DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Private parking tickets
*****************************************************
#Post#: 79967--------------------------------------------------
Re: Going to court: ParkingEye - Parking without authorisation -
threads merged
DIR By: gingernut
Date: July 7, 2025, 1:02 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Pt. 2
[attachment deleted by admin]
#Post#: 79968--------------------------------------------------
Re: Going to court: ParkingEye - Parking without authorisation -
threads merged
DIR By: jfollows
Date: July 7, 2025, 1:02 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
I have asked the moderator to merge this with your existing
thread.
#Post#: 79969--------------------------------------------------
Re: Going to court: ParkingEye - Parking without authorisation -
threads merged
DIR By: gingernut
Date: July 7, 2025, 1:03 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Pt. 3
[attachment deleted by admin]
#Post#: 79981--------------------------------------------------
Re: Going to court: ParkingEye - Parking without authorisation -
threads merged
DIR By: b789
Date: July 7, 2025, 2:12 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
I'm assuming that the pack included all sorts of evidence that
they intend to rely on. While a "reply to the defence" may rebut
new matters raised in the defence, this document improperly
introduces evidence, legal argument and new factual assertions
that should be reserved for a witness statement or amended PoC.
It includes factual claims (ANPR images, signage content, grace
periods [sic]) and it attaches signage plans. This is
inadmissible at this stage. Evidence belongs in a witness
statement under CPR 32.4.
Their reply to the defence attempts to cure defects in the PoC
and reframe the claim by quoting [i]Beavis[/I], referencing the
PPSCoP and asserting contractual formation. These are not
rebuttals - they are new arguments.
At this stage, you don't need to do anything in response to the
claimant’s reply to the defence. The reply is not evidence and
does not change the course of the case. It’s just a pleading,
and you are not allowed to file a further statement of case
without the court’s permission.
However, you should be aware that the reply is procedurally
defective in several ways. It improperly includes factual claims
and attachments (like signage and ANPR data) that should be in a
witness statement, not a reply. It also tries to fix the
original claim’s lack of detail by adding new arguments and
quoting case law, which is not allowed at this stage. If the
claimant wanted to expand their case, they should have applied
to amend their PoC.
The reply also wrongly claims that you must file an N244 to
correct the tick box error on the acknowledgment of service.
That’s incorrect—the defence clearly states the claim is
defended in full, and the court can treat the tick box as a
clerical error under CPR 3.10.
You now need to wait for the court to issue directions, which
will include a deadline for witness statements. When that time
comes, you can raise objections to the reply—for example, by
pointing out that it contains evidence and new arguments that
should be disregarded. Until then, you should not file anything
further unless ordered to do so.
When the time comes for submitting witness statements, you will
be able to include something along these lines in your WS that
highlights to the judge that the claimant is trying to teach
them how to "suck eggs":
--- Quote ---
> The Claimant’s reply includes commentary on how the court
process should be conducted, including instructions on how the
Defendant should amend their defence and how the court should
manage further filings. I respectfully submit that such
commentary is unnecessary and risks undermining the court’s role
in managing its own procedure.
--- End Quote ---
#Post#: 81076--------------------------------------------------
Re: Going to court: ParkingEye - Parking without authorisation -
threads merged
DIR By: gingernut
Date: July 15, 2025, 7:47 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Thanks again [member=26]b789[/member] for such a speedy and
helpful response. The document pack includes all correspondence
between ParkingEye and myself so far, CCTV stills, my appeal
letters, and signage layout of the car park. I will attach the
some of these in case there is anything useful in there.
It also included a "directions questionnaire" I need to complete
soon. Guidance on what to put in there would be gratefully
received. I cannot exaggerate how out of my depth I am with all
this, I probably would have just paid their offer of £100
without your help and reassurance. Do you have any kind of
donation station? I would love to buy you a coffee/beer.
#Post#: 81078--------------------------------------------------
Re: Going to court: ParkingEye - Parking without authorisation -
threads merged
DIR By: gingernut
Date: July 15, 2025, 7:55 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Attached
[attachment deleted by admin]
#Post#: 81093--------------------------------------------------
Re: Going to court: ParkingEye - Parking without authorisation -
threads merged
DIR By: gingernut
Date: July 15, 2025, 8:50 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Attached
[attachment deleted by admin]
#Post#: 81121--------------------------------------------------
Re: Going to court: ParkingEye - Parking without authorisation -
threads merged
DIR By: gingernut
Date: July 15, 2025, 9:57 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Attached
[attachment deleted by admin]
#Post#: 81126--------------------------------------------------
Re: Going to court: ParkingEye - Parking without authorisation -
threads merged
DIR By: jfollows
Date: July 15, 2025, 10:19 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Probably the most repeated post on this forum!
--- Quote ---
> As for the N180 DQ just follow this advice:
>
> Having received your own N180 (make sure it is not simply a
copy of the claimants N180), do not use the paper form. Ignore
all the other forms that came with it. you can discard those.
Download your own here and fill it in on your computer. You sign
it by simply typing your full name in the signature box.
>
>
HTML https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/673341e779e9143625613543/N180_1124.pdf
>
> Here are the answers to some of the less obvious questions:
>
> • The name of the court is "Civil National Business Centre".
>
> • To be completed by "Your full name" and you are the
"Defendant".
>
> • C1: "YES"
>
> • D1: "NO". Reason: "I wish to question the Claimant about
their evidence at a hearing in person and to expose omissions
and any misleading or incorrect evidence or assertions.
> Given the Claimant is a firm who complete cut & paste parking
case paperwork for a living, having this case heard solely on
papers would appear to put the Claimant at an unfair advantage,
especially as they would no doubt prefer the Defendant not to
have the opportunity to expose the issues in the Claimants
template submissions or speak as the only true witness to events
in question.."
>
> • F1: Whichever is your nearest county court. Use this to find
it:
HTML https://www.find-court-tribunal.service.gov.uk/search-option
>
> • F3: "1".
>
> • Sign the form by simply typing your full name for the
signature.
>
> When you have completed the form, attach it to a single email
addressed to both dq.cnbc@justice.gov.uk and
info@parkingeye.co.uk and CC in yourself. Make sure that the
claim number is in the subject field of the email.
--- End Quote ---
Your objective is to secure a date for a hearing in person at
your local court, which you will. The claimant wants a hearing
on papers or by telephone at their local court. The costs to
them of attending your local court in person are likely to make
them discontinue, but given that this is Parking Eye handling
the case itself that’s not guaranteed.
#Post#: 81148--------------------------------------------------
Re: Going to court: ParkingEye - Parking without authorisation -
threads merged
DIR By: jfollows
Date: July 15, 2025, 12:32 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: gingernut link ---
> Do you have any kind of donation station? I would love to buy
you a coffee/beer.
>
--- End Quote ---
Make a donation to a charity you support, or one suggested by
[member=26]b789[/member], or The Stroke Association from me.
*****************************************************
Page 3 of 5
DIR Previous Page
DIR Next Page