Defence para 3 for ParkingEye court claim

daffodil83

I then sent this email on the 11th August to "enforcement@parkingeye.co.uk" <enforcement@parkingeye.co.uk>

Good afternoon.

I submitted a late appeal to the ticket due to mitigating circumstances and it has not been accepted. I was mentally unwell as I explained in the appeal, re-attached for your attention.

You initially said that mitigating circumstances were considered by yourselves, however I have now received a Letter Before County Court Claim.

1. Please can you now explain why my circumstances are not sufficient for you to consider the appeal after the initial 28 days?
2. Please can you also explain why you cannot use POPLA, as I have submitted an appeal and you have rejected it?

Please be assured that this claim will be vigorously defended, and a counterclaim may be considered under the Equality Act 2010 for unfair treatment.

They responded:



Then I waited until receiving the money claim above.

Coupon-mad

daffodil83 said:

First letter:

daffodil83 said:

Second letter after 29 days appeal deadline was missed:

daffodil83 said:

I then submitted a complaint as l couldn't do an appeal online after the deadline - this on 21st July:


They responded by email on 25th July:



My response on 28th July - there was no appeal button.



Their response 29th July - they must have done something to the website or my page to allow a late appeal - I believe the button is not there automatically

daffodil83 said:

Their response to my appeal:



I then received the LBCCC around 9-10th August:

daffodil83 said:

I then sent this email on the 11th August to "enforcement@parkingeye.co.uk" <enforcement@parkingeye.co.uk>

Good afternoon.

I submitted a late appeal to the ticket due to mitigating circumstances and it has not been accepted. I was mentally unwell as I explained in the appeal, re-attached for your attention.

You initially said that mitigating circumstances were considered by yourselves, however I have now received a Letter Before County Court Claim.

1. Please can you now explain why my circumstances are not sufficient for you to consider the appeal after the initial 28 days?
2. Please can you also explain why you cannot use POPLA, as I have submitted an appeal and you have rejected it?

Please be assured that this claim will be vigorously defended, and a counterclaim may be considered under the Equality Act 2010 for unfair treatment.

They responded:



Then I waited until receiving the money claim above.

Wow. I'm glad I asked! This is appalling new information. This treatment of consumers is FAR worse than ParkingEye used to deal with people. The changes:

1. PCN to LBCCC in six weeks flat. Never ever used to happen and not possible under the old BPA CoP.

2. The BPA having now got into bed with their rivals the IPC, the resulting merger joke 'Joint Code' has stripped away the mandatory reminder letters and timeline (delaying escalation) as was set out in clause 24.4 of the BPA Code (...ever present since 2012...now history; and sadly, the MHCLG didn't manage to add a question about restoring the reminders, in the Public Consultation).

3. ParkingEye used to issue a fairly worded letter chain of 4 letters across a few months, with no added fake admin fee. Now they issue a PCN, a liability letter - fob off late disputes - and get to pre-court LBCCC in 6 weeks!

4. The LBCCC used to offer people the chance to do a late appeal and PEye used to then provide a POPLA Code. Your evidence shows they now refuse to do that.

5. This despite the intentions of the 2022 statutory Code to make a late appeal process mandatory. The joke BPA & IPC merger 'Joint Code' made over 30 cynical changes to the Tories 2022 Code and dropped the best bits of the BPA Code outright. The BPA should be ashamed and so should their flagship member Parking Eye.

6. ParkingEye never used to add any 'fees' since they were told in the binding authority of ParkingEye v Somerfield that to add admin fees (on top of the already doubled and very high PCN sum of £75) for the standard letter chain was disproportionate, unjustified and likely to be 'penal and unenforceable'. That High Court decision - see para 419 onwards - was ratified by the Court of Appeal.

7. ParkingEye v Beavis (Supreme Court) also held that the £85 PCN in itself was more than sufficient to cover "all the costs" of the letters arising from the alleged breach, plus a massively healthy profit whereby PEye actually paid the landowner £1000 per WEEK out of the proceeds.

8. ParkingEye now add £30 on top of the PCN sum, at LBCCC stage, ignoring the binding authorities of Somerfield and Beavis and with no justification except that the BPA invented the 'right to add up to £70'. But the President of the BPA is none other than Mike Marrs, a former bailiff and current top banana at APN Group which owns two parking debt collectors. The BPA now has as bad conflicts of interest as the IPC always did.

9. The added £30 isn't on their signs.

10. The joke BPA/IPC merger 'Joint Code' says there must be a mechanism for late appeals in exceptional circumstances. ParkingEye are interpreting that as paying lip service to letting a person appeal but still keeping the door to second stage appeal firmly shut!

I despair.

This is FAR FAR worse than the position ten years ago at the time of Beavis and the industry has got markedly more aggressive and anti-consumer since this Government seem to have almost accepted the appalling Joint Code as 'the new counterfactual' and let all the good Draft IA work of the previous Govt slide, replacing it with an Options Assessment which said it wants DRAs to add money on top of PCNs and opened the door to the industry to dictate how much pre-action stage supposedly 'costs' (even though the whole 'enforcement' letter chain is covered by the PC, for goodness sake...the Beavis case says so).

Sigh...

This evidenced example of a marked shift by ParkingEye - all of this sea change in conduct going squarely against the interests of motorists - really sums it up.

daffodil83

Coupon-mad said:

daffodil83 said:

Parking Eye seem to have done the claim themselves, no mention of another agent.

...

Search the forum for this or some words from this phrase:

defence new tactic £25 not on signs

They've claimed for a parking charge but that parking charge was £100. That's the stated PCN sum on their signs.

Yet they've claimed £130, despite the binding case law ruling against them for doing exactly this, in ParkingEye v Somerfield where the Court of Appeal upheld the High Court decision (which exposed the added fee as unrecoverable at para 419 onwards).

Adding money for the same letter-chain seen in ParkingEye v Beavis (the £85 PCN was held to cover ALL COSTS AND PROFITS...) is, by any reasonable interpretation, double recovery.

Clearly, IMHO, PEye are content these days to ignore case law and hope nobody remembers Somerfield or interprets Beavis properly. Shameful.

Sadly, the hopelessly tone deaf Options Assessment in the recent Public Consultation (with no option put forward to ban what the last Government realised and openly stated was 'extorting money from motorists' sounded a massive alarm bell that the MHCLG just don't get it.

Hi, I've added the paragraph as suggested for the additional £30. Now I need to reduce the total word length by about 140 words from what I can tell (after removing para 10). I've already reduced words/characters throughout but need suggestion to make sure I don't lose the most important bits.

Is it possible to combine paras 1, 2 and 9 as they say similar things?

...

1. The Claimant’s sparse case lacks specificity & 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 added costs/damages are an attempt at double recovery of capped legal fees (already listed in the claim) & are not monies genuinely owed to, or incurred by, this Claimant. The claim also exceeds the Code of Practice (CoP) £100 parking charge (PC) maximum. Exaggerated claims for impermissible sums are good reason for the court to intervene. Whilst the Defendant reserves the right to amend the defence if details of the contract are provided, the court is invited to strike out the claim using its powers under CPR 3.4.

2. The facts in this defence come from the Defendant's own knowledge & honest belief. The Defendant is unable, based on the POC, to understand with certainty what allegation(s) & what heads of cost are being pursued. The vehicle is recognised & it is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper on the date in question. It is denied that any parking charge on a ParkingEye (PE) sign could have been £130. The British Parking Association (BPA) applies a mandatory cap of £100. This Claimant now routinely pursues an unconscionable fixed sum added at the eleventh hour to each PCN, despite knowing that the will of Parliament is to ban add-ons & despite binding case law against them (on this very point) in PE v Somerfield. In a tactic only seen from this bulk Claimant in recent months, the sum claimed under purported 'contract' has been suddenly & disproportionately exaggerated by £30 immediately prior to proceedings. This is almost double recovery because the capped legal fees are also being claimed, at £50. The Defendant takes the point that enhancing their claim with a disproportionate & impermissible sum, is reason enough to disallow the claim. The signage could not have formed a contract for a £130 parking charge. The Defendant denies knowing about, let alone 'agreeing' to any contract to pay £100, let alone the inflated sum of £130 & the Defendant puts the Claimant to strict proof of all their allegations.

3a. PE claims to allow due consideration to exceptional circumstances for drivers issued with parking charges, however they did not consider or engage in discussion about the Defendant’s mitigating circumstances in responding to the Parking Charge Notice (PCN). The Defendant contacted PE as soon as they were physically able, appealing the charge & explaining the following:

“The lateness of my appeal is due to mitigating circumstances of health & employment difficulties which meant I was unable to respond in a timely manner. I was struggling with my mental health at work & handed my notice in on the 10/06, & left on the 10/07, having been through a difficult grievance process earlier in the year due to unfair treatment. I’ve since been applying for jobs which has been extremely stressful. I will be able to evidence this if required to resolve this matter.”

Unfortunately PE did not wish to discuss/consider this & ignored the request to be referred to POPLA for an impartial appeal. Having rejected the appeal PE have no reason not to refer this case to POPLA.

3b. “The BPA’s guidance specifically says that there must be sufficient time for the motorist to park their car, observe the signs, decide whether they want to comply with the operator’s conditions & either drive away or pay for a ticket. No time limit is specified. This is because it might take one person five minutes, but another person 10 minutes depending on various factors, not limited to disability.”

PE shows the vehicle entering the car park at 13:52:10 & leaving at 14:15:40, a total of 23 minutes & 50 seconds. There is no time limit on observing the signs & deciding whether the driver wishes to comply with the parking conditions. Given that the car park operates on an entirely online payment system, relying on a smart phone with sufficient internet connection, PE should consider additional time is needed to establish the internet connection, for the website to load correctly, the individual to input their details, complete multiple steps to register an account including email verification & for the driver to make a decision about parking. These steps are potential points of failure relying on the driver’s personal phone operating properly & good internet speeds- these are often overloaded with internet traffic in central Manchester.

Without a payment option for cash or card as most car parks do, PE should accept many drivers will require more time to attempt payment & change their mind about parking. This makes the PCN unreasonable.

4. It is neither admitted nor denied that a term was breached but to form a contract, there must be an offer, acceptance, & valuable consideration (absent in this case). The Consumer Rights Act 2015 (s71) mandates a 'test of fairness' duty on Courts & sets a high bar for prominence of terms & 'consumer notices'. Paying regard to Sch2 (examples 6, 10, 14 & 18), also s62 & the duties of fair, open dealing/good faith, the Defendant notes that this Claimant reportedly uses unclear (unfair) terms/notices. On the limited information given, this case looks no different. The Claimant is put to strict proof with contemporaneous photographs.

5. DVLA keeper data is only supplied on the basis of prior written landowner authority. The Claimant (an agent) is put to strict proof of their standing to sue & the terms, scope & dates of the landowner agreement, including the contract, updates, schedules & a map of the site boundary set by the landowner (not an unverified Google Maps aerial view).

The Defendant refers to a planning application by the claimant for “retention of 1no. wall mounted ANPR & cabinet & 2no. wall mounted signs.” which has been refused by Manchester City Council on 28 August 2025, & no previous permissions have been given for this ANPR system.

6. To impose a PC, as well as a breach, there must be: (i) a strong 'legitimate interest' extending beyond compensation for loss, & (ii) 'adequate notice' (prominence) of the PC & any relevant obligation(s). None of which have been demonstrated. This PC is a penalty arising as a result of a 'concealed pitfall or trap', poor signs & covert surveillance, thus it is fully distinguished from PE v Beavis [2015] UKSC67.

7. Attention is drawn to (i) paras 98, 100, 193, 198 of Beavis (an £85 PC comfortably covered all letter chain costs & generated a profit shared with the landowner) & also to (ii) the binding judgment in PE v Somerfield Stores ChD [2011] EWHC 4023(QB) which remains unaffected by Beavis & stands as the only parking case law that deals with costs abuse. HHJ Hegarty held in paras 419-428 (High Court, later ratified by the CoA) that 'admin costs' inflating a £75 PC (already increased from £37.50) to £135 were disproportionate to the minor cost of an automated letter-chain & 'would appear to be penal'.

8. The Parking (CoP) Act will curb rogue conduct by operators & their debt recovery agents (DRAs). The Government recently launched a Public Consultation considered likely to bring in a ban on DRA fees, which a 2022 Minister called ‘extorting money from motorists’. They have identified in July 2025: 'profit being made by DRAs is significantly higher than ... by parking operators' & 'the high profits may be indicative of these firms having too much control over the market, thereby indicating that there is a market failure'.

9. Pursuant to Sch4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 ('POFA') the claim exceeds the maximum sum & is unrecoverable: see Explanatory Note 221: 'The creditor may not make a claim against the keeper ... for more than the amount of the unpaid parking related charges as they stood when the notice to the driver was issued (para 4(5))'. Late fees (unknown to drivers, not specified on signs) are not 'unpaid parking related charges'. They are the invention of 'no win no fee' DRAs. Even in the (unlikely) event that the Claimant complied with the POFA & CoP, there is no keeper liability law for DRA fees.

Coupon-mad

You can remove the whole para 1 and remove this from the end:

"Late fees (unknown to drivers, not specified on signs) are not 'unpaid parking related charges'. They are the invention of 'no win no fee' DRAs. Even in the (unlikely) event that the Claimant complied with the POFA & CoP, there is no keeper liability law for DRA fees."

daffodil83

Perfect thank you! Glad to get it submitted and forget about it for a bit

Coupon-mad

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81770106#Comment_81770106

What happened in the end?

Discontinuance?