DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Private parking tickets
*****************************************************
#Post#: 87165--------------------------------------------------
Avoiding CCJ on Parking Eye unpaid PCN
DIR By: ocsan
Date: August 25, 2025, 3:28 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Hi,
Sometimes in April, i have taken my wife for antenatal at
Coventry NHS hospital. She is a staff with a staff permit on her
car, but this time we used my car and she assured me there
people park there as the camera does not work. I waited until
she finished the program (about 2 hours). Unfortunately, I late
got a ticket from CPP for £100. I travelled and forgot about it,
but on the 28th July, 2025 I received a Claim form for £215. On
10th August, I did AoS online, stating that I want to defend.
Unfortunately, I have tried all I could to establish a basis for
my defence, but I do not seem to find any. I have checked the
PCN looking for any possible error, but could not find any. I
have gone back to the car park to see if notice was hidden or
unclear, Alas, everything is conspicuously displayed. Please
advise, what can I do?
Thanks for your urgent response.
#Post#: 87170--------------------------------------------------
Re: Avoiding CCJ on Parking Eye unpaid PCN
DIR By: RichardW
Date: August 25, 2025, 3:54 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Please post the claim form (obscure personal details). What is
the issue date?
#Post#: 87181--------------------------------------------------
Re: Avoiding CCJ on Parking Eye unpaid PCN
DIR By: ocsan
Date: August 25, 2025, 4:49 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Please find attached the claim form. It was issued on 28-07-2025
#Post#: 87199--------------------------------------------------
Re: Avoiding CCJ on Parking Eye unpaid PCN
DIR By: RichardW
Date: August 26, 2025, 1:36 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Please also post the PCN. This is unusual as Parking Eye have
taken it on themselves; however, they are pursing you as keeper
only, so they need to have got the PCN right to transfer
liability. You do not have long left to send the defence.
#Post#: 87203--------------------------------------------------
Re: Avoiding CCJ on Parking Eye unpaid PCN
DIR By: ocsan
Date: August 26, 2025, 2:55 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Thanks so much Richard, Please find attached as requested
#Post#: 87207--------------------------------------------------
Re: Avoiding CCJ on Parking Eye unpaid PCN
DIR By: b789
Date: August 26, 2025, 3:45 am
---------------------------------------------------------
They have added a fake £30 to the charge which will not be
allowed if this gets to court and you are unsuccessful. Having
submitted your AoS, your defence must be submitted by 4pm on
Monday 1st September.
Has the driver been identified? ParkingEye (and CPP) NtKs are
never 100% PoFA compliant. They always fail PoFA 9(2)(e)(i) as
they do not invite the Keeper to pay the charge. They only say
that if the Keeper was not the driver, they should pass the NtK
on to the driver and inform the operator of the drivers details.
This paragraph mandates that for a parking operator to hold the
vehicle's registered keeper liable for a parking charge, the
Notice to Keeper (NtK) must include:
An "Invitation to Pay": The notice must explicitly invite the
keeper to pay the unpaid parking charges.
Exact Wording: The wording must clearly convey this invitation
and mere implication or indirect suggestions are insufficient.
The act requires strict compliance, meaning that any failure to
fully incorporate this invitation renders the notice
non-compliant with the requirements of PoFA 2012.
If the NtK fails to include a clear "invitation to pay", or any
synonym of the word "invitation", this omission is a breach of
Schedule 4, Paragraph 9(2)(e)(i). Even if the notice suggests
that payment is required, without an explicit invitation
directed towards the keeper to settle the charge, the notice
does not meet the exacting requirements of PoFA 2012.
The law mandates full and exact compliance with the specified
wording and content outlined in PoFA 2012. Even if the notice
largely complies with other requirements, the absence of a clear
invitation to the keeper to pay is a significant flaw. The
operator cannot rely on partial or even substantial compliance —
every element as specified in the legislation must be present
and correct.
If the notice is found to lack this crucial element, it can be
used as a basis to challenge the parking charge. The operator
cannot transfer liability to the keeper, which significantly
weaken their case if the notice to the driver or other
requirements are also flawed or if the driver is unknown.
In summary, a PCN that does not include an explicit "invitation"
for the keeper to pay the charge is not fully compliant with
Schedule 4, Paragraph 9(2)(e)(i) of PoFA 2012. Since the law
demands strict adherence, any omission, even if minor,
invalidates the notice and relieves the keeper of any obligation
to pay. This should be raised in any appeal or legal response to
the charge.
So, has the driver been identified? If yes, then ignore the
above information.
Without seeing the original Notice to Keeper (NtK) or knowing
whether any appeal was made and if so, what was in the appeal,
it is difficult to advise further at this stage.
When you have answered the questions about the NtK and any prior
submission to ParkingEye, I can come up with a suitable defence,
especially one that picks holes in their PoC.
#Post#: 87242--------------------------------------------------
Re: Avoiding CCJ on Parking Eye unpaid PCN
DIR By: RichardW
Date: August 26, 2025, 6:33 am
---------------------------------------------------------
It's late in the day, but there's no harm in asking the hospital
to get it cancelled since your wife does actually have a permit.
I doubt PE will back down at this stage, but nothing ventured,
nothing gained!
#Post#: 87246--------------------------------------------------
Re: Avoiding CCJ on Parking Eye unpaid PCN
DIR By: b789
Date: August 26, 2025, 6:51 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Until very recently, we never advised using the MCOL to submit a
defence. However, due to recent systemic failures within the
CNBC, we feel that it is safer to now submit a short defence
using MCOL as it is instantly submitted and entered into the
"system". Whilst it will deny the use of some formatting or
inclusion of transcripts etc. these can always be included with
the Witness Statement (WS) later, if it ever progresses that
far.
You will need to copy and paste it into the defence text box on
MCOL. It has been checked to make sure that it will fit into the
122 lines limit.
--- Quote ---
> 1. The Defendant denies the claim in its entirety. The
Defendant asserts that there is no liability to the Claimant and
that no debt is owed. The claim is without merit and does not
adequately disclose any comprehensible cause of action.
>
> 2. There is a lack of precise detail in the Particulars of
Claim (PoC) in respect of the factual and legal allegations made
against the Defendant such that the PoC do not adequately comply
with CPR 16.4.
>
> 3 The Particulars of Claim must, on their face, state a
concise case that enables the Defendant to understand and meet
it. The MCOL regime disapplies only any requirement to attach
documents; it does not relax CPR 16.4(1)(a). If more space was
required, the Claimant should have served separate, detailed
particulars pursuant to the MCOL practice. Any attempt to cure
deficient PoC by relying on a later witness statement or on
supposed prior correspondence is improper and does not meet the
pleading requirement.
>
> 4. The Defendant is unable to plead properly to the PoC
because (to the extent any of the following are not already
fully and clearly pleaded):
>
> 5. (a) The contract referred to is not detailed or attached to
the PoC in accordance with CPR PD 16 7.3(1);
> (b) The PoC do not set out the material wording of the
clause(s) of the terms and conditions relied upon;
> (c) The PoC do not adequately set out the reason(s) why the
Claimant asserts the Defendant was in breach;
> (d) The PoC do not state with sufficient particularity the
precise locus within the site, the exact time of the alleged
breach and the period of parking relied upon;
> (e) The PoC do not state precisely how the sum claimed is
calculated, including any breakdown between the principal
parking charge and any added sums;
> (f) The PoC do not state what proportion of the claim is the
parking charge and what proportion (if any) is said to be
additional charges;
> (g) The PoC do not provide clarity on whether the Defendant is
sued as the driver or the registered keeper, the Claimant having
pleaded no clear capacity.
>
> 6. Persuasive County Court appeal authority supports
strike-out of inadequately particularised parking PoC: in Civil
Enforcement Ltd v Chan (2023) [E7GM9W44], the PoC “did not set
out the conduct which amounted to the breach” and were struck
out; and in CPMS v Akande (2024) [K0DP5J30], the court
reaffirmed that PoC must set out the basic facts relied on under
CPR 16.4(1)(a).
>
> 7. The Claimant is put to strict proof as to the identity of
the driver. There is no legal obligation upon a registered
keeper to identify the driver.
>
> 8. If relying on PoFA Schedule 4, the Claimant is put to
strict proof of full compliance with every condition precedent:
that the site is “relevant land”; that any Notice to Keeper was
served within time and contained all prescribed elements,
including para 9(2)(e)(i) (an invitation to the keeper to pay)
and para 9(2)(a) (a specified period of parking). Absent strict
compliance, keeper liability does not arise.
>
> 9. Reliance on ANPR entry/exit timestamps does not of itself
evidence a period of parking (as distinct from driving, queueing
or taking time to read and consider terms). Strict proof is
required.
>
> 10. The Defendant submits that courts have previously struck
out similar claims of their own initiative for failure to
adequately comply with CPR 16.4, particularly where the PoC
failed to specify the contractual terms relied upon or explain
the alleged breach with sufficient clarity.
>
> 11. In comparable cases involving modest sums, judges have
found that requiring further case-management steps would be
disproportionate and contrary to the overriding objective.
Accordingly, strike-out was deemed appropriate. The Defendant
submits that the same reasoning applies in this case and invites
the court to adopt a similar approach by striking out the claim
due to the Claimant’s failure to adequately comply with CPR
16.4, rather than permitting an amendment. The Defendant
proposes that the following Order be made:
>
> Draft Order:
>
> Of the Court's own initiative and upon reading the particulars
of claim and the defence.
>
> AND the court being of the view that the particulars of claim
do not comply with CPR 16.4(1)(a) because: (a) they do not set
out the exact wording of the clause (or clauses) of the terms
and conditions of the contract (or contracts) which is (or are)
relied on; and (b) they do not adequately set out the reason (or
reasons) why the claimant asserts that the defendant was in
breach of contract.
>
> AND the claimant could have complied with CPR 16.4(1)(a) had
it served separate detailed particulars of claim, as it could
have done pursuant to CPR PD 7C.5.2(2), but chose not to do so.
>
> AND upon the claim being for a very modest sum such that the
court considers it disproportionate and not in accordance with
the overriding objective to allot to this case any further share
of the court's resources by ordering further particulars of
claim and a further defence, each followed by further referrals
to the judge for case management.
>
> ORDER:
>
> 1. The claim is struck out.
> 2. Permission to either party to apply to set aside, vary or
stay this order by application on notice, which must be filed at
this Court not more than 5 days after service of this order,
failing which no such application may be made.
--- End Quote ---
#Post#: 87904--------------------------------------------------
Re: Avoiding CCJ on Parking Eye unpaid PCN
DIR By: ocsan
Date: August 31, 2025, 10:55 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: RichardW link ---
>
> It's late in the day, but there's no harm in asking the
hospital to get it cancelled since your wife does actually have
a permit. I doubt PE will back down at this stage, but nothing
ventured, nothing gained!
>
--- End Quote ---
I apologise for the delayed response. I was the driver at the
time of the incident
#Post#: 87905--------------------------------------------------
Re: Avoiding CCJ on Parking Eye unpaid PCN
DIR By: ocsan
Date: August 31, 2025, 11:02 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: RichardW link ---
>
> It's late in the day, but there's no harm in asking the
hospital to get it cancelled since your wife does actually have
a permit. I doubt PE will back down at this stage, but nothing
ventured, nothing gained!
>
--- End Quote ---
Thanks Richard. I have talked to wife who is now on holiday and
she said, the hospital is not likely to talk to Parking EYe for
cancellation, because her own car was originally registered and
she is entitled to only one car.
*****************************************************
Page 1 of 3
DIR Next Page