PARKING EYE - court claim 2025

GinaGrey

Hi there!

OK, my CLAIM FORM from the court has arrived - I need to acknowledge it (to get extra time to prepare the paperwork) - do I dispute the whole claim or a part of the claim? The parking machine said payment approved - so we thought we paid £1.40 - but in the end it turned out the payment didn't go through - so we owe them £1.40.

So in the acknowledgement form do I dispute the whole claim or a part of it (claim minus £1.40?)

Thanks so much! I need to answer online by midnight today. xxx

Castle

What is the issue date of the claim?

Le_Kirk

GinaGrey said:

Hi there!

OK, my CLAIM FORM from the court has arrived - I need to acknowledge it (to get extra time to prepare the paperwork) - do I dispute the whole claim or a part of the claim? The parking machine said payment approved - so we thought we paid £1.40 - but in the end it turned out the payment didn't go through - so we owe them £1.40.

So in the acknowledgement form do I dispute the whole claim or a part of it (claim minus £1.40?)

Thanks so much! I need to answer online by midnight today. xxx

You dispute the whole claim.

Coupon-mad

...which is already explained in the NEWBIES thread Dropbox link about doing the AOS.

  

GinaGrey

Castle said:

What is the issue date of the claim?

The issue date was 23.June2025 - and I replied online on the 28th - to acknowledge the service and now I need to reply to them.

GinaGrey

Le_Kirk said:

GinaGrey said:

Hi there!

OK, my CLAIM FORM from the court has arrived - I need to acknowledge it (to get extra time to prepare the paperwork) - do I dispute the whole claim or a part of the claim? The parking machine said payment approved - so we thought we paid £1.40 - but in the end it turned out the payment didn't go through - so we owe them £1.40.

So in the acknowledgement form do I dispute the whole claim or a part of it (claim minus £1.40?)

Thanks so much! I need to answer online by midnight today. xxx

You dispute the whole claim.

Thanks @Le_Kirk - I replied online on the 28th (to be within that 5 day deadline) and I marked there 'I want to dispute part of the claim' - Now I'm preparing a proper defence, so do I now stick to disputing the part of the claim as marked in the online form or do I just dispute the whole claim?

GinaGrey

I'm preparing my defence - and as you say I have to dispute the whole claim - but I know they didn't get £1.40 for my 35 minute stay - do I mention anything about it in my defence? 

GinaGrey

How's that for my defence statement?

Defence Statement – Claim Ref: xxx

To Whom It May Concern,

I am writing to defend myself against the County Court Claim issued by ParkingEye Ltd concerning the Parking Charge Notice xxx. I fully respect the court process and understand the need for fair enforcement of parking rules. However, this case is not fair - and I hope the person reading this will see that clearly.

1.     I visited xx Car Park on xxx. I attempted to pay using the on-site machine. After using my bank card,
the screen displayed “Payment Approved” - I have a photo to prove it. To me, this meant I had paid.

I later learned that the machine had voided the transaction. As a driver, I relied on the machine’s confirmation and had no way of knowing the payment didn’t go through. I acted in good faith.

I have always been willing to pay the proper fee of £1.40 for my 35-minute stay. But I strongly believe it is unfair to demand £210 from someone who clearly tried to follow the rules.

2. I Was Misled by a Faulty System

I have photographic evidence that the machine said, "Payment Approved." The receipt I received looked like a valid one. Only later did I learn that it was actually a “void” receipt - but looks the same as a normal receipt!

According to the British Parking Association Code of Practice, failed transactions should be clearly flagged. This wasn’t the case. That’s not my fault - it’s a system issue, and I don’t believe I should be punished for that.

In fact, I’ve now noticed that the payment machines at this site have been replaced recently - possibly because others had similar problems. And looking at the Google reviews, I see many people feel the same
way:

“Do not use this car park… you pay your money and still be ripped off…”

This is not just my story — others are being treated unfairly too.

3. ParkingEye Ignored My Requests and Didn’t Follow Procedure

I wrote to ParkingEye asking for more information and evidence under the Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims. They failed to respond properly. Their Letter Before Action was also missing several required
elements.

-       The exact amount owed, with a detailed breakdown (principal, interest, admin costs, etc.) - ParkingEye only stated a flat fee of £125 (£100 + £25) with no explanation for the admin fee or how it was calculated.

-       The original contract or agreement relied on (i.e., proof of their authority from the landowner).

-       Any evidence relied upon, like:

o   Photos of signs

o   Evidence of payment machine functionality

ParkingEye did not supply:

·       The landowner agreement

·       The full signage plan

·       Proof their machines were working at the time

·       A clear transaction log showing alleged failure

·       A full statement of account

I tried to sort this out without going to court, but they made it impossible.



4. POPLA Appeal Was Flawed and Ignored Critical Evidence

While POPLA rejected my appeal, their reasoning was flawed. They:

Ignored my photo showing “Payment Approved”.
Accepted that the system voided the payment based on entry time - a technical issue outside my control.
Blamed me for not checking my bank account while still in the car park, which is neither practical nor required under any regulation.
Failed to consider that the receipt I was given looked identical to a valid one, breaching BPA Code section 19.7.



5. I Am Not Native English Speaker – and This Process Has Been Extra Difficult

I am not a native English speaker. It has taken me much longer than an English person to understand all the legal letters, write my responses, and collect my evidence. It has been stressful, confusing, and deeply frustrating.

I ask the court to please take this into account when reviewing my case. If I win, I would also like to request that I am compensated for the time and effort I have had to put into this - time I could have spent with my family or working.


I cannot accept being penalised for a failure in ParkingEye’s own machine and process.

I believe in fairness, and I trust that the court will see that I did everything a reasonable person would have done in my situation.

The facts demonstrate that I acted in good faith, made a genuine attempt to pay, and was misled by a machine error for which the Claimant is responsible. Pursuing a penalty of £210 for a parking session that should have cost £1.40 is unfair, disproportionate, and contrary to consumer protection principles.

I respectfully ask the court to:

·       Dismiss this claim;

·       Consider awarding costs under CPR 27.14(2)(g) for the
unreasonable conduct of the Claimant, should judgment be in my favour.



Thank you for taking the time to read my defence. I appreciate your
consideration.

Yours sincerely,

xxx

Gr1pr

That is part of a witness statement,  not a defence  ( although it doesn't contain the mandatory statement of truth for a WS  )

A defence mentions THE DEFENDANT,  third person,  not ME , MYSELF OR I , first person 

It isn't a letter saying,  to whom it may concern 

A defence defends against the POC and has the mandatory statement of truth at the bottom 

I assume that the claimant is Parking Eye,  top left of the claim form,  but is it  Parking Eye themselves or DCB Legal listed in the second box down on the left   ?

I suggest that you study the template defence in announcements,  at the top of the forum by coupon mad,  using the correct template depending on the POC on the claim form 

Post a redacted picture of the POC from the lower left of the claim form below after hiding the VRM details first , so redact the VRM details,  ( hide the number plate entry  )

GinaGrey

Gr1pr said:

That is part of a witness statement,  not a defence  ( although it doesn't contain the mandatory statement of truth for a WS  )

A defence mentions THE DEFENDANT,  third person,  not ME , MYSELF OR I , first person 

It isn't a letter saying,  to whom it may concern 

A defence defends against the POC and has the mandatory statement of truth at the bottom 

I assume that the claimant is Parking Eye,  top left of the claim form,  but is it  Parking Eye themselves or DCB Legal listed in the second box down on the left   ?

I suggest that you study the template defence in announcements,  at the top of the forum by coupon mad,  using the correct template depending on the POC on the claim form 

Post a redacted picture of the POC from the lower left of the claim form below after hiding the VRM details first , so redact the VRM details,  ( hide the number plate entry  )

Thanks so much @Gr1pr

How about this? The only thing is - yes I paid on the day with my card, and the machine said payment approved and I have a photo of that - and then I got the void transaction which looked like a normal receipt which was misleading - and I only realised that when I got their parking ticket - but because their system was faulty - in the end they didn't get the payment - and I still owe them £1.40. How does that sit with the 'statement of truth'?

Claim No.: xxx

Between

ParkingEye Ltd
(Claimant)

and -

[xxx]
(Defendant)

________________________________

DEFENCE

The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to relief in the
sum claimed, or at all. It is denied that any conduct by the driver
was in breach of any term. Further, it is denied that this Claimant
(understood to have a bare licence as agents) has standing to sue or
form contracts in their own name. Liability is denied, whether or not
the Claimant is claiming 'keeper liability', which is unclear from the
boilerplate text in the Particulars of Claim ('the POC').

The facts known to the Defendant:

The facts in this defence come from the Defendant's own knowledge and
honest belief. Conversely, the Claimant sets out a cut-and-paste
incoherent and sparse statement of case. The POC appear to be in
breach of CPR 16.4, 16PD3 and 16PD7, and fail to "state all facts
necessary for the purpose of formulating a complete cause of action".
The Defendant is unable, on the basis of the POC, to understand with
certainty what case, allegation(s) and what heads of cost are being
pursued, making it difficult to respond. However, the vehicle is
recognised and it is admitted that the Defendant was the registered
keeper and the driver on the date in question.

On the day of the incident, the Defendant attempted to pay for parking
at xxx Car Park. The payment machine clearly
displayed a "Payment Approved" message. The Defendant has photographic
evidence confirming this. Despite acting in good faith and relying on
this confirmation, the Defendant later received a PCN claiming no
payment was made. This suggests a failure in the Claimant's payment
systems.

3.1. The Defendant submitted a detailed appeal to POPLA with this
evidence. However, POPLA failed to consider the misleading nature of
the payment confirmation and did not address the BPA Code of Practice
violation, where failed transactions should be clearly indicated.

3.2. The Claimant has since replaced the old payment machines with new
ones, further implying that the previous machines were faulty or unfit
for purpose.

3.3. Numerous public reviews posted on Google Maps for xx Car
Park indicate a pattern of issues, with comments such as "Do not use
this car park it’s out to rip you off... you pay your money and still
be ripped off... they are experts at it."

3.4. The Defendant, not being a native English speaker, faced delays
and additional time understanding and responding to the Claimant’s
letters. This caused a disadvantage in engaging with the process
compared to a fluent English speaker.

The Claimant will concede that no financial loss has arisen and that
in order to impose an inflated parking charge, as well as proving a
term was breached, there must be: (i). a strong 'legitimate interest'
extending beyond mere compensation for loss, and (ii). 'adequate
notice' of the 'penalty clause' charge which, in the case of a car
park, requires prominent signs and lines.

The Defendant denies (i) or (ii) have been met. The charge imposed, in
all the circumstances, is a penalty, not saved by ParkingEye Ltd v
Beavis [2015] UKSC67 ('the Beavis case'), which is fully
distinguished.

[I'll CONTINUE with Paragraphs 6 to 30 from the template exactly as written.]

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.

Signature: _______________________

Date: [INSERT DATE]