Parking Eye Claim Set Aside & Re-Service Deadline

Coupon-mad

They can all be applied to your case which is about a £70 PCN with £25 added.

But you should remove the old paragraphs in the Template about the DLUHC and their draft Impact Assessment, as that's old news. You can see which ones. I haven't looked recently but I will be removing that stuff

Your para 12 muddles two different points. The added £25 'fee' is a separate point to the first sentence so it shouldn't be part of that paragraph. The point you should make is that ParkingEye signs never mention added fees so that add-on is conjured up out of thin air.

Para 13 - remove it. ParkingEye are not subject to FOI law but the NHS Trust is. If you want those figures, use WhatDoTheyKnow to send a FOI to the NHS Trust to cough up this stuff.

BunnyPaws

Thank you @Coupon-mad. I will amend 12 and delete 13. As it all happened over 6 months ago, I cannot for the life of me remember where exactly I parked. Google Earth and Streetview only show the entrance, but it is not the road I remember. Would it help my defence that the original appointment was at a place with absolutely free parking that was hugely advertised? When I was relocated to a place with parking restrictions it was not my choice. I was directed by NHS staff and had to attend wherever they sent me because it was part of my rehabilitation after heart attack. Or is it irrelevant, because court hearing would be about breaching the alleged contract?

The Defendant further states that prior to the relocation, they had researched parking arrangements only for the original appointment location at Health Centre, which offers free parking. The Defendant had no opportunity to research or understand the parking terms and conditions at District Hospital before attending, as the relocation was communicated only on the day  and 10 minutes before the original appointment and was urgent in nature.

At the time, the Defendant did not have access to mobile internet or other resources to check parking information due to financial constraints. The Defendant’s knowledge of NHS ULHT parking policies was limited to information from their family members, who had visited them at LXXX Hospital, where a 30-minute free parking policy applies; this policy is consistent across hospitals in the same NHS Trust, including District Hospital.

The Defendant did not rely solely on signage to understand parking obligations and was focused on arriving on time for cardiology appointment. Accordingly, the Defendant had no fair opportunity to enter into or accept any parking contract at the relocated site.

Coupon-mad

I'd say that is irrelevant.  This is all about whether you breached a term on a sign in the area.

BunnyPaws

I have sent defence to the County Court and ParkingEye on time. Today I received this from the court. It is addressed to me, but I’m not the claimant here. Is it a mistake or do I have to send N180 to ParkingEye and the court? 

Coupon-mad

That's just a copy of what has also been sent to the Claimant. They forgot to cross out the line about the defence being sent! Imagine that line is crossed out and it makes more sense.

You both get a DQ to complete.

See the 'first 8 steps' which covers this.

BunnyPaws

This week, I revisited the site and saw that the wall now has a clear “Staff Permit Holders Only – £70 fine” sign. I don’t remember it being there 8 months ago, or it may have been blocked by a van or other large vehicle. I didn’t knowingly park in a restricted bay.

My defence is already filed and based on not knowingly entering a contract, no clear signage and the fact that I didn’t park in a managed pay-to-park area.

But now I’m panicking and I’d really appreciate views on a few things:

1. If I include a photo of the current sign in my witness bundle, will it undermine my defence, even if I explain I didn’t see it or it may have been installed later?

2. The Particulars of Claim state that their system captured my car entering and leaving and parking without a valid paid parking ticket, not that I parked in a staff-only bay. The sign I saw the other day doesn’t ask to pay, it forbids to park there without permit or £70 charge will apply. Can they now change their legal basis and argue it was a staff bay misuse instead?

3. If this claim fails, could they try to bring another one based on the staff permit issue?

4. Am I now completely screwed? I’m acting honestly and in good faith, but this discovery has shocked me.

Coupon-mad

No.

Is the answer to ALL those qs. 

BunnyPaws

Came back from holiday to find paperwork from court delivered. I have until 29th of August to file Witness statement. Can somebody please proof read it? 

---

1. On 12 October 2024, I attended a hospital ECG appointment following a heart attack in July 2024.

2. My appointment was originally scheduled at XXXX, a facility which provides free parking for patients.

3. Upon arrival at XXXX, I discovered a notice on the entrance door stating that all appointments had, at short notice, been relocated to XXX and District Hospital. I had received no prior notification of this change.

4. I produce as Exhibit 1 a letter from the Hospital confirming that my appointment was relocated on the day due to operational issues, and confirming that I was a genuine patient.

5. I am not local to XXXX and had never previously visited XXXX and District Hospital.

6. Upon arrival at the hospital site, I parked in what appeared to be a residential-style road. There were no visible pay machines and no clear tariff signage from where I parked.

7. Months later, while preparing this witness statement, I discovered that the area was classed as a staff parking area. The signage in that location was:

   • very small, located on a wall, not visible from the driver’s seat,

   • entirely prohibitory in nature (“Staff Only”),

   • containing reference to a £70 charge,

   • illegible print.

8. Such signs do not constitute a contractual offer capable of acceptance. As held in PCM (UK) v Bull & Others [2016] C6GF14F0 (Exhibit 2), prohibitory notices cannot form a parking contract.

9. Inside the hospital, I located the correct department. I was informed by staff that the ECG clinic was delayed in starting because they had not yet gained access to the diagnostics facilities.

10. A staff member reassured me that I should not be concerned about parking, given the unusual relocation and delays affecting both patients and staff that morning.

11. I waited over an hour before being seen. The ECG procedure itself took approximately 10 minutes. I then returned directly to my car and left the site.

12. On or about 26–27 November 2024, I received a “Final Notice” from the Claimant. This was the first correspondence I had received in relation to this matter.

13. The notice alleged that my vehicle was on site for 1 hour 41 minutes, but provided no photographic evidence of the location where my vehicle was actually parked.

14. The Particulars of Claim assert that the vehicle was “captured entering, leaving and … parking.” However, no contemporaneous photographic evidence of the vehicle parked in any bay has been produced.

15. I contacted the hospital via its online contact form to explain the circumstances, but received no reply.

16. In February 2025, after default judgment had been entered, I contacted the PALS team, but again received no support. The hospital’s Facilities Team subsequently confirmed that, had they been informed earlier, they could have assisted in arranging cancellation of the PCN. (Exhibit 3)

---

NHS Guidance and HTM 07-03

1. The NHS Car Parking Principles (2022) (Exhibit 4) state that overstays due to delays in hospital departments “should be waived” and that contracts must be “fair and proportionate.”

2. The Department of Health’s HTM 07-03: NHS Car-Parking Management (Exhibit 6) also recognises that charges should not be applied where delays are caused by hospital operational issues such as overrunning appointments.

3. Where appointments overrun, hospitals and parking operators should communicate so that parking charge notices can be cancelled when valid reasons are provided. In my case, no such arrangements or notifications were in place, and I was issued a charge despite my appointment overrunning for legitimate reasons.

4. My case falls squarely within this category: my delay was caused entirely by (i) the hospital relocating my appointment without notice and (ii) the clinic starting late.

---

Tender Evidence – 100% PCN Revenue

1. I produce as Exhibit 5 the hospital’s tender documentation (commencing 1 August 2025), showing that the parking operator retains 100% of PCN revenue while the Trust retains 100% of tariff income.

2. This arrangement creates a financial model where the operator profits solely from issuing PCNs, incentivising the maximum number of charges and removing any commercial incentive to exercise discretion.

3. This is fundamentally distinguishable from ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67, where the Supreme Court upheld a charge on the basis that ParkingEye managed the car park without tariff income, recovering costs partly via PCNs and partly via turnover incentives for retailers.

4. The Claimant asserts that the charge is enforceable under Beavis. In that case, the Supreme Court found the penalty rule engaged but justified the £85 charge by reference to two legitimate interests:
   (i) efficient turnover of spaces in a free car park serving retail outlets, and
   (ii) funding the scheme where ParkingEye had no other income stream.

5. Neither interest applies here:

• Version A – Tariff Model: This is a pay-to-park hospital site, generating tariff income. Patients are invited to attend for treatment and cannot predict appointment length. The operator’s interest is in encouraging longer stays to increase tariff revenue, not deterring them. The deterrence rationale in Beavis does not apply.

• Version B – PCN-Only Model: Alternatively, the tender (Exhibit 5) shows that the operator retains 100% of PCN revenue. This directly contravenes NHS principles, which require that contracts must not be let on the basis of PCN income alone. This creates an incentive opposite to that approved in Beavis. 

  In either case, the £70 charge is punitive, disproportionate, and fails the Beavis test of legitimate interest.

---

Evidence of Vehicle Location and Burden of Proof

1. The Claimant has not provided any evidence of my vehicle’s location on site. Only ANPR entry/exit images are disclosed.

2. The burden of proof lies with the Claimant under CPR 16.4(1)(a) and CPR 32.2(1)(a). No proof has been adduced showing the vehicle in a patient car park subject to contractual terms.

3. On the balance of probabilities, my vehicle was parked in a staff-only area with purely prohibitory signs. Such notices do not form a contractual licence to park, as confirmed in PCM v Bull (Exhibit 2) and Vine v Waltham Forest [2000] EWCA Civ 106. (Exhibit 7) 

4. In Vine, Roch LJ stated:

“It is clear from the findings of fact that Mrs Vine did not see the sign. In those circumstances, she could not have consented to or voluntarily assumed the risk of her car being clamped.”

1. Likewise, if no contractual terms were visible, I could not be bound by them.

2. Further, the BPA Code of Practice, paragraph 19.3 (Exhibit 8) requires that signs be “conspicuous and legible and written in intelligible language.” The Claimant’s signs do not meet this standard.

3. At the location where I parked, and where any contract could be said to be formed, there were only small signs mounted on the wall, clearly intended for staff only (Exhibit 9). There were no terms and conditions of parking, no tariffs, and no payment instructions displayed. The signs are small, hang low, and could easily have been obscured by other vehicles. They are located on the passenger side of the car, making them effectively invisible from the driver’s side. In short, the signs are not prominent, conspicuous, or legible in any meaningful sense.

4. Even if the Claimant relies on an entrance sign, the law is clear that a contract is formed at the point of parking, not entry. In Thornton v Shoe Lane Parking [1971] 2 QB 163 (Exhibit 10), Denning MR held that contractual terms must be communicated before, or at, the time of contract formation. That principle was not met here.

   Taken together, inadequate signage, failure to provide clear terms and conditions, and lack of NHS-sanctioned communication regarding overrun appointments (HTM 07-03) demonstrate that the operator cannot rely on the claim as reflecting any legitimate interest. Coupled with the financial model revealed in the hospital’s tender (Exhibit 5), where the operator profits solely from PCN revenue, it is clear that the charge is punitive, incentivised by profit rather than any operational or patient-focused purpose, and directly contravenes NHS principles. This reinforces the argument that, unlike in Beavis v ParkingEye Ltd [2015] UKSC 67, there is no legitimate interest justifying enforcement of the £70 charge.

---

Conclusion

1. I did not knowingly enter into any contract with the Claimant. The area where I parked contained only prohibitory signs incapable of forming a contract.

2. The Claimant has failed to prove where my vehicle was parked, has relied on signage that is non-compliant and prohibitory, and has sought to enforce a charge contrary to both NHS guidance and the penalty rule.

3. For all the reasons set out above, I respectfully request that the Court dismiss the claim.

Le_Kirk

Months later, while preparing this witness statement, I discovered that the area was classed as a staff parking area. The signage in that location was:
very small, located on a wall, not visible from the driver’s seat,
entirely prohibitory in nature (“Staff Only”),
containing reference to a £70 charge,
illegible print.

If the signage was not visible, how did you read it?  If you went back and investigated after receiving the N1SDT claim form, then say so for the judge.  Did you mean "containing reference to a £70 charge" or "containing NO reference to a £70 charge"?

BunnyPaws

When I parked in October, I did not see any signs along the wall, and there were several other vehicles parked there as well. At that time, due to relocation, all technicians and cardiac outpatients were moving between the original site and the hospital,  so the area was quite busy.

When my relative later revisited, the site was much quieter. No vans were parked along the wall, which allowed them to clearly see and capture the signs. They appeared new, so I cannot say with certainty whether they were there in October last year.

In the photo with a single car, that is the exact spot where I parked in October. I do not recall seeing the white and red sign at that time. I asked a family member to take the photos during a hospital visit about a month ago, but unfortunately, they did not capture the signs clearly.
the red and white sign is prohibitory and probably says staff car park and fine £70 and no way to pay. Parking eye claim they captured my vehicle entering leaving and parking without payment, but if there are no signs telling how to pay and how much to pay where I parked, there’s no contract? As in Bull case?