ParkingEye Claim Forms - Clarity on response

FluffyRageQuit

Hi all. I've received a ParkingEye Claim Form and wanted to get some clarity on which template response I should use from the previous threads.

Summary of details below:

Issue date:

28/04/25

POC:

Claim for monies outstanding from the defendent in relation to a parking charge issued in Jan. The signage clearly displayed throughout XXXXXX 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 XXXXX entering and leaving the site on XXXXX and parking without a valid paid parking ticket. 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.

Address to send documents and payments

ParkingEye Ltd (their address is provided)

Other relevant info

No sign of DCB legal mentioned anywhere on the form or working on their behalf, although the actual name of a person is provided as the claimant's legal representative.

Sent my AOS on 04/05/25 (it was received 06/05/25).

With respect to the claim itself, the reason payment wasn't made was because at the time the machine wouldn't accept card (I tried several different ones) and I had no change on me. I then tried to call ParkingEye but the number was unavailable, so because I was already late for work, I had to leave it, but was aiming to come back when I had to time to try and make payment again (which I didn't get the chance to because work was too busy). Anyway, long story short because the machine was faulty and I couldn't get through to the number, I couldn't make payment at the time.

Queries I have

1. Should I assume this is direct from ParkingEye and they're acting on their own behalf?

2. If so, which template defence should I use? I've read the thread below: 

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6108153/suggested-template-defence-to-adapt-for-all-parking-charge-cases-where-they-add-false-admin-costs/p1

But then within the first post, it also says "This is not the place to ask about ParkingEye defences, and the NEWBIES thread will continue to show an example of those."

So I checked the newbies post and can't seem to find anything specific to responding to ParkingEye direct (ie. when not represented by DCB legal) apart from if I get a LBCCC direct from them.

3. Are there any other defences anyone knows of that have similar circumstances to mine that I could use as a reference?

Many thanks in advance.

Coupon-mad

1. Yes it is.

2. You can use the template but add a point in your facts about their signs not showing the £25 or £30 (that they slapped on top at LBCCC stage for no justification) therefore that is not a valid part of the alleged PCN contract.

3.  Yes but PEye ones are damned hard to search for because EVERY defence cites ParkingEye v Beavis.  Try searching for:

new tactic parkingeye £20 not on signs

or

£25 not on signs defence

The add-on has crept up by a fiver every year. Used to be zero added in 2022. Those searches should find a defence like yours.

Always change results to show NEWEST.

FluffyRageQuit

Amazing. Thanks for your help. I'll draft up the response later and share here if that's ok, just to make sure I've covered everything. 

Le_Kirk

FluffyRageQuit said:

Amazing. Thanks for your help. I'll draft up the response later and share here if that's ok, just to make sure I've covered everything. 

Fine but we only want to see your paragraphs 2 & 3, (or any that you add) NOT the whole template! It does not need checking.

KeithP

FluffyRageQuit said:

Hi all. I've received a ParkingEye Claim Form...
Issue date:
28/04/25

Sent my AOS on 04/05/25 (it was received 06/05/25).

With a Claim Issue Date of 28th April, and having filed an Acknowledgment of Service('AOS') in a timely manner, you have until 4pm on Monday 2nd June 2025 to file a Defence.

That's over a week away. Plenty of time to produce a Defence but please don't leave it to the last minute.

To create a Defence, and then file a Defence by email, look at the second post in the NEWBIES thread.

Don't miss the deadline for filing a Defence.

Do not try and file a Defence via the MoneyClaimOnline website. Once an AOS has been filed, the MCOL website should be treated as 'read only'.

FluffyRageQuit

Hi guys. Just following up on the above... I forgot to mention that the registered keeper and driver are two different people, so I've written paragraphs 2 and 3 to reflect. Appreciate your feedback, thanks.

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. The Defendant denies being the driver at the material time and was not present when the alleged contravention occurred.

3. The Defendant is not liable for the parking charge as the Defendant was not the driver on the date in question. The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA) Schedule 4 stipulates strict conditions for holding a registered keeper liable for a parking charge where the driver is not identified. The Defendant avers that these conditions have not been met, and the Notice to Keeper (NTK) fails to create keeper liability under PoFA. In any event, the Defendant notes that the claim relates to an alleged failure to pay for parking, but it is understood that the parking payment machines on site were not working correctly at the time. The driver attempted to make payment by card using several different cards, but the machine failed to process them. The driver also attempted to contact ParkingEye using the number provided, but was unable to get through. Due to the faulty payment facilities and the inability to contact the Claimant, the driver - who was already late for work - was left with no reasonable option but to leave the vehicle parked with the intention to return and pay later, which circumstances prevented. The Defendant asserts that no valid contract could have been formed in these conditions, and that no breach of contract occurred. Further, the Claimant’s signage did not disclose any £25 charge or administrative fee, yet such a sum was later added at the LBCCC stage without justification. The Defendant submits that this is an attempt to impose a concealed and unrecoverable sum which was not part of the alleged parking contract and is therefore an abuse of process.

Coupon-mad

Good but remove this:

"Due to the faulty payment facilities and the inability to contact the Claimant, the driver - who was already late for work - was left with no reasonable option but to leave the vehicle parked with the intention to return and pay later, which circumstances prevented."

FluffyRageQuit

Thank you. Will do. Appreciate your help!

FluffyRageQuit

Hi guys. Quick one. I sent my defence to Claimresponses.cnbc@justice.gov.uk on 27th May and got an auto reply telling me to expect a response in 10 days.

So far I’ve heard nothing, and today is the 10th day (although not the 10th “working” day - not sure if that’s what they mean when they say “10 days”?).

Just wanna ask if this normal? Should I keep waiting? Should I chase?

Cheers.

FluffyRageQuit

Sorry, I meant it’s the 9th day, not 10th.

Gr1pr

They are always busy,  so yes, normal,  but do login to MCOL and check your claim history 

The fact that you received the auto response is a good outcome anyway,  if something went wrong