ParkingEye court claim

FGLLA

Hi All,

Could you please help check a Defence to a ParkingEye court claim?
I was not the driver, a ticket was purchased for 2 hours, however, there is an overstay of around 17 mins (which has not been mentioned in the PoC). POFA also not mentioned in PoC.

Background:
claimant Parkingeye
issue date 19th May 2025
AOS : 3rd June

PoC:

Claim for monies outstanding from the Defendant in relation to a parking charge (ref: XXX) issued on 30/01/2025. The signage clearly displayed throughout Jumpin Fun, Derby, 8 Siddals Road, Derby, DE1 2PY 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 XXXXXX entering and leaving the site on XXXXXX and parking without paying to park. The defendant had to opportunity to appeal to POPLA, the independant appeals service for parking on private land, but this has not been taken.

FGLLA

Standard Draft Defence plus the following:

The facts known to the Defendant:

5. 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 but not the driver at the time of the allegation.

 

6. The defendant first became aware of the allegation upon receiving a “PCN” through the post. The defendant was not the driver at the time of each allegation, as should be visible in the pictures recorded via the ANPR cameras. After speaking to the driver at the time of the allegation, the defendant learned that the driver had parked in a car park and a parking permit was in fact purchased as shown below.

 

7.  Referring to the woefully incoherent POC:

7.1. Paragraph 1 is denied. The Defendant is not indebted to the Claimant. This is a new parking roboclaim bulk litigator who have jumped on the parking gravy train with not even a veil of facts to bulk out their claims. This one does not even get off the ground. The boilerplate POC here is far worse than seen in Chan or Akande (both appeal cases linked above) and this appears to rely upon a scattergun Modus Operandi, disingenuously set up to positively seek default judgments by taking advantage of the MCOL system where no human checks any POC.

7.2. No precise time for the alleged event is given, which makes it impossible for the Defendant to respond.

 

7.3. The Claimant alleges the Defendant parked without paying, however, a parking permit was purchased by the driver as previously shown.

7.4. This bulk 'parking roboclaim' firm has not even bothered to check/state whether the Claimant is relying upon 'keeper liability' under the POFA 2012 Schedule 4, or not (an Act which sets requirements for notices and which caps the amount recoverable from a keeper, which would not allow a sum of £125). Some parking firms can invoke keeper liability - but not always - and that right is dependent upon full compliance with Schedule 4. Who knows the basis of liability claimed by saying that the Defendant is pursued as 'the driver or keeper'? The POC does not elucidate.

7.5.  Liability for any sum at all is denied. The Claimant is put to strict proof of all of the issues raised in this defence, in the unlikely event that the allocating Judge does not strike out this claim.

Coupon-mad

ParkingEye are not a new bulk litigator!

Bin that and just use the Template Defence where your facts go in as paragraph 3, which must include a straight denial of the allegation in the POC: "parking without paying to park".

1505grandad

"Could you please help check a Defence to a ParkingEye court claim?"

Just checking  -  in house claim by PE so no solicitor involved?

FGLLA

1505grandad said:

"Could you please help check a Defence to a ParkingEye court claim?"

Just checking  -  in house claim by PE so no solicitor involved?

I believe so, the only letters I've had are from the "PE Legal Dept"

FGLLA

Coupon-mad said:

ParkingEye are not a new bulk litigator!

Bin that and just use the Template Defence where your facts go in as paragraph 3, which must include a straight denial of the allegation in the POC: "parking without paying to park".

Many Thanks.Revised Defence below:

(Standard Template)......However, the vehicle is recognised and it is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper.

 

3. The defendant first became aware of the allegation upon receiving a “PCN” through the post. The defendant was not the driver at the time of the allegation, as should be visible in the pictures recorded via the ANPR camera. After speaking to the driver at the time of the allegation, the defendant learned that the driver had parked in a car park and a parking permit was in fact purchased, shown below, contrary to the Claimant’s allegation.

 

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:.......(Standard Template)

Coupon-mad

No you need to quote the allegation in the POC and specifically deny it, hence why I wrote certain words in my reply.

Also search the forum for this as you need to copy from other ParkingEye in-house defences:

£25 impermissible signs parking

Coupon-mad

How much is the amount in the FIRST COLUMN in the right? £130? £125?

FGLLA

Coupon-mad said:

How much is the amount in the FIRST COLUMN in the right? £130? £125?

First row states:
Amount Claimed: £125


Though total amount: £210

Coupon-mad

OK, do the search I suggested and copy the standard paragraph used by others recently.

FGLLA

Coupon-mad said:

No you need to quote the allegation in the POC and specifically deny it, hence why I wrote certain words in my reply.

Also search the forum for this as you need to copy from other ParkingEye in-house defences:

£25 impermissible signs parking

ok, found a recent one and added it in:

3. The defendant first became aware of the allegation upon receiving a “PCN” through the post. The defendant was not the driver at the time of the allegation, as should be visible in the pictures recorded via the ANPR camera. After speaking to the driver at the time of the allegation, the defendant learned that the driver had parked in a car park and a parking permit was in fact purchased, shown below.

3.1 Responding to the POC, “Parking without paying to park” is denied.

3.2 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.