Sunday, 13 December 2015

ParkingEye shamelessly dredge up historic cases using Equita

On the back of their Supreme Court win ParkingEye have issued a huge mailshot dredging up historic cases, many over two years old. The Prankster posbag is full of complaints and queries from motorists about these letters.

The correspondence comes from Equita - both Equita and ParkingEye are controlled by Capita, so in essence this is a Capita-controlled exercise.

Although the Supreme Court found that a charge of £85 was valid, this is no longer enough for ParkingEye and they have over doubled this amount, issuing letters asking for £200.

In all the letters The Prankster has seen the letters contain the false statement 'ParkingEye Ltd has written to you recently...' In most cases the last contact was two years ago. In some cases this is the first letter the keeper has ever received.

The letter also contains a misleading reference to the Supreme Court decision in ParkingEye v Beavis. Although this is a binding precedent, it is of course only binding where the facts and circumstances are similar. It certainly does not justify a charge of £200, and there are many other defences which may mean the parking charge does not apply.

The Prankster therefore advises anyone disputing the charge to reply robustly to Equita.

Dear Equita,

The debt is denied. Please return the case to your principal

Debt Collection costs are therefore not appropriate and will be wasted costs.

I am prepared to use alternative dispute resolution to attempt to settle this matter and suggest either POPLA or the Consumer Ombudsman are appropriate bodies. Please note that courts may apply sanctions if an offer of ADR is ignored or unreasonably refused.

I am firmly of the belief this matter can be settled by ADR. However, if your client wishes to settle via court action please ensure practice directions are followed. Current directions are here:
I will seek my full costs regardless of the eventual result if your client takes court action without first engaging in reasonable ADR.

The debt is denied for the following reasons.

(your reasons here - see the previous blog post for reason which may still be valid)

Additionally, I have not received the letter you state ParkingEye sent to me recently. Please provide a copy of this letter together with the date sent.

Please also provide a full breakdown of the £200 charge.

Please note that the case of ParkingEye v Somerfield establishes that debt collection costs of around £60 are not allowable. 

Happy Parking

The Parking Prankster


  1. Anyone sending the letter should take care not to reveal the identity of the driver.

    Those with the intelligence to keep the previous letters should check if PoFA 2012 schedlue 4 AKA keeper liability is being used because they do not know the identity of the driver.

    (5)The maximum sum which may be recovered from the keeper by virtue of the right conferred by this paragraph is the amount specified in the notice to keeper under paragraph 8(2)(c) or (d) or, as the case may be, 9(2)(d) (less any payments towards the unpaid parking charges which are received after the time so specified).

    Any attempt to seek more should be reported to trading standards, both local to yourself and them.

  2. I'm baffled as to what the reason would be that these weren't handled closer to the time as PE were already very litigious 2 years ago? I know I wouldn't have a chance of remembering the reason for the visit, whether I was driving or whether I did actually 'overstay' and this wasn't a camera double-visit malfunction so long later. It also greatly reduces your chance of collecting evidence regards insufficient signage. There is a good chance appeals have been won on those grounds so long ago forcing PE to attempt to rectify the situation yet now you are held to whatever signage maps PE choose to enter in their evidence packs. Would anyone have records of those appeals won on those grounds since on a by car park basis other than PE?

    1. Or would anyone have the old signage maps submitted in earlier cases?

    2. Or would anyone have the old signage maps submitted in earlier cases?

  3. I have received one of these letters today. it relates to a vehicle which I have since sold that was registered to me and driven by my ex. he got the ticket two years ago and just ignored it. I have no details and np proof I was not driving. I have been advised to send a simple letter to PE stating that I was not the driver but im reluctant to engage with them in anyway. I know that he will deny all knowledge of the incident............he's an ex for a reason!!!

  4. I have recently received one of these letters, a year after refusing to pay due to the ticket being issued because my car had broken down, where I wrote to them several times requesting POPLA, which they ignored. Now they are after the money again, have replied with an email similar to above and hope to get rid of this nuisance soon.

  5. I replied using the template above, and have received a response from Equita, which basically says they believe 'on the balance of probabilities' previous letters reached me (they did not) and that as I did not appeal within 28 days of the original notice no POPLA code will be issued. Any advice?

  6. Dear Equita,
    I reiterate my position that the debt is denied. No previous letters have been received; please send copies of any letters you allege were sent, along with evidence of posting. As no letters were received, your 28 day time limit for ADR is artificial. In any case, recent legislation suggests one year is appropriate. Please forward your proposals for ADR if you believe POPLA is not appropriate. I suggest the Consumer Ombudsman.