ParkingEye court claim – The Range St Helens – looking for advice

H1F565

Hi everyone,

I've received a County Court claim from ParkingEye and I'm looking for some advice on how best to defend it.

The alleged parking event was at The Range, Chalon Way West Retail Park, St Helens, on 28/11/2023.

The claim has only recently been issued, dated 11/09/2026, so it's nearly three years after the alleged event.

I was genuinely shopping at The Range that day and was buying a dining table. I had my daughter with me, who was around 2 months old at the time. Before heading home, she needed feeding, so I stayed for a short while longer.

As far as I can remember, the alleged overstay was a few minutes. Unfortunately, I no longer have the original ParkingEye letters from 2023.

I was the driver, so I'm not looking to rely on keeper liability/POFA.

The Particulars of Claim are very brief and say:

"Vehicle Remained on Private Property in Breach Of The Displayed T&Cs."

They are claiming £170, plus interest and costs.

I intend to defend it the claim. Should I request a SAR from ParkingEye for the original PCN, ANPR timings, photographs, correspondence, etc.

From reading the MSE parking forum, particularly, I'm looking at the following:

• Whether the Particulars of Claim are sufficiently particularised.
• The exact ANPR entry/exit times and whether any grace period applies.
• Whether the signage was sufficiently prominent/clear at the time.
• Whether ParkingEye can provide evidence of the signage actually in place in November 2023.
• ParkingEye's authority from the landowner.
• The additional amount added to the original parking charge and the basis for claiming it as "damages".
• The £50 legal representative's costs.

I would really appreciate advice from anyone who's dealt with ParkingEye/ The Range / Chalon Way West Retail Park, or from the regulars who know the ParkingEye process well.

If anyone has any information, old photos, Google Street View evidence or previous cases relating to this particular car park, that would also be really useful.

I'm happy to post a redacted copy of the claim form if that would help.

Thanks in advance.

Woodstok2000

Have you looked at the newbies thread, and in particular Chan & Akande?

Gr1pr

You can post a redacted picture of the claim form, but if the actual breach is not pleaded then use the Chan and Akande defence template, as mentioned in the defence template thread

H1F565

Thanks for your replies so far. Looking at my Particulars of Claim, the alleged breach is described only as “Vehicle Remained on Private Property in Breach Of The Displayed T&Cs.”

Would this be considered sufficiently particularised, or does the fact that it doesn't identify the specific contractual term allegedly breached, the permitted parking period, or the actual period of overstay mean that I should use the Chan/Akande defence?

I'm conscious that Chan relates to a failure to properly plead the breach, so I don't want to use that template if the wording in my claim is considered sufficient.

MrJenkinsEsq

Chan applies because they haven't specified a breach. They should say specifically; overstayed, didn't buy a ticket, or whatever it might be. By not doing so you can't write a defence because you'd be guessing at what their claim might be.

Gr1pr

As Above, the ACTUAL alleged breach is not specified, so although you may have prior knowledge, we and the judge have no idea what the contractual breach actually was, because the POC is vague and doesn't actually tell us, so doesn't tell the defendant either, its ambiguous, vague, they know that something occurred but fail to identify it, scattergun lazy approach, which won for Chan and Akande in court , so dont reinvent the wheel

Don't overthink it at this early stage, say what you see. ! Or in this case, dont see, dont make the case easy for them

So, as in a different thread on here

The defence answers the claim as pleaded, not the claim you think the claimant meant. Their particulars don't say what term was broken, which puts the burden on you to guess and then leaves you stuck with the guess. Which isn't the right way around.

Use the template with the Chan & Akande paragraph as para 3, which asks the court to strike the claim out for that reason. If they strike it out, job done.

If the court makes the claimant file proper particulars, you can amend your defence to answer them. If it doesn't, the claimant's witness statement will spell out their case, and yours deals with the other signs, time limits and visibility.

Le_Kirk

With an issue date of 11/09/26 and providing you complete(d) the AoS before or on 30/09/26 your defence deadline date is 4.00 p.m. on 14/10/26

As advised use the defence template that uses Chan & Akande (linked in the defence template).

H1F565

Hi all,

I have read through the newbie thread/template again and put together the following. Could you please let me know what you think, or whether youd amend/change anything? Thank you in advance.

1. The Claimant’s sparse Particulars of Claim lack specificity and do not comply with CPR 16.4, failing to state the facts necessary to formulate a complete cause of action. The additional sum claimed is also disputed and the Claimant is put to strict proof of its legal basis. The Defendant invites the Court to strike out the claim pursuant to CPR 3.4.

2. The allegation is vague and liability is denied for the sum claimed, or at all. The Defendant was the registered keeper and driver of the vehicle. The delay in bringing proceedings has also made it difficult for the Defendant to recall the circumstances and obtain relevant evidence.

3. The Particulars of Claim simply state that the “Vehicle Remained on Private Property in Breach Of The Displayed T&Cs”. They do not identify the alleged breach or explain what the Defendant is said to have done. In Civil Enforcement Limited v Chan (E7GM9W44), HHJ Murch found that particulars which failed to set out the conduct said to amount to the breach were inadequate. In Car Park Management Services Ltd v Akande (K0DP5J30), HHJ Evans similarly confirmed that the basic facts relied upon to prove the claim must be set out. The Defendant says the same issue applies here and asks the Court to strike out the claim under CPR 3.4.

4. It is neither admitted nor denied that a term was breached, but the Claimant is put to strict proof of the contractual terms relied upon and the signage in place on the date in question. The Claimant is also put to strict proof with contemporaneous photographs of the signage.

5. The Claimant is put to strict proof of its standing to bring the claim and the terms, scope and dates of any landowner authority relied upon.

6. To impose a parking charge, there must be a contractual obligation and adequate notice of the charge and relevant terms. The Claimant is put to strict proof that the signage was sufficiently clear and prominent to form a binding contract and that the parking charge was adequately brought to the driver’s attention.

7. The Defendant does not accept that ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67 automatically applies to this case. The Claimant is put to strict proof that the circumstances and signage in this case support the charge being claimed.

8. The additional sum claimed above the parking charge is disputed. The Claimant is put to strict proof of the legal and contractual basis for this amount and of every element included in the total claimed.

9. The Defendant denies that any debt collection, administration or other additional costs are recoverable where they do not form part of the original contractual parking charge.

10. If the Claimant provides further Particulars setting out the actual allegation and facts relied upon, the Defendant reserves the right to amend this Defence.

11. The Defendant seeks the costs allowed under CPR 27.14 and reserves the right to seek further costs if the Claimant’s conduct is found to have been unreasonable.

Coupon-mad

That isn't the template defence.

You weren't meant to draft anything, just use the template defence with para 3 being the one linked (twice) there. I don't understand how anyone misses the clear info. It's literally copy & paste.