Help with ParkingEye Claim Form

HonestCitz

I’m hoping someone can help as I am getting very overwhelmed.

The back story…..Back in Dec 2025 I was sent a parkingeye parking charge notice for not buying a valid parking ticket when using their car park in November.

I had paid for a 2hr ticket, via a parking app, so sent them proof of this. They then replied with a higher fine, as I had not paid the previous in time, stating I had bought a ticket but I had over stayed my time by 14min.

Now, the car park was very busy and it took some time to park, and again to leave. People were not park correctly due to spaces not being clearly marked out, they only had one ticket machine working and it had a very long queue which was partially blocking the entrance and exit. As it was pouring with rain, very dark and I had my family with me in the car, I downloaded the app and paid for my parking. Went to the children’s party (which was an hour and a half), then back to my car. Left the car park after queuing to get out. I think the car park was busy from the parties and the exit being partially blocked due to the queue at the ticket machine.

I would never not pay, I am a very honest person and was mortified to be issued with this parking fine. Especially when they had said I had not bought a ticket. I appealed back in Jan, but heard nothing until a few weeks ago when I received a court summons. A court summons which states ‘entering and leaving the site, and parking without a valid paid parking ticket’.

I’m so confused as I sent the proof of our parking ticket and they acknowledged that I had paid for my ticket.

I have don’t my research and put together a defence to send off to court, but now really panicking that I will just end up with a big fine to pay.

Can anyone advise, do parking eye really get away with putting honest paying people through this???

Could someone also tell me if this defence is set out properly, and if it sounds ok???

IN THE COUNTY COURT BUSINESS CENTRE

CLAIM NUMBER: xxxxxxx

BETWEEN:

PARKINGEYE LIMITED (Claimant)

- and -

Xxxxxxx (Defendant)

DEFENCE

1. The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to relief in the sum claimed, or at all. The Defendant admits that they were the driver of the vehicle on the date in question.

2. Particulars of Claim Lack Accuracy:

a. The Claimant’s Particulars of Claim allege that the vehicle entered and left the site "parking without a valid paid parking ticket".

b. This statement is factually false. The Defendant purchased a valid parking ticket for the stay.

c. The Claimant has explicitly admitted in prior written correspondence that a valid ticket was indeed purchased and paid for. The Claimant's formal court pleading is fundamentally inaccurate and misleading to the Court.

3. Compliance with Consideration and Grace Periods (BPA Code of Practice):

a. The Claimant is an Accredited Operator Scheme (AOS) member of the British Parking Association (BPA) and is bound by its Code of Practice.

b. The mandatory Code of Practice requires operators to provide a minimum Consideration Period upon entry (to allow drivers to park, read terms, and purchase a ticket) and a mandatory minimum 10-minute Grace Period at the end of the paid session before issuing a charge.

c. The total 14-minute variance recorded by the Claimant's ANPR cameras represents gate-to-gate site duration, not parked time.

d. This recorded site duration accounts for entering the car park, finding a bay, queuing and purchasing the ticket, returning to the car, starting the engine, and queuing to exit onto the road.

e. The total gate-to-gate time falls within the combined mandatory Consideration and Grace Periods required by industry standards.

4. De Minimis Variance:

a. Any minor extra minute beyond 10 minutes on exit was trivial (de minimis), caused by normal exit traffic or pedestrian obstruction, and does not constitute a fundamental breach of contract. Issuing a court claim in excess of £100 against a genuine paying customer under these circumstances is disproportionate and punitive.

5. Procedural Unfairness & Failure of Pre-Action Protocol:

a. The Defendant submitted an appeal detailing the paid ticket. The Claimant failed to adequately follow fair pre-action protocols or resolve the dispute fairly prior to initiating court litigation.

6. Conclusion:

a. The Defendant acted in good faith as an honest paying citizen.

b. The Court is respectfully invited to dismiss the claim in its entirety.

STATEMENT OF TRUTH

I believe that the facts stated in this Defence are true. I understand that proceedings for contempt of court may be brought against anyone who makes, or causes to be made, a false statement in a document verified by a statement of truth without an honest belief in its truth.

Signed: xxxxxxx

Date: xxxx

Thank you in advance to anyone who can help.

Coupon-mad

You don't have a summons.

You have a bog standard claim form, as seen here every day. Show us an image of the Claim Form page with FOUR things redacted (read other threads to see what).

"Can anyone advise, do parking eye really get away with putting honest paying people through this?"

No, they will discontinue the claim in 2027. You just have to follow the 8 steps in the Template Defence thread.

fatbelly

At this stage all you have to do is acknowledge service within the relevant timescale. If you post a redacted ccopy of your claim form, make sure the issue date still shows so we can work that out for you

HonestCitz

Thank you so much. Here is my claim form.

[Image removed by Forum Team]

Gr1pr

Parking Eye in-house claim, issue date 12th October, so I hope that you have logged into MCOL and completed the AOS online stage ? That deadline was 31st October and its now 5th November, login to MCOL and check ASAP !

Claim is for no valid paid for ticket !

Your password is unredacted

Use the template defence in announcements near the top of the forum, by coupon mad, adapting paragraphs 2 & 3

HonestCitz

Thank you, I will go and have a look.

Yes, I did complete my AOS

Coupon-mad

Copy para 3 from another in-house Parkingeye defence that talks about the added £30.

Search the forum for

new tactic 2023 £25 defence

Or

new tactic £30 not on signs ParkingEye

HonestCitz

Thank you @Coupon-mad.

I feel I am very much out of my depth, and getting more anxious. I have looked for the template, but can’t seem to see exactly what I should be using as a template.

I definitely wish I had found this forum sooner!

Coupon-mad

Do the searches. Look at the results.

HonestCitz

Thank you again to everyone who has helped.

I think I’ve found the right templates, and written it accordingly. If someone is able to read it through, and let me know if it is all ok, I would be greatly appreciated.

IN THE COUNTY COURT BUSINESS CENTRE
CLAIM NO: xxxxx

BETWEEN:

PARKINGEYE LIMITED
(Claimant)

• and -

Xxxxx
(Defendant)

DEFENCE STATEMENT

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 an unrecoverable fee or inflated sum to the original Parking Charge that was never mentioned on the primary car park signage. 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 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 admits that they were the driver of the vehicle at the material time, but denies being the registered keeper.
3. The Defendant was an honest paying customer on 15/11/2025 and purchased a valid 2-hour parking ticket for the vehicle. The Claimant subsequently acknowledged in writing to the Defendant during initial appeal correspondence that a valid ticket was indeed purchased and paid for.Despite this written admission, the Claimant improperly issued Particulars of Claim falsely alleging that the vehicle was "parking without a valid paid parking ticket" and has disproportionately inflated the sum claimed by adding an unrecoverable fee not stated on the contractual signage. The Claimant has submitted a factually inaccurate Statement of Case and is put to strict proof to explain why it has brought proceedings on false particulars.Furthermore, the total site duration recorded by the Claimant's ANPR cameras (approximately 14 minutes beyond the 2-hour paid ticket) represents total gate-to-gate site time, not stationary parked time. This total duration was fully swallowed by the combined non-ticketed allowances mandated under the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice:
   (a) The initial Consideration Period upon entry (a minimum of 5 minutes allowed to navigate the car park, locate an open bay, download the required app, and purchase the ticket); and
   (b) The mandatory 10-minute Grace Period at the end of the paid parking session to allow the driver to return to the vehicle, prepare to leave, and exit the premises.To the extent that the exit phase alone exceeded the 10-minute grace window by a negligible 1 to 2 minutes, any such minor variance is trivial, de minimis (de minimis non curat lex), and directly attributable to a busy car park, dark and rainy weather conditions, and a queue of drivers at the single operational ticket machine which was partially obstructing the exit pathway.
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))'.

I believe that the facts stated in this defence are true.

Signed: xxxxxx
Date: 06.11.2026

Coupon-mad

Where's thd bit about the added £30? That's the point of the searches I gave you.

Why have you added a five year old statement of truth in the bottom?

Remove para 8 and replace it with your search findings about the added £30.