how little idea I have of what to expect.
This is the only reason I would consider paying them the £70.
#Post#: 67490--------------------------------------------------
Re: Going to court: ParkingEye - Parking without authorisation -
threads merged
DIR By: b789
Date: April 17, 2025, 3:25 am
---------------------------------------------------------
How strongly do you believe that you've been wronged by
ParkingEye? Do you believe that you have been unfairly charged
for something you were not aware you were liable for? Do you
understand your rights?
Of course there is a chance that you won't be successful but you
have a greater than 50% chance of winning this. How much do you
stand to lose if unsuccessful? About £210. This is the small
claims court. Unless you were to behave unreasonably such as not
turning up for the hearing, should it ever get that far, then
that would be considered as unreasonable.
There is no risk of a CCJ or any damage to your credit record,
even if you were to be unsuccessful. You could only get a CCJ on
your record if the judge says you owe the money and you didn't
pay it within 30 days of the judgment.
Do not fear the court process. I tis the ultimate dispute
resolution service and should not be feared. If it ever got as
far as a hearing, here is a short video that explains what
happens:
#Post#: 79965--------------------------------------------------
Re: Going to court: ParkingEye - Parking without authorisation -
threads merged
DIR By: gingernut
Date: July 7, 2025, 12:59 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
I stuck to my guns in the end, and have recently received a
thick envelope of threatening legal paperwork. They repeated
the offer to forget the whole thing if I pay £100 now though,
which is quite amusing and vaguely tempting. And perhaps a sign
of lack of confidence? Who knows. Either way, this is the
response to my defence so kindly provided by
[member=26]b789[/member]
[attachment deleted by admin]
*****************************************************
Page 2 of 5
DIR Previous Page
DIR Next Page