ParkingEye £210 Claim Form parking without paying to park

they_tryna_rob_me

Hi, I love reading all the successful threads here and everyone doing the morally correct thing! Tried to be self sufficient but I am not 100% confident in my defense so I would like to double check with the folks here.

I was issued with an invoice for parking, I ignored all letters until receiving a Claim Form. Date of event 10 October, PCN reminder 24 October, letter 18 November, letter before claim received 3rd December.

Claim Form dated 20 January 2025. Acknowledgement of Service filed 3rd February, defence to be submitted by 22nd February.

According to the Particulars of Claim, the Claimant states "parking without paying to park." This is not the case, and I have evidence that I paid for parking on the 10th via the Evology app.

According to the Signs, the tariffs are £7 for up to 12 hours (between 7am and 7pm), and £10 for up to 24 hours (between 7pm and 7am). This was confusing as I arrived 5.15pm and therefore I wasn't sure if I should pick the 12 hours (as I was before 7pm and would be free to park until 7am) or the 24 hours (which I then wouldn't be covered until 7pm). There are not 24 hours between 7pm and 7am. Therefore the sign is stupid.

I was thinking to customise the template as follows:

3.  The Defendant used the carpark on the alleged date to park overnight after booking a place nearby and heading to central London for the night. The Defendant spent some time trying to understand the signage, downloading the required application and decide the appropriate payment option, and made payment for parking. 

4.  The signage is confusing due to the times stated; Up to 12 hours from 7am to 7pm, up to 24 hours from 7pm to 7am. The Defendant did not understand why the 24 hour parking option was from 7pm until 7am, and decided it was not a viable option due to arrival before 7pm.

5.  The Defendant has evidence of payment on the day of the alleged event which directly contradicts the Particulars of Claim provided by the Claimant which states “without paying to park”.

AND I think I need to mention regarding the £125 claimed amount, as this is above the £100 stated on the sign:

The quantum of this claim is exaggerated and penal:
6. It is apparent that the Claimant has added £25 to enhance their claim.  This sum was neither incurred as damages, nor as a valid fee, and nor was it part of any agreed contract. The signs at this car park state a PCN sum here is £100. The £125 charge imposed is exaggerated and it is an unjustified penalty.

The Defendant takes the point that enhancing their claim on either impermissible sums or on an incorrect basis is reason enough to disallow the claim. The added £25 is plucked out of thin air and must fail for these reasons:

i)  The added £25 does not appear in the contract (the sign) and

ii)  in view of the binding decision at the High Court (later appealed but the HC decision was upheld by the Court of Appeal) in ParkingEye Ltd v Somerfield Stores Ltd ChD [2011] EWHC 4023(QB):

LINK casemine judgement uk

The Defendant's position is that this claim is in part/wholly a penalty, applying the authority in ParkingEye cases (ref: paras 98, 100,193, 198 of ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67 and with specific reliance upon para 419 of HHJ Hegarty's decision in Somerfield, which is unaffected by Beavis. In the former case, the parking charge was set at £75 (discounted to £37.50 for prompt payment) then increased ultimately to £135. At para 419, HHJ Hegarty (sitting as a HCJ) found that adding £60 to an already increased parking charge 'would appear to be penal' and unrecoverable. ParkingEye had dropped this punitive enhancement by the time of Mr Beavis' infamous Supreme Court parking case.

I felt that the Chan v Akande stuff doesn't belong as they have stated the breach of terms (even though it is vague and incorrect). Thanks in advance for anyone who takes the time to help me with this.

LDast

You have until 4pm on Monday 24th February to submit your defence. That's 2 weeks away. Don't rush it!

Those PoC do not adequately state the cause of action and so, IMHO, Chan and Akande do apply and the defence should include an order for strike out for inadequate compliance with CPR 16.4(1)(a).

LDast

(a) The contract referred to is not detailed or attached to the PoC in accordance with CPR PD 16(7.5);
(b) The PoC do not state the exact wording of the clause (or clauses) of the terms and conditions of the contract (or contracts) which is/are relied on;
(c) The PoC do not adequately set out the reason (or reasons) why the claimant asserts the defendant has breached the contract (or contracts);
(d) The PoC do not state with sufficient particularity exactly where the breach occurred, the exact time when the breach occurred and how long it is alleged that the vehicle was parked before the parking charge was allegedly incurred;
(e) The PoC do not state precisely how the sum claimed is calculated, as the maximum charge that can be levied for a PCN is £100;
(f) The PoC do not state what proportion of the claim is the parking charge and what proportion is damages;

Coupon-mad

I would not use Chan & Akande for a ParkingEye claim filed in-house.

Your customised version is good.

I would add to para 4 that ambiguous terms must be interpreted in the way that most favours the consumer. This is trite law, in the Consumer Rights Act 2015 (terms that may be ambiguous).

they_tryna_rob_me

Thanks all, I booked the mediation and they offered me £70 to settle then cancelled the claim after refusal.

This place is amazing!

Gr1pr

Well done 

Another one bites the dust  !

Car1980

Show us the discontinuation letter for the thread please.

Coupon-mad

they_tryna_rob_me said:

Thanks all, I booked the mediation and they offered me £70 to settle then cancelled the claim after refusal.

This place is amazing!

Brilliant! 

ANOTHER ONE BITES THE DUST!

Looking again at the POC, their claim had to fail because they specifically said you had "entered and left on 10th" (not true because you entered on 9th) and on that day - 10th - you "parked without paying" (not true).

We should have spotted that!