London Aquatics Centre - Parking Eye - Urgent Defence

Kaziyyah

Umkomaas said:

Can you confirm that this is PE pursuing you direct, rather than having DCB Legal involved?

Yes it is PE directly pursuing me

Kaziyyah

Car1980 said:

Take any reference to POFA out of your defence as they are not making a claim referencing it.

Ignore POPLA - of absolutely no relevance.

Does anyone know if there are any adjusted defence templates that has been used in a case like mine?

Gr1pr

Parking Eye in house claims can be different,  but they don't seem to pursue many in house, usually it's via DCB Legal 

Check this one out

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6599278/parking-eye-court-claim-in-house/p1

Kaziyyah

Gr1pr said:

Parking Eye in house claims can be different,  but they don't seem to pursue many in house, usually it's via DCB Legal 

Check this one out

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6599278/parking-eye-court-claim-in-house/p1

I've messaged on the forum asking to see his defence. Sounds like they took him right to the last minute. 

But what I do not understand is that I have proof of payment on my wallet. Why do PE think they will win this case? I would think it is pretty cut and dry no?.

Kaziyyah

guys - I have just had the email thread from london aquatics centre and this was PE's response to the centre requesting them to cancel the PCN: (I am actually in shock at the blatant lies):

Good Morning,

 

Without Prejudice (Save as to Costs)

 

Thank you for your email regarding the above referenced Parking Charge.

 

As previously advised, we note that you have requested that this Parking Charge be cancelled but unfortunately, having reviewed the case, we can confirm that this matter has now progressed and a county court claim has been issued to recover the outstanding amount. In this instance, the motorist did not contact us regarding the Parking Charge upon receipt and did not lodge an appeal with our dedicated appeals team. This was despite 4 letters being issued before legal action.

 

As a court claim has now been issued, we have incurred additional costs in the sum of £85. These are in addition to the outstanding Parking Charge. In total the outstanding sum claimed is £215.

 

However, in an effort to bring this matter to a conclusion without further cost to either party and bearing in mind the request you have made, ParkingEye would be prepared to accept £100 in settlement of this claim. We can confirm that we contacted the motorist on 22/10/2025 with this offer and have asked that payment be made within 14 days.

 

Please note that should the motorist not wish to make payment, then they will need to follow the instructions provided with the claim form to either defend the claim or admit the claim in full/part. In default of the court receiving a response, a default judgment may be entered against them.

 

Yours Sincerely,

 

Parkingeye Enforcement Team

Kaziyyah

WHAT DO I DO SOMEONE HELP!

Kaziyyah

@Coupon-mad i need your expertise in writing a defence for this madness......

Kaziyyah

Does this look ok?

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'. The Defendant is unable to understand with certainty the allegation or the heads of cost. The Defendant denies liability for the inflated sum claimed, or at all.

It is difficult to respond but these facts come from the Defendant's own knowledge and honest belief. To form a contract, there must be a prominent offer, acceptance, and valuable consideration. The Defendant avers that this Claimant generally uses unclear and unfair terms/notices. Pursuant to s62 of the Consumer Rights Act 2015 (‘the CRA’), the Court has a duty to consider the test of fairness, particularly concerning the prominence of terms and consumer notices. The Claimant is put to strict proof with contemporaneous photographs and the Defendant reserves the right to amend the defence if details of the contract are provided.

The Alleged Contravention and Landowner Intervention

1. The Defendant denies that a contravention occurred on 16/06/2025, as alleged. The Defendant regularly parks in this car park and holds proof of payment for each visit. On the date in question, payment was successfully made and accepted via the Defendant’s iPhone wallet.

2. Any alleged non-payment is due to a technical fault in the car park’s payment system, which is also known to frequently fail to issue receipts.

3. The Defendant did not appeal to POPLA as the leisure centre manager (the Landowner's representative) assured that the Parking Charge Notice would be cancelled, and that assurance was relied upon in good faith. The Claimant's refusal to cancel this PCN, despite the explicit request of their principal (the Landowner), demonstrates that the Claimant lacks standing/authority and is pursuing the claim primarily to recover inflated litigation costs.

DVLA registered keeper data is only supplied on the basis of prior written agreement from the landowner. The Claimant is put to strict proof of their standing to sue under a landowner contract and the terms/scope and dates/details of the parking management service.

In order to impose a parking charge, there must be: (i) a strong 'legitimate interest' extending beyond mere compensation for loss, and (ii) 'adequate notice' of any relevant obligation(s) and of the charge itself. This charge is a penalty and ParkingEye v Beavis [2015] UKSC67 is distinguished. Attention is drawn to the decision in ParkingEye Ltd v Somerfield Stores Ltd ChD [2011] EWHC 4023(QB) (unaffected by Beavis), which held that inflating the charge with 'admin costs' was disproportionate and appeared to be penal.

The claim for inflated sums is contrary to the aims of the Parking (Code of Practice) Act 2019 and the direction of government policy, which seeks to curb the unjust enrichment of the parking industry and debt recovery agents (DRAs) and to ban DRA fees. The added sums are not part of the parking-related charges and are indicative of market failure.

The delay in litigation has made retrieving material documents/evidence impossible for the Defendant, which is highly prejudicial. The Defendant seeks standard witness costs (CPR 27.14) and a finding of unreasonable conduct by the Claimant, opening up further costs (CPR 46.5).

The court’s attention is drawn to the common outcome in bulk parking claims, of an unreasonably late Notice of Discontinuance. The Defendant reserves the right to contend that costs should be awarded if the Claimant has behaved unreasonably (r.27.14(2)(dg)).

doubledotcom

If you never responded to anything, which means that the driver is not identified, they cannot pursue you as the Keeper because the location is not "relevant land" for the purposes of PoFA.

Relevant by-laws covering Queen Elizabeth Olympic Park:

https://live-qeop.pantheonsite.io/sites/default/files/attachments/QEOP%20Byelaws%20Pack%20Complete%20Version.pdf

The London Aquatics Centre is clearly within this boundary.

If the driver has never been identified, I would simply apply for a summary judgment with costs at £750 under CPR 24.2 and PD 45(Table 1c).

You're facing a claim for an unpaid parking charge notice (PCN). The claimant has not identified the driver, and the location — the London Aquatics Centre — is not "relevant land" under PoFA. That means the claimant cannot rely on PoFA to pursue you as the registered keeper. You are entitled to apply for early dismissal of the claim before it is allocated to a track.

You have two procedural options under the Civil Procedure Rules:

Option 1: Summary Judgment — CPR 24.2 You can apply for summary judgment under CPR 24.2. This rule allows the court to give judgment against a party on the whole of a claim or on a particular issue if:

• The claimant has no real prospect of succeeding on the claim or issue; and

• There is no other compelling reason why the case should be disposed of at a trial.

This is appropriate where the legal basis of the claim is fundamentally flawed — for example, where the claimant cannot establish keeper liability under PoFA because the land is not relevant land and the driver has not been identified.

You make the application using Form N244. If successful, the court will dismiss the claim and award you fixed costs. Under Practice Direction 45, Table 1(c), you are entitled to fixed costs of £750 for a successful summary judgment application made before allocation to track. You are also entitled to recover the application fee (currently £313). Total recoverable: £1,063.

Option 2: Strike Out — CPR 3.4(2)(a) and (b) Alternatively, you can apply to strike out the claim under CPR 3.4(2) on the basis that:

• The statement of case discloses no reasonable grounds for bringing the claim (CPR 3.4(2)(a)); or

• The claim is an abuse of the court’s process or is otherwise likely to obstruct the just disposal of the proceedings (CPR 3.4(2)(b)).

This is appropriate where the particulars of claim are defective, or where the claim is legally hopeless. If the court agrees, it will strike out the claim and may award you the costs of the whole action. These costs are not fixed and will be assessed by the judge at the hearing.

What happens next:

• The court will list the application for hearing “on notice” (meaning both parties attend).

• The case will be transferred to your local County Court.

• You will attend and argue that the claim is legally unsustainable and should be dismissed without trial.

What to include in your application:

• N244 application form

• Statement of Truth

• Skeleton argument (optional but recommended)

• Exhibits: copy of the PCN, any correspondence, map of the location, and reference to the London Legacy Development Corporation by-laws (to prove the land is not “relevant land” under PoFA)

If the court grants summary judgment, you are entitled to fixed costs under PD 45 Table 1(c). If the court strikes out the claim instead, you may be awarded further costs under CPR 44.2 or CPR 27.14(2)(g) if the claimant’s conduct is deemed unreasonable.

I recently had a very similar claim where the defendant applied for summary judgment before allocation to track. The judgment was successful and the award plus costs were granted. In addition, under the alternative strike out application, a separate hearing was made for the local court to hear the abuse of process (unreasonable behaviour of the claimant) and to order further costs, if necessary under CPR 27.14(2)(g).

This is only really advisable if the claim has not yet been allocated to track.

Kaziyyah

doubledotcom said:

If you never responded to anything, which means that the driver is not identified, they cannot pursue you as the Keeper because the location is not "relevant land" for the purposes of PoFA.

Relevant by-laws covering Queen Elizabeth Olympic Park:

https://live-qeop.pantheonsite.io/sites/default/files/attachments/QEOP%20Byelaws%20Pack%20Complete%20Version.pdf

The London Aquatics Centre is clearly within this boundary.

If the driver has never been identified, I would simply apply for a summary judgment with costs at £750 under CPR 24.2 and PD 45(Table 1c).

You're facing a claim for an unpaid parking charge notice (PCN). The claimant has not identified the driver, and the location — the London Aquatics Centre — is not "relevant land" under PoFA. That means the claimant cannot rely on PoFA to pursue you as the registered keeper. You are entitled to apply for early dismissal of the claim before it is allocated to a track.

You have two procedural options under the Civil Procedure Rules:

Option 1: Summary Judgment — CPR 24.2 You can apply for summary judgment under CPR 24.2. This rule allows the court to give judgment against a party on the whole of a claim or on a particular issue if:

• The claimant has no real prospect of succeeding on the claim or issue; and

• There is no other compelling reason why the case should be disposed of at a trial.

This is appropriate where the legal basis of the claim is fundamentally flawed — for example, where the claimant cannot establish keeper liability under PoFA because the land is not relevant land and the driver has not been identified.

You make the application using Form N244. If successful, the court will dismiss the claim and award you fixed costs. Under Practice Direction 45, Table 1(c), you are entitled to fixed costs of £750 for a successful summary judgment application made before allocation to track. You are also entitled to recover the application fee (currently £313). Total recoverable: £1,063.

Option 2: Strike Out — CPR 3.4(2)(a) and (b) Alternatively, you can apply to strike out the claim under CPR 3.4(2) on the basis that:

• The statement of case discloses no reasonable grounds for bringing the claim (CPR 3.4(2)(a)); or

• The claim is an abuse of the court’s process or is otherwise likely to obstruct the just disposal of the proceedings (CPR 3.4(2)(b)).

This is appropriate where the particulars of claim are defective, or where the claim is legally hopeless. If the court agrees, it will strike out the claim and may award you the costs of the whole action. These costs are not fixed and will be assessed by the judge at the hearing.

What happens next:

• The court will list the application for hearing “on notice” (meaning both parties attend).

• The case will be transferred to your local County Court.

• You will attend and argue that the claim is legally unsustainable and should be dismissed without trial.

What to include in your application:

• N244 application form

• Statement of Truth

• Skeleton argument (optional but recommended)

• Exhibits: copy of the PCN, any correspondence, map of the location, and reference to the London Legacy Development Corporation by-laws (to prove the land is not “relevant land” under PoFA)

If the court grants summary judgment, you are entitled to fixed costs under PD 45 Table 1(c). If the court strikes out the claim instead, you may be awarded further costs under CPR 44.2 or CPR 27.14(2)(g) if the claimant’s conduct is deemed unreasonable.

I recently had a very similar claim where the defendant applied for summary judgment before allocation to track. The judgment was successful and the award plus costs were granted. In addition, under the alternative strike out application, a separate hearing was made for the local court to hear the abuse of process (unreasonable behaviour of the claimant) and to order further costs, if necessary under CPR 27.14(2)(g).

This is only really advisable if the claim has not yet been allocated to track.

Wow thank you so much - this is great and a lot of information I need to get my head around.

I did respond to their PCN online with the informal appeal, and I have the rejection letter as proof that they received it.
I cannot remember if I directly confirmed if i was the driver or not on their online appeal tick box form, but even then I think it is implied in my informal appeal. . So I am very wary of pursuing the route where I need to rely on not being named driver.... 

This was my informal appeal:

I am writing to appeal the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) issued to my vehicle  on 16/06/2025 at the London Aquatics Centre car park.

On the day in question, I made the parking payment via the kiosk, which showed as successful in my wallet application. The attached screenshot of my wallet clearly indicates that the payment of £2.00 for the parking fee was registered on 16/06/2025. Unfortunately, upon receiving the PCN and reviewing my bank statement, I noticed the payment had not been deducted. This discrepancy seems to be a technical issue with either the payment machine or the processing system.

As a regular user of this car park, I have always paid the required parking fees. My bank statement (attached) shows weekly transactions at the same location, further demonstrating my consistent compliance with parking regulations.

Additionally, I would like to highlight that the payment machine at the car park does not issue printed receipts due to a consistent lack of paper. This issue makes it difficult for users to independently verify payments beyond what is displayed in their wallet applications.

I acted in good faith, believing the payment was successful, as confirmed by my wallet application. It is clear from the evidence provided that I had every intention of complying with the parking regulations, and this was an unintentional error caused by factors beyond my control.

I kindly request that this PCN be cancelled based on the circumstances and the evidence provided. Should you require any further details or clarification, please do not hesitate to contact me.

Question: If I choose to strike out the claim, do i need to submit my defence? What happens to my defence deadline?