ParkingEye Claim Form received

MadCurious5

Hi all,

The ParkingEye hounds have been set lose and are out for my blood. I've been sent a Claim Form for overstaying in a shopping park car park, which I 100% know that I did not as that would mean I'd have to shop for longer than 3 hours and I can't imagine anything more gruelling. I have sent 2 emails of complaint (one via website form, one direct email-to-email) to the retail park, but have received no response. I'm a little confused which stage I am at, is this where I start a defense with POPLA? I've also had a look through the Claim Letter received and it says "Notice has been given to the registered keeper, making them liable for the Parking Charge payable upon breach", does that mean I cannot use unknown driver argument?

Would really appreciate some advice here. Thank you in advance!

Gr1pr

Too late for the POPLA stage, that deadline passed a long time ago, maybe 4 months ago

In-house Parking Eye money claim, issue date 12th May 2026

Alleged breach is sn overstay

Coupon-mad

Just use the Template Defence as normal, and add the usual sentence to para 3 about the fact that the added £30 was not on any signs.

See any recent ParkingEye claim thread.

MadCurious5

Could I argue that the entire £130 is a made up number? just had a quick Google maps search and I don't see any mention of what the penalty would be in case of a breached overstay (the sharpest photo I could get, unfortunately):

Here is my proposed defense for the MCOL (new bits are in bold):

2. The allegation(s) are vague and liability is denied for the sum claimed, or at all. The delay in bringing proceedings lies with the Claimant, making retrieving material evidence difficult, which is highly prejudicial. The Defendant has little knowledge of events, save as set out below and to admit that they were the registered keeper and driver.

3. The Defendant denies the claim in its entirety and disputes that the vehicle overstayed the permitted parking period as alleged. No sufficient evidence has been provided by the Claimant to demonstrate the actual duration of any alleged overstay, and the Defendant does not accept that any breach occurred. Furthermore, the Defendant did not observe any clear or prominent signage from the location where the vehicle was parked and therefore denies that any contractual terms were adequately brought to their attention. In particular, the signage did not clearly or prominently state the financial penalty or parking charge allegedly payable in the event of a breach, and any such wording appears insufficiently visible to form a binding contractual agreement. The alleged incident dates back to 13 December 2025, during the busy Christmas shopping period, making it unreasonable to expect precise recollection of the visit several months later. In any event, it is well known that shopping centres are significantly busier during the Christmas period, when customers generally require additional time to shop.


How does this sound?

Thank you for your support as always!

Gr1pr

Parking Eye dont issue penalties, so you definitely wont see it mentioned

Nb, Its defence, with a c

Seems like a good start but might need the penalties aspect removing, but wait for further advice

Le_Kirk

With an issue date of 12/05/26 and providing you complete(d) the AoS before or on 31/05/26 your defence deadline date is 4.00 p.m. on 15/06/26

Coupon-mad

That sign is Smart Parking not ParkingEye. Doesn't assist you.

Don't try to say the whole £130 is made up. My suggested wording doesn't accept the £100, it just specifically exposes the made up £30, straight off the bat.

Copy what I said from another recent in-house PEye claim thread as your para 3. It's been done dozens of times recently.

MadCurious5

Here is a revised Points 2 and 3. I found a very nice 'Point 2' written up by yourself that I think works perfectly in my case

2. The facts in this defence come from the Defendant's own knowledge and honest belief. The Defendant is unable, on the basis of the POC, to understand with certainty what allegation(s) and what heads of cost are being pursued. However, the vehicle is recognised and it is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper and the driver on the date in question. It is denied that any parking charge on a ParkingEye sign could have been £130. The British Parking Association applies a mandatory cap and the maximum is £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 and despite binding case law against them (on this very point) in ParkingEye v Somerfield. In a tactic only seen from this bulk Claimant in recent months, the sum claimed under purported 'contract' has been suddenly and disproportionately exaggerated by £30 immediately prior to proceedings. This is 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 and 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 and the Defendant puts the Claimant to strict proof of all their allegations.

3.

• The Defendant denies the claim in its entirety and disputes that the vehicle overstayed the permitted parking period as alleged.
• No PCN was presented on the day of the alleged intervention.
• No sufficient evidence has been provided by the Claimant to demonstrate the actual duration of any alleged overstay, and the Defendant does not accept that any breach occurred.
• Furthermore, the Defendant did not observe any clear or prominent signage from the location where the vehicle was parked and therefore denies that any contractual terms were adequately brought to their attention. In particular, the signage did not clearly or prominently state the financial penalty or parking charge allegedly payable in the event of a breach, and any such wording appears insufficiently visible to form a binding contractual agreement.
• The alleged incident dates back to 13 December 2025, during the busy Christmas shopping period, making it unreasonable to expect precise recollection of the visit several months later. In any event, it is well known that shopping centres are significantly busier during the Christmas period, when customers generally require additional time to shop.
• The Claimant is put to strict proof regarding the actual period of parking, as opposed to mere vehicle entry and exit timestamps captured by ANPR cameras.
• The Defendant avers that ANPR entry and exit records do not necessarily demonstrate the period during which a vehicle was parked. Such systems merely record vehicle movements at the perimeter of the site and do not establish the exact parking duration.

Too much?

Coupon-mad

I wouldn't bother with almost any part of that para 3, and would instead split the long para 2 in half to make it 2 and 3.

However I would add this bit back into the end of para 3, which is worth keeping:

"The Defendant denies the claim in its entirety and disputes that the vehicle overstayed the permitted parking period as alleged. The alleged incident dates back to 13 December 2025, during the busy Christmas shopping period, making it unreasonable to expect precise recollection of the visit several months later. In any event, it is well known that shopping centres are significantly busier during the Christmas period, when customers generally require additional time to shop."

Your defence will be 10 paragraphs of course.

MadCurious5

Got it, so here is the defence statement in full:

(Should I also add the text between dashed lines?)

[—————]

Claim Number: [INSERT CLAIM NUMBER]

Between:

ParkingEye Ltd (Claimant)

-and-

[YOUR NAME] (Defendant)

DEFENCE

[—————]

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'. Further, the Claimant has improperly added a false 'fee' or damages to the original Parking Charge (PC). This sum is not legally recoverable and constitutes an attempt at double recovery, which is unreasonable conduct under CPR 27.14(2)(g). The binding Supreme Court judgment in ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67 held that an £85 parking charge more than covered all the 'costs of enforcement' which HHJ Moloney had listed as the pre-action work of a DVLA look-up and a simple automated letter chain, including a LBC. The same heads of cost cannot lawfully be counted twice and interest should also be disallowed. Exaggerated claims for impermissible sums are good reason for judges to intervene and 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 and honest belief. The Defendant is unable, on the basis of the Particulars of Claim, to understand with certainty what allegation(s) and what heads of cost are being pursued. However, the vehicle is recognised and it is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper and the driver on the date in question. The Defendant denies the claim in its entirety and disputes that the vehicle overstayed the permitted parking period as alleged. The alleged incident dates back to 13 December 2025, during the busy Christmas shopping period, making it unreasonable to expect precise recollection of the visit several months later. In any event, it is well known that shopping centres are significantly busier during the Christmas period, when customers generally require additional time to shop. The Defendant denies knowing about, let alone agreeing to, any contract to pay a parking charge of £100, still less the inflated sum of £130. The Defendant puts the Claimant to strict proof of all allegations.

3. It is denied that any parking charge displayed on a ParkingEye sign could have been £130. The British Parking Association applies a mandatory cap and the maximum parking charge is £100. The Claimant now appears to pursue an additional fixed sum, added shortly before proceedings, despite the clear direction of travel from Parliament against such add-ons and despite authority against double recovery, including ParkingEye v Somerfield. The additional £30 is disproportionate and impermissible, particularly where capped legal fees of £50 are also being claimed. The Defendant submits that this amounts to double recovery and is reason enough to disallow the claim. The signage could not have formed a contract for a £130 parking charge.

4. It is neither admitted nor denied that a term was breached but to form a contract, there must be an offer, acceptance, and valuable consideration (absent in this case). The Consumer Rights Act 2015 (s71) mandates a 'test of fairness' duty on Courts and sets a high bar for prominence of terms and 'consumer notices'. Paying regard to Sch2 (examples 6, 10, 14 & 18), also s62 and 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 and the terms, scope and dates of the landowner agreement, including the contract, updates, schedules and a map of the site boundary set by the landowner (not an unverified Google Maps aerial view).

6. To impose a PC, as well as a breach, there must be: (i) a strong 'legitimate interest' extending beyond compensation for loss, and (ii) 'adequate notice' (prominence) of the PC and 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 and covert surveillance, thus it is fully distinguished from Beavis.

7. Attention is drawn to:

(i) paras 98, 100, 193, 198 of Beavis (an £85 PC covered all costs and generated a huge profit shared with the landowner); the court should also read paragraph 3.4 of the original judgment by HHJ Moloney in Beavis, confirming what that authority means by 'costs of the operation', and

(ii) the binding judgment in ParkingEye v Somerfield Stores ChD [2011] EWHC 4023(QB) which remains unaffected by Beavis and stands as the only parking case law that references costs abuse. HHJ Hegarty held in paras 419-428 (his judgment later ratified by the CoA) that 'costs' inflating a £75 PC (already increased from £37.50) to £135 were disproportionate to the very minor cost of a letter-chain and 'would appear to be penal'. The court should note that HHJ Moloney referenced this case in Beavis.

8. The Parking (Code of Practice) Act will curb rogue conduct by operators and debt recovery agents (DRAs). The Government launched a Public Consultation likely to herald a ban on double recovery 'fees', which the relevant 2022 Minister called ‘extorting money from motorists’. Both the previous and present Governments found that the high profits may be indicative of firms having too much control '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 and 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))'. There is no keeper liability for added false fees and the POFA specifically states that 'double recovery' is not allowed if a creditor uses any other remedy.

10. The Defendant seeks fixed costs (CPR 27.14) and a finding of unreasonable conduct and further costs (CPR 46.5). Parking cases now make up a third of all small claims which has overburdened HMCTS, causing the most CCJs of all sectors yet almost invariably discontinuing defended cases before hearings, which indicates a deliberate business model of systemic abuse and makes Claimants liable for costs (r.38.6(1)). Whilst this does not 'normally' apply to the small claims track (r.38.6(3)) the White Book has this annotation: 'Note that the normal rule as to costs does not apply if a claimant in a case allocated to the small claims track serves a notice of discontinuance although it might be contended that costs should be awarded if a party has behaved unreasonably (r.27.14(2)(dg))'.

Half_way

What on earth is a match day and how is a match day communicated?

I assume its something to do with a competition of some sort ( chess? hockey? ploughing? ) but if you don't follow it then how are you to know?