Court Hearing Letter Sent Late from Court

jo2394585494

I’m currently contesting a parking ticket issued by Parking Eye which stated that I overstayed at a parking spot by 45 minutes. We have gone through the mediation stage and it has now been referred to court. 

I have received notice of the hearing and in the letter it asks for evidence to be provided. However, the date of the letter and the time of my receiving it is almost 6 weeks. I’ve got no way of finding out when that letter was sent because of the bulk mailing stamp. So it looks as though I failed to get the evidence in, but I’ve only just received it.

Has anyone ever been in a situation like this? I do intend to write to them and give them my evidence and witness statement.

On that, my defence is that I don’t believe that I overstay three hours. I’m very diligent about these things. I always try to make sure that I leave within that time. And I honestly can’t recall overstaying three hours also - I just don’t think it’s fair that I pay £100 for that. What would be a good defence argument? Has anyone been in a situation like this? Has anyone had a success our Parking Eye when it comes to court hearings?

Thanks

Coupon-mad

"Has anyone had a success our Parking Eye when it comes to court hearings?"

Loads of times! But is this a DCB Legal claim or an in-house PEye claim?

Have you received their WS bundle?

"What would be a good defence argument?"

It's a bit late to ask that. Your defence went in months ago!

Copy & paste the defence you put in please.

Ayr_Rage

First you said 45 minutes, later 3 hours.

Whatever you do you need consistent facts.

Car1980

Show us the court letter please, personal details redacted.

jo2394585494

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82045658#Comment_82045658

Sorry I meant overstaying the 3 hours by 45 minutes.

jo2394585494

The letter was dated 9 May but the end of the letter is dated 30 April 2026. I received it 20th June. Thanks.

Hearing date parking eye.jpg

Hearing date parking eye2.jpg

Hearing date parking eye3.jpg

jo2394585494

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82045655#Comment_82045655

Not DCB seems to be in-house. I don't know what WS however, I did receive a large bundle from them that included pictures of signs and a site map. Here's the initial defence:

1. The Defendant denies liability for the entirety of the claim.  

2. The Claimant alleges that the Defendant’s vehicle overstayed in a car park. The Defendant denies this allegation and puts the Claimant to strict proof.  

3. The Claimant is put to strict proof of:  

   (a) the actual period of parking;  

   (b) the method of timekeeping relied upon (including evidence that any ANPR or timing system was accurate, calibrated, and correctly synchronised);  

   (c) that the Defendant’s vehicle was parked for longer than any permitted period.  

4. Even if (which is denied) the Defendant’s vehicle was present for longer than permitted, the Defendant avers that the Claimant has failed to establish that a valid contract was formed. The signage was inadequate to form the basis of a binding agreement, failing the requirements of the Consumer Rights Act 2015.  

5. The Claimant has not demonstrated compliance with the strict provisions of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. In the absence of such compliance, the Claimant cannot pursue the Defendant as registered keeper.  

6. The sum claimed is an unenforceable penalty. The Supreme Court in ParkingEye v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67 permits charges only where there is a legitimate interest and the charge is proportionate. The Claimant has shown neither in this case.  

7. The Claimant has not demonstrated any proprietary interest in the land, nor evidence of authority from the landowner to issue or pursue parking charges. The Defendant puts the Claimant to strict proof of such authority.  

8. The added costs claimed are unrecoverable and an attempt at double recovery, contrary to the small claims costs regime.  

9. In summary, the claim is without merit. The Defendant denies overstaying and the Claimant is put to strict proof of every aspect of its claim.  

Statement of Truth

The Defendant believes that the facts stated in this Defence are true.  

I'm interested to know whether the judge will accept 'late' evidence, as I can't prove when I received it. Thanks.

Le_Kirk

You have redacted the important dates: -

claimant to pay the hearing fee by ???

witness statement to be submitted by ???

jo2394585494

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82047230#Comment_82047230

July 13 for court fee

June 9 for evidence

Coupon-mad

In small claims, anything goes and late WS bundles are OK - better late than never!

Do it this week, after reading the WS and exhibits section in post 2 of the NEWBIES FAQS thread.

They added £30 that isn't on their signs.

Coupon-mad

A good start but nowhere near enough.

And that statement of truth is 5 years out of date and we can tell that you haven't yet read post 2 of the NEWBIES thread under the red capitals IMPORTANT: KNOW WHAT HAPPENS WHEN' section.

• You haven't got any of the recommended exhibits listed there!
• You haven't challenged the signage much
• You haven't attacked the false added £30 which isn't part of the contract and wasn't part of a PCN. It is a false fee and ParkingEye know this, from the hearings in ParkingEye v Beavis.
• Copy the style & format of the WS by @JackR1 including the link to HHJ Moloney's judgment in Beavis.
• You could add this new wording:

It is worth the judge noting that, In July 2026, the UK consumer protection law Regulator - the Competition and Markets Authority ('the CMA') - has weighed in. The CMA has just published open letters to the parking industry and government on what they believe are actions that potentially breach consumer law:

Open letter to private parking operators

(Gov.uk LINK ABOVE). Paragraph 28 requires Operators to ensure that all substantive correspondence sent to consumers directs them to the Private Parking Sector Single Code of Practice ('the CoP') in order to allow consumers to make better informed decisions on whether to pay, ignore or dispute a PCN. 'Substantive correspondence' includes the Notice to Keeper ('NTK') which in the extant case, fails to direct the consumer to the CoP. The CMA consider that this is a failure to provide material information, ref: section 227(2) of the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024. This criticism - a failure to provide material information - can be made of the NTK itself which used a boilerplate phrase on the back about generic either/or breach possibilities and failed to describe the circumstances in which the requirement to pay this parking charge arose.

Due to this lack of material information I am not sure what I am supposed to have done wrong and I do not accept the two images from the Claimant. Two bare images are insufficient evidence to discount the typical industry ANPR error of counting two visits to a shop or retail park as if they were one long parking session. I cannot tell if this alleged event was in fact something as simple as what is known as a 'double dip': entering and leaving the same car park twice in a 24 hour period.

Under the Information Commissioner's Office (ICO) guidelines on automated processing, if an ANPR system automatically calculates a stay and triggers a NTK by mail without meaningful human review, it is Automated Decision-Making ('ADM') with significant and/or legal effects. This invokes high-threshold transparency duties under the UK GDPR (amended by the Data (Use and Access) Act 2025 ('the DUAA).

The intersections between ANPR technology, ADM and transparency obligations create distinct layers of compliance under ICO surveillance rules. Where the system relies primarily on ADM and typically defaults to the first and last images at the entrance/exit, it will miss the other image captures of a vehicle that drives around and either uses an EV charger or on-site petrol station (if there is one), or visits the shops again - perhaps to collect a forgotten item or return a faulty one - and re-parks twice in one day. In these cases this is not all 'parking' activity and there is not one single parking period, so the data collection would fail the core legal principle of being "fair, lawful and transparent" which includes a requirement for full and accurate data.

In the hands of private parking firms, ANPR cameras are known to be invariably set to default to rely only upon the 'first-in-last-out' images and apply an unfair 'total stay' rule, which the CMA also attacked in their Open Letter because only allowing a bare ten minute grace period at the end fails to account for the time also needed ('consideration period') to drive in, find a space, park, gather belongings, walk over to the nearest sign, read it and decide to stay or leave. The system applies a fixed 'total stay' period with no human checks and it interfaces with the DVLA KADOE electronic link and then auto-generates and posts a NTK.

These are often issued wrongfully in double dip scenarios or in cases of slight overstays (depending on circumstances, including the site being busy, red traffic lights and queues at the exit, how able-bodied the driver is and for how much time the vehicle was actually 'parked') and I am still confused and angered by their claim. Just because the self-serving CoP might say operators can apply a blanket total stay period relying wholly on ADM by remote surveillance, doesn't make it legal nor even fair in all circumstances.

I would remind the court that I have a legal right to challenge data gleaned by ADM. I have no way to prove otherwise and cannot recall my full journeys as I shopped, so I am exercising my right to challenge the data under the DUAA. I put the Claimant to strict proof of ALL captures of my vehicle that day, at that site. These must be supplied as images and/or a full VRM capture log.