ParkingEye claim - Authorised healthcare visitor - Defence feedback requested Please

peakygrin

Hi all,

I'd really appreciate a review of my draft defence before I file it if possible

Details are here…

• Claimant: ParkingEye Ltd
• Solicitor: DCB Legal
• Claim issued: 17 July 2026
• Acknowledgment of Service has been filed.
• deadline: 19 August 2026.

What happened

I am a Primary Care Network paramedic.

On 20 November 2025 I attended Crosfield Court, Watford, to carry out two scheduled home vaccination visits for our elderly housebound patients.

I parked for around 20 mins just outside the entrance on the building

There was no parking tariff to pay.

The allegation is that I didnt register my vehicle on the ParkingEye terminal which was apparently in the building somewhere

At the time I was unaware that authorised visitors had to register their vehicle. I parked, checked my visit list to see which numbers I was visiting, likely used the intercom to gain access and then went into the building to find the patients' flats. I don't recall entering an obvious staffed reception area.

Afterwards I discovered that to of my GP colleagues had also received ParkingEye charges at this site after not registering.

I have:

• NHS work records showing two scheduled vaccination visits at Crosfield Court that day (patient information redacted).
• Photographs of the entrance signage.
• Photographs of the ParkingEye signage.
• Evidence that my employer appealed promptly after the PCN. ParkingEye acknowledged receipt of the appeal, but I never received a rejection before debt recovery/court proceedings.

My draft defence is below.

I'd be grateful for any comments, particularly whether there are any ParkingEye-specific legal points I should include or remove before filing.

Thanks in advance

DEFENCE

1. The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to the relief claimed, or to any relief.
2. It is admitted that the Defendant was the driver of the vehicle on the material date.
3. On 20 November 2025, the Defendant attended Crosfield Court, Watford, in the course of his employment as a paramedic. The Defendant was scheduled to undertake two home visits within the building to administer seasonal vaccinations to elderly housebound patients. The Defendant parked for approximately 20 minutes while carrying out those visits before leaving the site.
4. The Defendant was an authorised visitor attending the premises for legitimate clinical duties. There was no parking tariff to pay and the allegation is not that the Defendant avoided payment for parking.
5. The Claimant alleges that the Defendant became liable for a parking charge by failing to register the vehicle at reception. The Defendant accepts that the vehicle was not registered. However, the Defendant did not register the vehicle because he was unaware that authorised visitors were required to do so.
6. On arrival, the Defendant parked in a bay immediately adjacent to the building entrance and was focused on carrying out the scheduled clinical visits. The Defendant was referring to his work schedule in order to identify the correct residents and access arrangements before entering the building. The Defendant did not appreciate that parking by authorised visitors was conditional upon separately registering the vehicle at reception.
7. The entrance signage observed by the Defendant identified the parking area as private and for residents only. It did not identify the Claimant, state that ParkingEye terms applied, state that authorised visitors were required to register a vehicle at reception, or warn that failure to do so could result in a parking charge.
8. The Defendant accepts that ParkingEye signs were displayed elsewhere within the site. The Defendant’s case is that the specific term relied upon by the Claimant, namely the requirement for authorised visitors to register a vehicle at reception, was not sufficiently brought to the Defendant’s attention before parking so as to become an incorporated contractual term.
9. The Defendant will rely upon photographs of the current site layout and signage at the appropriate stage. Those photographs accord with the Defendant’s recollection of the route taken on the material date. The Defendant’s parking space was immediately adjacent to the building entrance. ParkingEye signage was not positioned at the entrance itself or immediately adjacent to the parking bay used by the Defendant.
10. Whether the alleged contractual term was sufficiently prominent and capable of bringing the registration requirement fairly to the attention of a reasonable motorist is a matter for the Court. The Defendant denies that a binding contractual obligation to register the vehicle was formed in the circumstances of this case.
11. Following receipt of the Parking Charge Notice, an appeal was submitted on the Defendant’s behalf by his employer. The Claimant acknowledged receipt of that appeal. The Defendant did not receive a substantive determination of the appeal before the matter proceeded to debt recovery and subsequently to litigation.
12. The Defendant puts the Claimant to strict proof that:

a. the Claimant had sufficient authority from the landowner to enter into contracts with motorists and to pursue this claim in its own name;

b. the signage and alleged contractual terms in force on the material date were sufficient to bring the registration requirement and parking charge fairly and prominently to the attention of motorists, including authorised visitors;

c. a legally binding contract incorporating those terms was formed between the Claimant and the Defendant; and

d. the sums claimed are recoverable as a matter of contract or law.

1. The Defendant denies that any additional sum claimed over and above the original parking charge is recoverable. The Claimant is put to strict proof of the contractual and legal basis for each additional sum claimed.
2. In all the circumstances, the Defendant respectfully invites the Court to dismiss the claim.

Coupon-mad

No, use the Template Defence. Top of the forum. Does the POC state the exact breach? Or not…?

Are you saying your employer appealed on your behalf but ParkingEye ignored that?

peakygrin

Thank you.
Yes. My employer submitted an appeal on my behalf shortly after the PCN was issued because I was attending two scheduled NHS vaccination visits at Crosfield Court. ParkingEye acknowledged receipt of the appeal, but neither I nor my employer received a substantive response or rejection before the matter progressed to debt recovery and eventually a court claim.

peakygrin

I've checked the Particulars of Claim. They do not specify the exact alleged breach. They simply state that the vehicle was parked "in breach of the terms on the signs" and don't identify what that breach was.

James_Poisson

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82081316#Comment_82081316

You employer can't appeal unless they were either the driver or the keeper, you should have appealed and used their evidence of a legitimate site visit. Slimy Parking Eye would just use that to progress to the next stage to get more money into the claim.

Crosfield Court is managed by Churchill Estates Management working with Churchill Retirement Living, there is also a manager on site five days a week, these should have been your first port of call to get this cancelled.

But you will now need to follow the advice on here as above.

peakygrin

thank you. Yes I wish I had just done it myself; completely my mistake. When HR offered to do it for me, I somehow thought it might hold a bit more weight. I’ll know for another time though.

Le_Kirk

With an issue date of 17/07/26 and having completed the AoS in a timely manner your defence deadline date is 4.00 p.m. on 19/08/26

Because the POC do not specify the breach, use the defence template that includes Chan & Akande - linked in the template thread.

peakygrin

Thanks. I've now got the current template with the Chan & Akande paragraph substituted as paragraph 3. As I'm admitting to being the driver, I've amended paragraph 2 to say I was the registered keeper and driver. I'll keep the remainder of the template unchanged. Do you think that’s ok?

Coupon-mad

Yes all good.

peakygrin

thanks for your help