Summoned to court by parkingeye, please help im so confused!

sweetdaisynova

Coupon-mad said:

But my search finds ParkingEye defence wording about the added £25. I just tested it and found loads.

Try copying & pasting this exact, longer wording into the search box then read at least 5 ParkingEye defence results:

In a new tactic only seen from this Claimant in Summer 2023, the sum claimed under purported 'contract' has been suddenly and disproportionately exaggerated by £25

Oh okay thank you so I make that my paragraph 3? 

Gr1pr

Once you find out what they wrote as their paragraph 3.1, add it to your draft,  so 3 paragraphs  , 2 + 3 + 3.1, then post all of those 3 adapted paragraphs below for critique 

Coupon-mad

sweetdaisynova said:

Coupon-mad said:

But my search finds ParkingEye defence wording about the added £25. I just tested it and found loads.

Try copying & pasting this exact, longer wording into the search box then read at least 5 ParkingEye defence results:

In a new tactic only seen from this Claimant in Summer 2023, the sum claimed under purported 'contract' has been suddenly and disproportionately exaggerated by £25

Oh okay thank you so I make that my paragraph 3? 

No. I gave you those words to put into the search bar. Not to just copy - with zero context - into a defence.

You need to read a few threads and see what they put. Please just do the search I gave you and take a bit of time this weekend to read a few relevant results.

This is far easier than you are making it; I've given you the info to find hundreds of ParkingEye defences with one search. Not only that, surely you want to read some and see what happened in the end?

Gr1pr

Your issue date was 27th May, your AOS was completed later,  so your defence submission deadline was 29th June

AOS on or after day 5  ( done  ) plus the initial 14 days,  plus an extra 14 days due to the AOS being completed , equals 33 days from the issue date,  or 28 days from the service date, definitely not from the AOS date

Meaning 33 days later,  so it's already over a week late, meaning that you will have to submit it on MCOL ASAP,  by cutting out all the extra parts in order to fit it into the defence box on MCOL, today 

But check your claim history first, on MCOL,  to see if they have already pulled the trigger for a default Judgment 

sweetdaisynova

Gr1pr said:

Your issue date was 27th May, your AOS was completed later,  so your defence submission deadline was 29th June

AOS on or after day 5  ( done  ) plus the initial 14 days,  plus an extra 14 days due to the AOS being completed , equals 33 days from the issue date,  or 28 days from the service date, definitely not from the AOS date

Meaning 33 days later,  so it's already over a week late, meaning that you will have to submit it on MCOL ASAP,  by cutting out all the extra parts in order to fit it into the defence box on MCOL, today 

But check your claim history first, on MCOL,  to see if they have already pulled the trigger for a default Judgment 

Thank you for your help,

this is what is written in the claim history:

A claim was issued against you on 27/05/2025

Your acknowledgment of service was submitted on 04/06/2025 at 20:16:23

Your acknowledgment of service was received on 05/06/2025 at 08:06:27

So i think luckily they havent triggered a default judgement yet?

This is what I've written for my defense, i honestly dont know what else to write, Ive edited and cut it down: 

_________________

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').

 

1.

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 and driver.

3. The Defendant tried multiple methods to pay for their parking. The sole machine on site was not working and displayed the error message “no payment method available, please use another kiosk”. The Defendant then called twice to pay the parking fee but ParkingEye not pick up. The Defendant has photographic, timestamped evidence for both of these instances. The Defendant submitted an appeal with this evidence on the 14/03/2024 once they received a 60 pound fine via letter. The Defendant did not hear back from Parkingeye until the 10/05/24 via letter, stating that the Defendants  initial appeal was declined and the Defendant could not appeal again. This is a breach of the Defendants right to appeal to POPLA within 28 days of their initial claim being rejected, since they were never told that their initial appeal was rejected. This contradicts the claimants statement “The Defendant had the opportunity to appeal to POPLA” stated in their POC.

 

4. 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.

5. 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.

"Private firms issue roughly 22,000 parking tickets every day, often adopting a labyrinthine system of misleading and confusing signage, opaque appeals services, aggressive debt collection and unreasonable fees designed to extort money from motorists."

6. Despite legal challenges delaying the Code's implementation (marking it as temporarily 'withdrawn' as shown in the link above) a draft Impact Assessment (IA) to finalise the DLUHC Code was recently published on 30th July 2023, which has exposed some industry-gleaned facts about supposed 'Debt Fees'. This is revealed in the Government's analysis, found here: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1171438/Draft_IA_-_Private_Parking_Code_of_Practice_.pdf

7. Paragraphs 4.31 and 5.19 reveal that the parking industry has informed the DLUHC that the true minor cost of what the parking industry likes to call debt recovery or 'enforcement' (pre-action) stage totals a mere £8.42 per recovery case.

8. With that sum in mind, it is clear that the extant claim has been enhanced by an excessive amount, disingenuously added as an extra 'fee'. This is believed to be routinely retained by the litigating legal team and has been claimed in addition to the intended 'legal representatives fees' cap set within the small claims track rules. This conduct has been examined and found - including in a notably detailed judgment by Her Honour Judge Jackson, now a specialist Civil High Court Judge on the Leeds/Bradford circuit - to constitute 'double recovery' and the Defendant takes that position.

9. The new draft IA now demonstrates that the unnecessarily intimidating stage of pre-action letter-chains actually costs 'eight times less' (says the DLUHC analysis) than the price-fixed £70 per PCN routinely added. This has caused consumer harm in the form of hundreds of thousands of inflated CCJs each year that District Judges have been powerless to prevent. This abusively enhanced 'industry standard' Debt Fee was enabled only by virtue of the self- serving Codes of Practice of the rival parking Trade Bodies, influenced by a Board of parking operators and debt firms who stood to gain from it.

10. In support of my contention that the sum sought is unconscionably exaggerated and thus unrecoverable, attention is drawn to paras 98, 100, 193, 198 of ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC67 ('the Beavis case'). Also ParkingEye Ltd v Somerfield Stores Ltd ChD [2011] EWHC 4023(QB) where the parking charge was £75, discounted to £37.50 for prompt payment. Whilst £75 was reasonable, HHJ Hegarty (decision later ratified by the CoA) held in paras 419-428 that unspecified 'admin costs' inflating a parking charge to £135 was not a true reflection of the cost of a template letter and 'would appear to be penal.

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.

 

Or would this be better instead of paragraph 10?

This claim is unfair and inflated and I have seen no evidence that any 'parking charge' or additional imaginary sum is due in debt or damages. This Claimant now routinely pursues an unconscionable fixed sum added per PCN, despite knowing that the will of Parliament is to ban it. In a new tactic only seen from this Claimant in Summer 2023, the sum claimed under purported 'contract' has been suddenly and disproportionately exaggerated by £25. I believe that sum was unlikely to have been part of the alleged contract on the signs. I take the point that enhancing their claim with a disproportionate and impermissible sum, is double recovery (given they are also claiming 'legal fees') and is reason enough to disallow the claim. The signage could not have formed a contract for a £125 parking charge, as this exceeds the maximum amount allowed by trade bodies, which is capped at £100. I have no knowledge of any contract to pay £100, let alone the inflated sum of £125 and I put the Claimant to strict proof of all their allegations.

Le_Kirk

sweetdaisynova said:

3. The Defendant tried multiple methods to pay for their parking. The sole machine on site was not working and displayed the error message “no payment method available, please use another kiosk”. The Defendant then called twice to pay the parking fee but ParkingEye did not answer pick up. The Defendant has photographic, timestamped evidence for both of these instances. The Defendant submitted an appeal with this evidence on the 14/03/2024 once they received a 60 pound fine £60 Parking Charge Notice (PCN) via letter. The Defendant did not hear back from ParkingEye until the 10/05/24 via letter, stating that the Defendant's  initial appeal was declined and the Defendant could not appeal again. This is a breach of the Defendant's right to appeal to POPLA within 28 days of their initial claim being rejected, since they were never told that their initial appeal was rejected. This contradicts the claimants statement “The Defendant had the opportunity to appeal to POPLA” stated in their POC.

I don't see how you can have photographic evidence of an unanswered phone call.  The replacement paragraph for #10 has been written in the first person and should be "the defendant" not "I".  Have you found the ParkingEye defence alluded to by @Coupon-mad? Your defence paragraph #3 reads more like a witness statement.

sweetdaisynova

Le_Kirk said:

sweetdaisynova said:

3. The Defendant tried multiple methods to pay for their parking. The sole machine on site was not working and displayed the error message “no payment method available, please use another kiosk”. The Defendant then called twice to pay the parking fee but ParkingEye did not answer pick up. The Defendant has photographic, timestamped evidence for both of these instances. The Defendant submitted an appeal with this evidence on the 14/03/2024 once they received a 60 pound fine £60 Parking Charge Notice (PCN) via letter. The Defendant did not hear back from ParkingEye until the 10/05/24 via letter, stating that the Defendant's  initial appeal was declined and the Defendant could not appeal again. This is a breach of the Defendant's right to appeal to POPLA within 28 days of their initial claim being rejected, since they were never told that their initial appeal was rejected. This contradicts the claimants statement “The Defendant had the opportunity to appeal to POPLA” stated in their POC.

I don't see how you can have photographic evidence of an unanswered phone call.  The replacement paragraph for #10 has been written in the first person and should be "the defendant" not "I".  Have you found the ParkingEye defence alluded to by @Coupon-mad? Your defence paragraph #3 reads more like a witness statement.

Thanks for your corrections 

 I have photographic evidence that the the kiosk wasn't working and screenshots proving that I called them at the same time, not necessarily that it was unanswered.

I have used coupon-made defence outline, it says paragraph 3.1 should be personal to the events which occurred. Ill be honest my brain is fried im not sure what to write, ive looked at other people's defences but they dont apply to my situation. 

Should i keep the original paragraph 10 or use the alternative version?

Coupon-mad

You need both those paragraph 10 wordings. Use them both but remove the lower half of the Template Defence completely AND the statement of truth AND all headings at the top.

This is because you are late defending. Do not use email. Put it into the defence box on MCOL so it is in immediately.

Hence why it must be much shorter to fit. Won't need headings.

Try to keep the original para 4 from the template and the lower paragraph about the Consumer Rights Act as they are important.

Get it in and press SUBMIT!

sweetdaisynova

Coupon-mad said:

You need both those paragraph 10 wordings. Use them both but remove the lower half of the Template Defence completely AND the statement of truth AND all headings at the top.

This is because you are late defending. Do not use email. Put it into the defence box on MCOL so it is in immediately.

Hence why it must be much shorter to fit. Won't need headings.

Try to keep the original para 4 from the template and the lower paragraph about the Consumer Rights Act as they are important.

Get it in and press SUBMIT!

Thank you! Can you please double check that this is good to go?

 

1. 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 driver.

2. The Defendant tried multiple methods to pay for their parking. The sole machine on site was not working and displayed the error message “no payment method available, please use another kiosk”. The Defendant then called twice to pay the parking fee but ParkingEye did not answer. The Defendant has photographic, timestamped evidence for both of these instances. The Defendant submitted an appeal with this evidence on 14/03/2024 once they received a £60 Parking Charge Notice (PCN) via letter. The Defendant did not hear back from Parkingeye until 10/05/24 via letter, stating that the Defendants  initial appeal was declined and the Defendant could not appeal again. This is a breach of the Defendants right to appeal to POPLA within 28 days of their initial claim being rejected, since they were never told that their initial appeal was rejected. This contradicts the claimants statement “The Defendant had the opportunity to appeal to POPLA” stated in their POC.

 

3. 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.

5. 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.

The Defendant avers that there was no agreement to pay a parking charge or added 'damages' which were not even incurred, let alone quantified in bold, prominent text. This Claimant's lack of large, readable signs are nothing like the yellow & black warnings seen in Beavis, nor do they even meet the basic signage requirements in the current BPA & IPC Joint Code of Practice, which reflects the already statutory requirement for 'prominence' (Consumer Rights Act 2015 - the 'CRA').

 

"Private firms issue roughly 22,000 parking tickets every day, often adopting a labyrinthine system of misleading and confusing signage, opaque appeals services, aggressive debt collection and unreasonable fees designed to extort money from motorists."

4. Despite legal challenges delaying the Code's implementation (marking it as temporarily 'withdrawn' as shown in the link above) a draft Impact Assessment (IA) to finalise the DLUHC Code was recently published on 30th July 2023, which has exposed some industry-gleaned facts about supposed 'Debt Fees'. This is revealed in the Government's analysis, found here: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1171438/Draft_IA_-_Private_Parking_Code_of_Practice_.pdf

5. Paragraphs 4.31 and 5.19 reveal that the parking industry has informed the DLUHC that the true minor cost of what the parking industry likes to call debt recovery or 'enforcement' (pre-action) stage totals a mere £8.42 per recovery case.

6. With that sum in mind, it is clear that the extant claim has been enhanced by an excessive amount, disingenuously added as an extra 'fee'. This is believed to be routinely retained by the litigating legal team and has been claimed in addition to the intended 'legal representatives fees' cap set within the small claims track rules. This conduct has been examined and found - including in a notably detailed judgment by Her Honour Judge Jackson, now a specialist Civil High Court Judge on the Leeds/Bradford circuit - to constitute 'double recovery' and the Defendant takes that position.

7. The new draft IA now demonstrates that the unnecessarily intimidating stage of pre-action letter-chains actually costs 'eight times less' (says the DLUHC analysis) than the price-fixed £70 per PCN routinely added. This has caused consumer harm in the form of hundreds of thousands of inflated CCJs each year that District Judges have been powerless to prevent. This abusively enhanced 'industry standard' Debt Fee was enabled only by virtue of the self- serving Codes of Practice of the rival parking Trade Bodies, influenced by a Board of parking operators and debt firms who stood to gain from it.

8. In support of the defendant’s contention that the sum sought is unconscionably exaggerated and thus unrecoverable, attention is drawn to paras 98, 100, 193, 198 of ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC67 ('the Beavis case'). Also ParkingEye Ltd v Somerfield Stores Ltd ChD [2011] EWHC 4023(QB) where the parking charge was £75, discounted to £37.50 for prompt payment. Whilst £75 was reasonable, HHJ Hegarty (decision later ratified by the CoA) held in paras 419-428 that unspecified 'admin costs' inflating a parking charge to £135 was not a true reflection of the cost of a template letter and 'would appear to be penal.

9. This claim is unfair and inflated and I have seen no evidence that any 'parking charge' or additional imaginary sum is due in debt or damages. This Claimant now routinely pursues an unconscionable fixed sum added per PCN, despite knowing that the will of Parliament is to ban it. In a new tactic only seen from this Claimant in Summer 2023, the sum claimed under purported 'contract' has been suddenly and disproportionately exaggerated by £25. I believe that sum was unlikely to have been part of the alleged contract on the signs. I take the point that enhancing their claim with a disproportionate and impermissible sum, is double recovery (given they are also claiming 'legal fees') and is reason enough to disallow the claim. The signage could not have formed a contract for a £125 parking charge, as this exceeds the maximum amount allowed by trade bodies, which is capped at £100. I have no knowledge of any contract to pay £100, let alone the inflated sum of £125 and I put the Claimant to strict proof of all their allegations.

 

Thank you!

Coupon-mad

Are you sure £125 is right? Isn't the claim in the first column £130?

Remove all this (BELOW) and replace it with the Consumer Rights Act 2015 paragraphs from much lower down in the template defence:

The Defendant avers that there was no agreement to pay a parking charge or added 'damages' which were not even incurred, let alone quantified in bold, prominent text. This Claimant's lack of large, readable signs are nothing like the yellow & black warnings seen in Beavis, nor do they even meet the basic signage requirements in the current BPA & IPC Joint Code of Practice, which reflects the already statutory requirement for 'prominence' (Consumer Rights Act 2015 - the 'CRA').

 

"Private firms issue roughly 22,000 parking tickets every day, often adopting a labyrinthine system of misleading and confusing signage, opaque appeals services, aggressive debt collection and unreasonable fees designed to extort money from motorists."

4. Despite legal challenges delaying the Code's implementation (marking it as temporarily 'withdrawn' as shown in the link above) a draft Impact Assessment (IA) to finalise the DLUHC Code was recently published on 30th July 2023, which has exposed some industry-gleaned facts about supposed 'Debt Fees'. This is revealed in the Government's analysis, found here: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1171438/Draft_IA_-_Private_Parking_Code_of_Practice_.pdf

5. Paragraphs 4.31 and 5.19 reveal that the parking industry has informed the DLUHC that the true minor cost of what the parking industry likes to call debt recovery or 'enforcement' (pre-action) stage totals a mere £8.42 per recovery case.

6. With that sum in mind, it is clear that the extant claim has been enhanced by an excessive amount, disingenuously added as an extra 'fee'. This is believed to be routinely retained by the litigating legal team and has been claimed in addition to the intended 'legal representatives fees' cap set within the small claims track rules. This conduct has been examined and found - including in a notably detailed judgment by Her Honour Judge Jackson, now a specialist Civil High Court Judge on the Leeds/Bradford circuit - to constitute 'double recovery' and the Defendant takes that position.

7. The new draft IA now demonstrates that the unnecessarily intimidating stage of pre-action letter-chains actually costs 'eight times less' (says the DLUHC analysis) than the price-fixed £70 per PCN routinely added. This has caused consumer harm in the form of hundreds of thousands of inflated CCJs each year that District Judges have been powerless to prevent. This abusively enhanced 'industry standard' Debt Fee was enabled only by virtue of the self- serving Codes of Practice of the rival parking Trade Bodies, influenced by a Board of parking operators and debt firms who stood to gain from it.