ParkingEye Terms and conditions

disgruntleddriver2025

Hi,

I'm current preparing a defence for a court claim and am prepping the section 3. "EXPLAIN IN YOUR OWN WORDS" of the template defence.

The main point here I want to contend is that I haven't actually broken their "terms and conditions" as the conditions say to "park within the marked bays"

This is where I was parked, and I'd argue that despite the signposts, the bays themselves aren't "marked" in any kind of obvious way - no paint, no discretised bays, nothing.

This point was also conveniently avoided in the cookie-cutter POPLA rejection I received, which I think I also want to highlight as I feel POPLA's judgment is invalid if it purposely ignores the defence I submitted to them and facts of the case.

Whether this is something to mention in that particular court claim defence paragraph, or what else I should put there instead, I'm not too sure - so I'd appreciate any advice

disgruntleddriver2025

Here is the POC for extra context:
Happy to provide anything else if needed.

Gr1pr

Post a redacted picture of the POC on the lower left of the claim form after hiding the VRM details first,  in order to see what you wish to rebut 

Who issued the claim   ?  Parking Eye themselves   ?  Or via DCB Legal   ?

disgruntleddriver2025

Gr1pr said:

Who issued the claim   ?  Parking Eye themselves   ?  Or via DCB Legal   ?

The claimant is parkingeye themselves, if that's what you mean?

Gr1pr

disgruntleddriver2025 said:

Gr1pr said:

Who issued the claim   ?  Parking Eye themselves   ?  Or via DCB Legal   ?

The claimant is parkingeye themselves, if that's what you mean?

They do both types, farming out the iffy claims to DCB Legal,  keeping the in-house claims to ones they are more certain about 

So your reply indicates that their in-house litigation team issued the claim,  typically for around £210 for a single pcn 

Ergo,  I would expect a reasonable POC,  your added POC picture mentions parked without authorisation,  nothing about parking in a marked bay.   The contract is written on the signs, clearly popla found in favour of Parking Eye 

Ps, usually people use the alternative defence template in Parking Eye cases,  so check that you are using the correct version for your case

disgruntleddriver2025

Gr1pr said:

disgruntleddriver2025 said:

Gr1pr said:

Who issued the claim   ?  Parking Eye themselves   ?  Or via DCB Legal   ?

The claimant is parkingeye themselves, if that's what you mean?

They do both types, farming out the iffy claims to DCB Legal,  keeping the in-house claims to ones they are more certain about 

So your reply indicates that their in-house litigation team issued the claim,  typically for around £210 for a single pcn 

Ergo,  I would expect a reasonable POC,  your added POC picture mentions parked without authorisation,  nothing about parking in a marked bay 

I haven't seen anything from DCB and on the form it says parkingeye - but the POC specifically mentions the terms and conditions, and that's what the terms and conditions say:

It's also important context to the POPLA outcome I feel, but if you think I shouldn't mention it then I won't - could you give me any advice as to what I should put instead?

Gr1pr

I dont write defence paragraphs,  just comment or advise based on reading thousands of cases 

The POC mentions ANPR capture,  parked without authorisation 

ANPR doesn't monitor bays,  marked or unmarked,  so something else is going on that they know but you haven't shared yet.  In house claims usually happen when they have an ace and the Defendant doesn't know or hasn't seen it yet 

Looking at your street view, it clearly says PERMIT HOLDERS ONLY on the sign on the pole 

Clearly there are bays for parking,  on the right side of the road or street,  as designated by the border stones or cobbles

disgruntleddriver2025

Gr1pr said:

Ps, usually people use the alternative defence template in Parking Eye cases,  so check that you are using the correct version for your case

Ah I missed this, I saw information about the LBCCC from ParkingEye, but hadn't seen the advice on this forum at the time - I can't seem to find mention of an alternate defence template on the newbies thread, although I'm sure I'm missing something obvious.

disgruntleddriver2025

Gr1pr said:

I dont write defence paragraphs,  just comment or advise based on reading thousands of cases 

The POC mentions ANPR capture,  parked without authorisation 

ANPR doesn't monitor bays,  marked or unmarked,  so something else is going on that they know but you haven't shared yet.  In house claims usually happen when they have an ace and the Defendant doesn't know or hasn't seen it yet 

Clearly there are bays for parking,  either side of the road or street,  as designated by the border stones or cobbles

At night time these cobbles aren't clear at all, it was dark when I parked there. I'm happy to share anything about the case, I don't know what they have that they consider an "ace".

disgruntleddriver2025

Gr1pr said:

Looking at your street view, it clearly says PERMIT HOLDERS ONLY on the sign on the pole 

I took the photos later on after receiving the initial PCN, I hadn't seen them at the time as I didn't even realise I was parked in parkingeye area.

Gr1pr

The ace is the signs on the poles that say PERMIT HOLDERS ONLY,  hence the parked without authorisation allegation,  not about marked bays at all

Unregistered vehicle onsite, for a period of time shown on the original NTK PCN letter,  captured by ANPR cameras 

I would expect that PE shared signage images in their evidence pack to popla,  including the permit holders only signs