CCJ from Parkingeye. Claim form not received as driver resides abroad. Can I set aside?

Le_Kirk

You are correct nothing is due on a weekend or a bank holiday, so Tuesday 7th April. Just use the Template defence as your starting position and make sure you refute the POC. Send it by email to your local court. You will have to add the statement of truth.

Whiteorchid

Hello again, so I'm working on my defence, picking and choosing relevant parts from the Template that I feel are appropriate for me. Now working on para 3, I assume I only need to address their comments in the PoC. Where I will confirm that I appealed to POPLA which was refused etc, but will deny the allegation of parking without paying. Do I need to deny anything else? There is nothing mentioned about breaching any terms and conditions, or am I missing something?

I have added an image of my PoC for quick reference and have shown my rough draft so far.

Thank you in advance.

MY DRAFT DEFENCE IN PROGRESS…

DEFENCE

The facts in this defence come from the defendants own knowledge and honest belief for reasonable grounds to defend the claim. It is admitted that the defendant is the keeper and driver of vehicle XYZ and attended "Car Park At Woolstaplers, Chichester, PO19 1QL on 05/04/2024.

1. The Claimant’s sparse case lacks specificity and does not comply with CPR 16.4, 16PD3 or 16PD7, failing to 'state all facts necessary for the purpose of formulating a complete cause of action'……. As per Template

2. The allegation(s) are vague and liability is denied for the sum claimed, or at all.

3. The defendant denies the allegation that they entered and left the site and parked without payment. Payment was made and proof of this can be shown. The defendant confirms that they appealed to POPLA and this was rejected.

4. As per template

5. DVLA keeper data etc, from template (do I need this for my case?).

6. As per template

7. As per template

8. As per template

9. As per template

10. As per template

STATEMENT OF TRUTH….etc

Coupon-mad

You need the extra bit about the added £25 because that is not on the signs.

Try searching the forum for this and look for NEWEST results (only ParkingEye threads):

Defence new tactic £25

Car1980

Notorious site. It's a phone signal black spot as well.

This Popla decision might help:

For context, the Woolstaplers car park in Chichester is a single level underground car park with no external signage, apart from the blue ‘P’ signs. Access is via a two-way ramp, with no opportunity to review parking policy or cost before you hit the ANPR at the bottom of the ramp. We entered, thinking it was a public pay-and-display. There are no machines for payment and we did not have the necessary parking app on the phone, so chose to leave and park elsewhere. Whole process took 5 minutes and therefore is covered by BPA code of conduct consideration period (section 13.1). 

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 

POPLA assessment and decision

21/02/2023

Decision

Successful

Assessor Name

Amy Smith

Location:      Chichester Woolstaplers underground car park

Company:     Parking Eye Ltd

Assessor summary of operator case

The operator issued the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) for not purchasing a valid pay and display ticket.

Assessor summary of your case

The appellant has raised the following points from their grounds of appeal: • They had clear intention to park and approached what they believe to be a public car park, however did not notice any signs suggesting it was private land. They mention the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice section 19.1 through to 19.4 as the signs were not visibly noticeable. • They say they parked the vehicle and made reasonable effort to pay, realising that this was not a normal pay and display car park and saw no simple means of payment available, so decided not to park or any mention of online payment facilities and did not have an app installed on their phone. They say they returned to the vehicle and left. • They mention section 13.1 of the BPA Code of Practice. They say a contract was not entered, no parking event occurred and no charge for non-payment can be applied. After reviewing the operator’s evidence, the appellant reiterates their grounds of appeal expanding considerably on signs. The appellant has provided a copy of the BPA Code of Practice, their appeal and rejection letter, the Department for Transport guidance, a zoomed in image of the operator’s sign and several images of the site, as evidence to support their appeal. This evidence will be considered in making our determination.

Assessor supporting rational for decision

When entering a private car park, it is the expectation of the motorist to comply with the terms and conditions. The terms and conditions of the particular site must be stipulated on the signs displayed within the car park to allow a motorist to decide if they wish to accept the contract or not. The operator has provided images of the signage laid out at the site. The terms and conditions of the site state: “Up to 1 hour £0.90…Parking tariffs apply 8am – 6pm, 7 days a week…Failure to comply with the terms & conditions will result in a Parking Charge of: £100.” The operator has provided photographic evidence of the vehicle entering the site at 13:47:23 and exiting at 13:53:15, totalling a stay of five minutes spent at site. The operator maintains a list of vehicles that have made a payment. The operator has provided a copy of this list that shows that when searching for the appellant’s vehicle it was not registered against a payment on the date so issued the PCN. Upon review of the evidence provided it appears a contract between the driver and the operator was formed, and the operator’s case file suggests the contract has been breached. I will consider the appellant’s grounds of appeal to determine if they dispute the validity of the PCN. They had clear intention to park and approached what they believe to be a public car park, however did not notice any signs suggesting it was private land. They mention the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice section 19.1 through to 19.4 as the signs were not visibly noticeable. They say they parked the vehicle and made reasonable effort to pay, realising that this was not a normal pay and display car park and saw no simple means of payment available, so decided not to park or any mention of online payment facilities and did not have an app installed on their phone. They say they returned to the vehicle and left. They mention section 13.1 of the BPA Code of Practice. They say a contract was not entered, no parking event occurred and no charge for non-payment can be applied. The burden of proof lies with the operator in order to prove that the PCN was issued correctly. The appellant’s vehicle was on site for five minutes and during this time they assessed the signs in order to see how they could pay. As they could not locate a suitable payment method to cover their stay they left. The British Parking Association (BPA) monitors how operators treat motorists and has its own Code of Practice setting out the criteria operators must meet. Section 13.1 of the Code requires parking operators to allow the driver a period of 5 minutes to read the signage and decide if they are going to stay or go if the site is one where parking is permitted. Having reviewed the requirements of section 13.1 of the BPA Code of Practice above, I am satisfied that the appellant must be granted a consideration period in this instance. The appellant rejected the contract as they could not locate a compatible payment method as such. I am not satisfied they gained utility from those five minutes. I note they have mentioned other grounds of appeal, however, having been persuaded to allow the appeal on this basis, I have not needed to consider the other grounds further. Upon consideration of the above, I am not satisfied that the PCN has been issued correctly and I must allow the appeal.

Whiteorchid

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81951124#Comment_81951124

Thank you for your thoughts and feedback, and yes it is a notorious site, well known on social media for catching out motorists, due to being an app only payment system yet no network coverage. There doesn't seem to be any legislation or law that states the carpark must provide a working payment system on site!

Unfortunately for me, unlike your situation, the fact that I paid for parking (eventually, which took 14 minutes) due to helping my elderly mother up the steep flight of stairs and walking quite far before getting phone coverage. Once paid it is considered you have accepted and entered the contract. If I had known what I know now from this amazing site and helpful advice, I'm sure this could have been appealed and won at the beginning. The days and hours and sleepless nights this has caused me! I'm seriously out of pocket now for something I am innocent of, but I am determined to seek justice to the bitter end! It is such a scam!

Coupon-mad

"I'm seriously out of pocket now"

Are you? Defending is free.

Whiteorchid

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81951199#Comment_81951199

Oh yes I'm definitely sending in my Defence, deadline is Tuesday 4pm!! Will post my wording in a short while.. Yes this bit is free but sadly out of pocket by paying for the N244 application etc.

Coupon-mad

Oh I misread the Claim as a March 2026 claim. So it was from a year ago and this is the one where you didn't get your costs awarded because you forgot to ask at the hearing, I think? Onwards & upwards.

If your elderly mother has ANY medical conditions that slow her down, make much of this in para 3 of this defence. Equality Act 2010 applies.

Whiteorchid

Still working on this Defence, just want it to be spot on if possible…

Would really appreciate some feedback please on my para 3 using the Template.

DEFENCE

The facts in this defence come from the defendants own knowledge and honest belief for reasonable grounds to defend the claim. It is admitted that the defendant is the keeper and driver of vehicle XYZ and attended "Car Park At Woolstaplers, Chichester, PO19 1QL on 05/04/2024.

1. As per template

2. The allegation(s) are vague and liability is denied for the sum claimed, or at all.

3. Particulars of Claim - The defendant denies the allegation that they entered and left the site and parked without payment. Payment was made and proof of this has been shown. 

The defendant confirms that they appealed to POPLA and this was rejected.  

The defendant appealed submitting proof of payment, (which was not disputed by ParkingEye), and reported that payment could not be made immediately due to the payment system not operating within the underground carpark. As well as assisting an elderly passenger with Dementia and age related mobility issues.

Paragraph 16.1 “Accessible Parking” of the BPA states:

“Where parking is being provided as a service, you need to have regard to the obligations placed upon you by the Equality Act 2010 and the Services, Public functions and Associations: Statutory Code of Practice, issued by the Equality and Human Rights (EHRC), in particular to make reasonable adaptations to accommodate disabled people”…

“This might be appropriate for recognising the needs of people with limited physical mobility, but adaptations are not purely physical - people with other disabilities might reasonably need longer consideration period and grace periods, more time to access payment machinery, and other ways to pay where payment is required. Recognition of these obligations is important in the consideration of appeals”.

A parking ticket had been purchased via the App for the period of parking, of which no evidence was given in the PCN, and thus the defendant did not understand the reason for the notice and was not able to defend the claim appropriately in the appeal process with POPLA.

The defendant invites the court to strike out or dismiss the claim under the rule 3.4 (2) (a) of Practice direction 3A as having not set out a concise statement of the nature of the claim or disclosing reasonable grounds or particulars for bringing the claim. District Judge Cross of St. Albans County Court on 20/09/06 struck out a claim due to their ‘Robo claim’ particulars being incoherent, failing to comply with CPR 16.4 and ‘providing no facts’.

Paras from the Template will be 4,6,7,8,9,10 if I have understood them correctly!

Thank you so much

Whiteorchid

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81951226#Comment_81951226

Thank you yes I think I have just added a post which includes this, at the same time as yours!