Help with ParkingEye Claim Form

Gr1pr

Delete the header and footer, not needed on MCOL

Follow the advice above by coupon mad

Le_Kirk

With an issue date of 12/10/26 and providing you complete(d) the AoS before or on 31/10/26 your defence deadline date is 4.00 p.m. on 16/11/26

Did you complete the AoS before the date shown?

HonestCitz

Yes, I completed the AOS in time. I thought that meant I had until 9th November? @Le_Kirk

I’m hoping this is right this time. Thank you for your patience and help! @Coupon-mad

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. This claim is unfair and inflated and the Defendant has seen no evidence that any 'parking charge' or additional imaginary sum is due, whether in debt or damages. 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 case law against them (on this point) in ParkingEye v Somerfield. In a new tactic only seen from this Claimant in recent months, the sum claimed under purported 'contract' has been suddenly and disproportionately exaggerated by £30 immediately prior to proceedings. I believe that sum was unlikely to have been part of the alleged contract on the signs.
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))'.

Coupon-mad

I'd remove all this word soup AI gubbins!

"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."

Le_Kirk

Why do you think 09 November? Did you complete the AoS before 31/10/26?

Gr1pr

Edit your thread title, removing the incorrect word Summons and replace it with Court Claim

fatbelly

I think the op failed to add 5 days for service before counting 14 and then 28