Parking Eye Claim Set Aside & Re-Service Deadline

BunnyPaws

I had CCJ in default from Parking Eye which was set aside on 21/05/2025. The court ordered Parking Eye to re-serve the claim form and particulars by 4 pm on 18/06/2025 and that I should file my defence by 4 pm on 02/07/2025.

On 07/06/2025, I received a “reference copy” of the claim, but it is not an official court-issued claim form. There is no MCOL password and proper Civil business centre address, so I can’t file a defence online or by post yet. Does it mean that Parking Eye are definitely going to re-serve? Why are they sending an absolutely useless copy with the date of original claim? 

Should I:

• Wait and look out for a proper claim served from the Civil Business Centre?

• Start preparing a defence now even without the official claim form?

  I’m aware of the Newbies thread and will use it to draft my defence

Thanks 

Gr1pr

The CNBC arent involved,  so you respond by emailing your defence to parking eye and to the court, not mcol 

BunnyPaws

I’m confused. So, this reference copy means parking eye re-served? Do I send my defence to business centre or the district court that granted set aside? With parking eye, what email can I use? 

ChirpyChicken

You send it to the court that heard the setaside
enforcement@parkingeye.co.uk

Gr1pr

BunnyPaws said:

I’m confused. So, this reference copy means parking eye re-served? Do I send my defence to business centre or the district court that granted set aside? With parking eye, what email can I use? 

No need to be confused 

In your case none of the process explained in the defence template thread applies to you, because eventually the cases all end up with the defendant dealing with their local civil court,  which is where you appear to be 

So if your local court was Newcastle or Birmingham,  or wherever,  you applied there for the set aside,  which was granted to you, so you carry on dealing with that actual court 

Therefore the original claim is back I'm play, but at your local civil court,  the CNBC are not involved,  never are once a local civil court is dealing with it , because the CNBC is an early days clearing house,  an office that deals with cases early on, then transfers them to a nominated civil court 

So you have to look at the announcements with the viewpoint of

What do I send to the local court under normal circumstances   ?  Plus what was I ordered to do at the set aside ?

Answer,  you submit your defence,  because it was never processed by the CNBC,  it never happened 

You submit your Witness Statement plus Exhibits bundle to your local civil court as well,  as does everyone else 

The claimant was ordered to serve you with a copy of the claim form,  because the CNBC didnt get it to you, for whatever the reason was in your set aside application,  so they have done 

So now you submit your defence  + your Witness Statement + your Exhibits,  so that the local court can continue with the process in a more usual manner 

Your confusion is caused because you seem to believe that the CNBC process starts all over again,  but it doesn't,  you must deal with your local civil court plus the claimant or their lawyers 

So if Parking Eye are using their in house lawyers,  use their litigation@ email address,  plus your local court also has email addresses too, so search for both

Coupon-mad

There is no MCOL password and proper Civil business centre address, so I can’t file a defence online or by post yet. Does it mean that Parking Eye are definitely going to re-serve? Why are they sending an absolutely useless copy with the date of original claim?

Because that is correct!

MCOL aren't involved so all you needed was a copy of the claim particulars. You have that.

Don't try to send anything to the CNBC now or you'll breach your LOCAL court's order.

The PCN wasn't £95 (it was £70, I can tell) so make sure your defence covers that. Search the forum for:

£25 defence new tactic parking Summer 

Learn from other Parking-Eye in-house cases like yours where £25 was added that is never on the signs so wasn't part of the contract.

BunnyPaws

Thank you all very much. 

I drafted para 3 of my defence. It looks too long. I’m not sure my communication with the Trust is relevant, although in their final letter they said, had they been informed sooner, more help would have been available. 
3. The Defendant admits being the registered keeper and driver of the vehicle on 12/10/2024 and attending a pre-booked NHS appointment, which had been relocated on the day from Health Centre to District Hospital. Upon arriving at the Health Centre, the Defendant was informed via notice on the door that all appointments and staff had been moved to the Hospital.

As the Defendant is not local to the area, they drove around seeking the hospital and parked on a public back road adjacent to the hospital grounds. This road appeared residential and had no marked bays, yellow lines, signage or pay-and-display terminals. No contract was knowingly entered into, and the Defendant denies parking in a designated pay-to-park area.

At the hospital, the Defendant asked NHS staff twice about parking and was told not to worry. The relocated clinical team took approximately 20–30 minutes to set up. The appointment, normally lasting 5–10 minutes, was significantly delayed due to double-booking and backlog caused by the relocation, with the Defendant ultimately in the hospital for around 1 hour and 30 minutes. These delays were outside the Defendant’s control and arose from urgent NHS operational circumstances.

The Particulars of Claim state that the vehicle was captured by ANPR system entering and exiting the hospital site. This does not establish that a parking contract was offered, seen, accepted or breached. A vehicle passing through a site is not evidence of liability. The Claimant has provided no photographic evidence showing the Defendant’s vehicle was parked in breach of any terms, nor is there a timestamped image showing it in a managed or chargeable space.

The Defendant asserts that no enforceable contract was formed. The alleged terms were not displayed clearly or prominently from where the car was parked. The signage, if any, fails the required standards for contractual formation, including those under common law and the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice. No signs were seen on approach or en route to the hospital entrance. The Defendant reasonably believed the parking area to be unrestricted and denies the existence of any “relevant obligation.”

Furthermore, the Defendant made reasonable efforts to resolve the matter by contacting United Hospitals NHS Trust, the landowner. However, the Trust refused to engage or investigate the situation, despite their legal authority over the land and their contract with The Claimant. The Trust's response failed to address exceptional mitigating circumstances and was inconsistent with public expectations of a healthcare provider.

The Defendant received no initial notice and was given no opportunity to appeal or resolve the matter amicably before court action was taken. Mail was delayed or misdelivered during a period of widespread disruption (including illness in the Defendant’s household and postal delays due to Royal Mail staffing shortages). These circumstances were accepted by the Court when granting a set-aside on 21/05/2025. The Defendant acted promptly and honestly upon discovering the default CCJ.

3.1 Further, in a new tactic only seen from this Claimant after Summer 2023, the sum claimed under purported 'contract' is disproportionately exaggerated by £25 which was not on the signs.  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.

Coupon-mad

That's good if you renumber all those paragraphs then add the rest of the Template Defence.

However:

From the Template, I'd remove the stuff about the DLUHC draft IA - it's getting old and I will be removing it from the template - and remove the staff about 'exaggerated claim' because your last para above covers it more specifically for a case with £25 added).

Instead, because they accused you of failing to pay a tariff, add and edit this to suit (below) courtesy of @troublemaker22

...but re-number it to come AFTER your paras (which also ALL need numbers):

1. The breach complained of is that the driver of the Defendant allegedly failed to pay the parking tariff of £[] specified in the Claimant’s onsite notices for a stay of up to [] [minutes][hour(s)].

2. The Supreme Court considered the application of the rule against penalties in precisely this situation in the leading case of  ParkingEye Limited v Beavis ([2015] UKSC67):

The true test [of whether a term is a penalty] is whether the impugned provision is a secondary obligation which imposes a detriment on the contract-breaker out of all proportion to any legitimate interest of the innocent party in the enforcement of the primary obligation (per Lords Neuberger and Sumption at paragraph 32).

3. The term at issue in this case is the one imposing a secondary obligation to pay £70 for breach of the primary obligation to pay the tariff.

4. The Supreme Court held that the £85 parking charge in Beavis was a secondary obligation that engaged the penalty rule but was saved by the special circumstance of the parking arrangements in that case:

[T]he £85 charge had two main objects. One was to manage the efficient use of parking space in the interests of the retail outlets, and of the users of those outlets who wish to find spaces in which to park their cars. This was to be achieved by deterring commuters or other long-stay motorists from occupying parking spaces for long periods or engaging in other inconsiderate parking practices, thereby reducing the space available to other members of the public, in particular the customers of the retail outlets. The other purpose was to provide an income stream to enable Parking Eye to meet the costs of operating the scheme and make a profit from its services, without which those services would not be available. (Lord Neuberger and Lord Sumption at paragraph 98).

In our opinion, while the penalty rule is plainly engaged, the £85 charge is not a penalty. The reason is that although ParkingEye was not liable to suffer loss as a result of overstaying motorists, it had a legitimate interest in charging them which extended beyond the recovery of any loss.

The scheme in operation here (and in many similar car parks) is that the landowner authorises ParkingEye to control access to the car park and to impose the agreed charges, with a view to managing the car park in the interests of the retail outlets, their customers and the public at large. That is an interest of the landowners because (i) they receive a fee from ParkingEye for the right to operate the scheme, and (ii) they lease sites on the retail park to various retailers, for whom the availability of customer parking was a valuable facility. It is an interest of ParkingEye, because it sells its services as the managers of such schemes and meets the costs of doing so from charges for breach of the terms (and if the scheme was run directly by the landowners, the analysis would be no different). As we have pointed out, deterrence is not penal if there is a legitimate interest in influencing the conduct of the contracting party which is not satisfied by the mere right to recover damages for breach of contract. (ibid at paragraph 99)

5. Those purposes are not served by the secondary term in this case.  The Claimant charges motorists for parking at this area of the Hospital car park, from which it receives an income stream. There is no purpose of deterring motorists from occupying parking spaces for long periods (and patients are invited to attend their appointments at hospitals).  On the contrary, the legitimate commercial interests of the operator are served by encouraging motorists to stay, and pay, for long periods. In short, the Beavis exception cannot apply to failure to pay the tariff in a pay-to-park car park and the secondary obligation in the present case is, therefore, a penalty and unenforceable. 

Coupon-mad

You should also add something about the NHS Car Parking Principles (search the forum) because patients whose appointments overrun are protected.

BunnyPaws

I amended my defence and included quotes from NHS guidelines, numbered paragraphs etc. I removed location, because Parking Lie can be here I am not sure about paragraph 13, if it is suitable for the defence, but I have never heard or read on here that PE cancelled charges at hospital car parks as a result of successful appeals to them or to POPLA. Pals always had to intervene

3. The Defendant admits being the registered keeper and driver of the vehicle on 12/10/2024 and attending a pre-booked NHS appointment, which had been relocated on the day from  Health Centre to   District Hospital. Upon arriving at the  Health Centre, the Defendant was informed via notice on the door that all appointments and staff had been moved to the District Hospital.

4. As the Defendant is not local to the area, they drove around seeking the hospital and parked on a public back road adjacent to the hospital grounds. This road appeared residential and had no marked bays, yellow lines, signage or pay-and-display terminals. No contract was knowingly entered into and the Defendant denies parking in a designated pay-to-park area.

5. At the hospital, the Defendant asked NHS staff twice about parking and was told not to worry. The relocated clinical team took approximately 20–30 minutes to set up. The appointment, normally lasting 5–10 minutes, was significantly delayed due to double-booking and backlog caused by the relocation, with the Defendant ultimately in the hospital for around 1 hour and 30 minutes. These delays were outside the Defendant’s control and arose from urgent NHS operational circumstances.

6. The Particulars of Claim state that the vehicle was captured by ANPR system entering and exiting the hospital site. This does not establish that a parking contract was offered, seen, accepted or breached. A vehicle passing through a site is not evidence of liability. The Claimant has provided no photographic evidence showing the Defendant’s vehicle was parked in breach of any terms, nor is there a timestamped image showing it in a managed or chargeable space.

7. The Defendant asserts that no enforceable contract was formed. The alleged terms were not displayed clearly or prominently from where the car was parked. The signage, if any, fails the required standards for contractual formation, including those under common law and the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice. No signs were seen on approach or en route to the hospital entrance. The Defendant reasonably believed the parking area to be unrestricted and denies the existence of any “relevant obligation.”

8. Furthermore, the Defendant made reasonable efforts to resolve the matter by contacting United Lincolnshire Hospitals NHS Trust, the lawful occupier of the land and the organisation responsible for overseeing parking enforcement via its contractor, the Claimant. According to guidance issued by NHS England, Trusts are expected to act fairly and reasonably when patients overstay due to treatment delays or other circumstances beyond their control:

(a).The Department of Health's Health Technical Memorandum 07-03: NHS Car-Parking Management: Environment and Sustainability – Health Technical Memorandum 07-03 (HTM 07-03), 2015, states in Section 3.4 (page 9): “This can involve parking officers contacting the NHS organisation to gain information on overrun appointments, the NHS organisation contacting the parking team to advise of overrun appointments and parking charge notices getting cancelled when valid reasons are provided.” This makes clear that the Trust is expected to take an active role in identifying and preventing inappropriate Parking Charge Notices either by notifying the contractor proactively or by cancelling charges where valid explanations are provided.

(b). Further guidance is provided by NHS England’s 'NHS patient, visitor and staff car parking principles' (March 2022), under the section Voluntary elements, which advises: “Additional charges should only be imposed where reasonable and should be waived when overstaying is beyond the driver’s control (such as when treatment takes longer than planned…).”

9. Despite these clear expectations, the Trust failed to act on either of the above principles. They did not alert the Claimant of the clinical relocation or the risk of appointment overruns and when contacted by the Defendant, they declined to investigate or support cancellation. This response was inconsistent with both national NHS parking policy and the public duty of a healthcare provider to act reasonably, particularly where the circumstances involve a medical appointment disrupted by internal operational decisions.

10. The Defendant received no initial notice and was given no opportunity to appeal or resolve the matter amicably before court action was taken. Mail was delayed or misdelivered during a period of widespread disruption (including illness in the Defendant’s household and postal delays due to Royal Mail staffing shortages). These circumstances were accepted by the Court when granting a set-aside on 21/05/2025. The Defendant acted promptly and honestly upon discovering the default CCJ.

11. The Defendant further submits that the Claimant's conduct is contrary to the NHS car parking guidance issued by the Department of Health and Social Care. These principles expressly state that: “Contracts should not be let on any basis that incentivises additional charges, for example ‘income from parking charge notices only’,” and that NHS organisations “are responsible for the actions of private contractors who run car parks on their behalf.” It is submitted that the addition of £25 to the principal charge, absent any evidence this sum was prominently disclosed on signage, demonstrates an attempt to profit from penalty charges in a manner inconsistent with these standards.

12. Such practices undermine the expectation of fair treatment, particularly in the context of healthcare facilities and amount to an unreasonable and unrecoverable sum under the guise of contractual damages. The Claimant is put to strict proof that this £25 charge was clearly communicated to the Defendant at the material time, in accordance with the BPA Code of Practice and the principles of transparency and fairness set out in both consumer law and NHS contractual policy. 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.

13. The Defendant requests that the Claimant discloses, for the avoidance of doubt and in the interests of fairness, the following information relating to Parking Charge Notices issued at car parks of United Hospitals NHS Trust over the past 24 months:

(a) The number of PCNs cancelled solely at the discretion of the Claimant following appeal or mitigation submissions;
(b) The number of PCNs cancelled following direct intervention, request or escalation by the Landowner, United Hospitals NHS Trust.

This data is relevant to the issue of fairness and proportionality in enforcement, particularly within a healthcare environment where NHS parking guidance explicitly requires fair treatment of patients and visitors. The Defendant asserts that a pattern of routine refusal by the Claimant to cancel PCNs without landowner pressure would support the argument that the Claimant’s enforcement practices are not reasonable, independent or aligned with public service expectations. The Court is respectfully invited to consider this when assessing the conduct of the Claimant and the context of the alleged breach.

BunnyPaws

Also, could you please tell me which paragraphs I should replace with @troublemaker22's ? 
"Exaggerated Claim and 'market failure' currently being addressed by UK Government" section in the template? starting from number 6 all the way to 20? Number 6 is not applicable, because PE claim £95? I was just reading the template and some of the paragraphs cannot be applied to my case.