Parkingeye Fitness First Wigan CCJ Defence

ParkAnywhere

Hi,

I've received a claim form regarding Parkingeye Ltd, I have read the newbies thread, but am struggling to word my defence, any help would really be appreaciated.

The Particulars of Claim are:

Claim for monies outstanding from the Defendant in relation to a Parking Charge (reference XXXXXX/XXXXXX) issued on 12/11/2024. The signage clearly displayed throughout Fitness First Wigan Paid Parking, Stadium Way, Wigan, Lancashire, WN5 OUN states that this is private land, managed by ParkingEye Ltd, and that it is subject to terms and conditions, including the payment of parking tariffs, by which those who park agree to be bound (the contract).

ParkingEye's ANPR system captured vehicle XX73XXX entering and leaving the site on 07/11/2024, and parking without paying to park. Pursuant to Sch 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, notice has been given to the registered keeper, making them liable for the Parking Charge payable upon breach. As no response was received, an alternative service address was obtained and further correspondence issued (CPR 6.9(3)).

Claim Issue Date is 03/03/2025

Acknowledgment of Service was submitted and received on Money Claim online on 14/03/2025.

I was not the driver of the vehicle and have not received any other correspondence to the best of my knowledge. (Post is not the best around my area, so probably was posted by parkingeye). Have spoken to driver (Partner), who states they googled Fitness First Parking and the first result was Fitness First website link including the words free parking. Therefore because she checked prior to leaving she did not check any signs on site. I have confirmed google still brings back this result and when clicking the link your taken to fitness first website where it also states free parking, no terms and conditions etc. 

I have checked signs on site using Google maps, can't read the terms as the image is not good enough on google maps, but there are still signs up from old land owner, DW Sports, adding more to the confusion. 

I have included the standard paragraphs from Coupin-Mad's template defence thread into my defence and Im looking for wording for the £25 Parkingeye add on, not mentioned on the signs, to add to my defence. But Im struggling with how much or little detail to add in section/paragraph 3.

Thanks for any help anyone could provide and thanks for the help already provided by everyone on this forum. 

Much appreciated 

ParkAnywhere

Sorry forgot to mention that the claim is an in house Parkingeye Claim from Parkingeye direct and not from Solicitiors.

Gr1pr

If they complied with POFA 2012,  then you could be held liable as keeper 

The signs in the car park on the incident date dictates the parking contract,  not anything on Google or on GSV either

The driver accepted the signage contract when they parked there. It probably expected them to input the VRM details inside at reception,  a common practice in many businesses these days 

Presumably you ignored the postal notices and also failed to disclose who was driving,  seeing as you are the non driving keeper 

ParkAnywhere

Gr1pr said:

If they complied with POFA 2012,  then you could be held liable as keeper 

The signs in the car park on the incident date dictates the parking contract,  not anything on Google or on GSV either

The driver accepted the signage contract when they parked there. It probably expected them to input the VRM details inside at reception,  a common practice in many businesses these days 

Presumably you ignored the postal notices and also failed to disclose who was driving,  seeing as you are the non driving keeper 

Thanks for reply

I think they did comply with POFA 2012, Particulars of Claim state the parking offence occurred on 07/11/2024 and they sent notice to keeper on 12/11/2024 within the fourteens days. 

I did not receive any letters until receiving Claim Form from HM Courts and Tribunals service. Do not know the reason why. I have sent email subject access request to try find out if they did send letters and comply with POFA 2012. 

The driver says they did not see or read the signs as they had prior knowledge from landowners website that parking was free. 

Is this case not possible to defend and am I best paying up? 

ParkAnywhere

Driver says from their memory they arrived at around 17:30 and was dark, sunset in wigan on the date was 16:26. Driver says she did not see or read the signs but has now added that there were no signs lit up and the car [parl lighting was not on. I have no way to confirm the arrival time, because no time on POC and have not received any correspondence before Claim Form. I also have no way to confirm the lighting situation on the date in question. Would it be advisable to travel to site and get evidence at this stage (or at least be able to confirm what is being said by driver) before entering my defence?

Coupon-mad

But NOWHERE in the second post of the Newbies thread do we ever tell people to pay when they receive a court claim.  No!

Come on, it's no-brainer to defend (REGARDLESS OF FACTS) and the NEWBIES thread tells you this.

You even get a Mediation phone call stage early on when you can make an offer to the Mediator. Start at £30 - slowly increase the offer - and I reckon PEye will settle at £60 (if that's how you want to play it). Up to you but you certainly DON'T pay two hundred quid now to avoid an easy phone call resolution for a quarter of that!

ParkAnywhere

Update:

Submitted defence below:

1.  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:

2. 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. Although the defendant was not the Driver at the time.

3. The claim was the first letter to arrive, so it seems the Claimant may have sent correspondence to an old address at pre-action stage (they will be aware if this is the case.  The Defendant is having to guess).  This is important because - if so - it is averred that the Claimant has failed to follow the British Parking Association Code of Practice (CoP) . The only explanation for the complete lack of a PCN or any reminder letters is that they have later undertaken a cheap address search (28 pence, in bulk) realised the address was different, but not 'paused debt recovery and re-issued the PCN for appeal at the original rate' as is mandatory in the CoP.

3.1  The Defendant’s partner used the carpark on the alleged date to park while using the facilities. The Defendant’s partner checked the Fitness First Wigan website and a google search, both stated and still do state, as of 24/03/2025, “Free Parking” with no terms or conditions. The Defendant’s partner did see DW Sports (Previous Landowner/Leaseholder) parking signage still on site and other old signs creating some confusion. Although the largest sign was clearly Fitness First at the entrance to the car park, where it had earlier been researched that the Parking was “Free Parking.” There was also another car park with a  Fitness First Sign at the entrance, adding to the confusion. 

3.2 The Defendant’s partner arrived at the car park around 17:30, and states there were no lights on the car park were turned on. The car park was dark with a small amount of light coming from the business’ off to one side of the car park. The Defendants partner did not see any signs instructing pay for parking, or another parking terms.. 

3.3 The Defendants position is that the vehicle was parked by the conditions advertised clearly on the Landowners website, therefore being contracted (bound) to park by the advertised clear conditions of the landowner. If the landowner is making contracts / advertising free parking, why does the claimants contract outweigh any other. Would the driver and/or Registered Keeper not be contracted (Bound) to the conditions as advertised with the land owner and not the third party, who was not  known to exist to the  Driver/Registered Keeper. 

Plus the rest of the template from march 2025.

Two weeks before court date in Oct 2025, I received a letter from Parkingeye offering to settle the claim if I paid £170. I did not reply to this.

Three days later Parkineye sent me a further letter stating that "Due to further evidence coming to light" they will be not pursuing the claim and not attending court, they consider the matter closed. Parkingeye never said what the further evidence was?

Thank you to everyone in this forum, especially Coupon-mad and Gr1pr for the help, as I mostly used their advice on other people threads and from the newbies thread and template.

ParkAnywhere

Sorry I missed out a few things, like about the mediation stages etc. But they all went as standard as stated in many other threads.

Coupon-mad

Do you didn't make the offer specifically advised for your case?

ParkAnywhere

Coupon-mad said:

Do you didn't make the offer specifically advised for your case?

Sorry I don't think I understand the question?

If you mean did I offer £30 and increase to £60, No, I read more threads and comments from you and others, so was more confident of defending, so I only offered £10 and no more. we couldn't agree, so I carried on with the process using the newbies thread etc for advice. 

Again thank you

Coupon-mad

OK - hood!

Maybe I am wrong but I thought in your case there's possibly a lack of defence? I would not have advised you to make offers as high as £60 if I thought there was a decent defence to voice at a hearing...

Or maybe I just said it to stop you paying!