Parkingeye PCN in residential flats car park

BigJobsworth

Update on Parking Charge Claim:

• A Claim Form was received from the Civil National Business Centre, with an issue date of 12/05/2025.

• An Acknowledgement of Service (AOS) has been submitted online (23/05/25) via Money Claim Online (MCOL), indicating that the claim will be defended.

---

Guidance Required:

1. Deadline for Defence Submission:
   Can you confirm whether the defence must be submitted by 14/06/2025?

2. Incorrect Postcode in Incident Details:
   The postcode listed for the site of the alleged incident appears to be incorrect. Does this inaccuracy affect the validity of the claim?

3. Landowner Authority and Goodwill Clause:
   In the POPLA appeal response, ParkingEye included a copy of the alleged contract with the landowner. The landowner appears to be the estate agent who has been contacted in an effort to resolve the matter. Notably, the individual currently corresponding on behalf of the estate agent is the same person who signed the landowner agreement. That contract includes a "goodwill clause" stating that the estate agent has the authority to cancel tickets. Despite this, the estate agent appears to be avoiding engagement or denying the contents of the contract—raising concerns about the legitimacy of the enforcement process.

4. Scope of Defence Statement:
   The defence template advises not to address matters not specifically mentioned in the Particulars of Claim (see bottom of this message for the POC on the claim). However, clarification is needed on whether it would be appropriate or beneficial to include the following contextual details:

   a) The driver was an elderly individual with mobility and memory issues, visiting their daughter.

   b) The car park in question is allegedly for residents only, and visitors are required to input their vehicle registration at a terminal located in reception.

   c) Signage in the car park is minimal or poorly positioned. A Blue Badge holder would struggle to locate or read the signs without physically walking the entire car park—which is not feasible for someone with mobility limitations.

   d) The reception area (where the registration terminal is presumably located) is behind a locked, electronically controlled door, with no clear signage or instruction visible from the car park itself.

   Additionally, would it be appropriate to include the following in the defence:

   e) Evidence that multiple members of the public have reported identical issues with this car park on platforms such as Google Reviews, where complaints point to misleading or inadequate signage and overly aggressive enforcement by ParkingEye. This suggests a broader pattern of poor practice and potentially predatory behaviour at this location.

   f) Testimonies or evidence from actual residents of the development who have received notices despite living there and properly registering their vehicles as instructed—indicating that ParkingEye is failing to uphold even the basic principles of fair and accurate enforcement.
   

---

Particulars of Claim (PoC):

"Claim for monies outstanding from the Defendant in relation to a Parking Charge (reference XXXXXX) issued on XXXXXXX. The signage clearly displayed throughout XXXXXXXXXXX, XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX states that this is private land, managed by ParkingEye Ltd, and that it is subject to terms and conditions, including authorisation being required for parking, by which those who park agree to be bound (the contract). ParkingEye's ANPR system captured vehicle XXXXXXX entering and leaving the site on XXXXXXX, and parking without authorisation. The defendant appealed to POPLA, the independent appeals service for parking on private land, and this was rejected."

Coupon-mad

I'll answer this bit; I would include all of this:

"Scope of Defence Statement:

1. The defence template advises not to address matters not specifically mentioned in the Particulars of Claim (see bottom of this message for the POC on the claim). However, clarification is needed on whether it would be appropriate or beneficial to include the following contextual details:

   a) The driver was an elderly individual with mobility and memory issues, visiting their daughter.

   b) The car park in question is allegedly for residents only, and visitors are required to input their vehicle registration at a terminal located in reception.

   c) Signage in the car park is minimal or poorly positioned. A Blue Badge holder would struggle to locate or read the signs without physically walking the entire car park—which is not feasible for someone with mobility limitations.

   d) The reception area (where the registration terminal is presumably located) is behind a locked, electronically controlled door, with no clear signage or instruction visible from the car park itself.

   Additionally, would it be appropriate to include the following in the defence:

   e) Evidence that multiple members of the public have reported identical issues with this car park on platforms such as Google Reviews, where complaints point to misleading or inadequate signage and overly aggressive enforcement by ParkingEye. This suggests a broader pattern of poor practice and potentially predatory behaviour at this location.

   f) Testimonies or evidence from actual residents of the development who have received notices despite living there and properly registering their vehicles as instructed—indicating that ParkingEye is failing to uphold even the basic principles of fair and accurate enforcement.

BigJobsworth

Thank you @Coupon-mad.

Would the evidence, such as testimonies, need to be inline in the defence or can they be appended at the end and referenced?

Apologies for the stupid follow up question.

Coupon-mad

Evidence and witness statements come later. Read IMPORTANT: KNOW WHAT HAPPENS WHEN, a red capitals heading, shouting out at you in the second post of the NEWBIES thread. 

BigJobsworth

Quick Update:
The landowner has confirmed their willingness to cancel the notice, presumably following the issue being raised with the local MP’s office. However, the parking operator claims they are unable to comply, stating that the matter has progressed to legal proceedings due to non-payment.

It is understood that the operator retains the authority to cancel notices and discontinue proceedings at any stage, making their position appear deliberately misleading.

The landowner’s confirmation and the operator’s refusal to act will be clearly documented in the defence. At this stage, it appears no further action can be taken.

Coupon-mad

Correct. Do your defence. It's due this week at the latest!  Then:

ParkingEye will reply to your defence.

Then they'll send an email or letter saying that 'additional information' has come to light and they'll offer to settle at a lower 2 figure sum.

Then when you do not take that bait, they'll discontinue this in-house claim to appease the client after failing to wrench any money.