County Court Defence for Parking Charges

What Happens When a Parking Company Takes You to Court

Private parking companies such as ParkingEye, Euro Car Parks, and UKPC issue what they call Parking Charge Notices. These are not fines and they are not issued under any statutory authority. They are invoices for an alleged breach of contract between the motorist and the landowner, or the parking operator acting on the landowner's behalf. When a motorist refuses to pay, the parking company may escalate the matter through debt collection agencies before eventually issuing a County Court claim.

It is critical to understand that most parking companies issue far more parking charge notices than they ever pursue through the courts. Court proceedings cost the claimant money -- they must pay a court issue fee, and they must allocate time and resources to manage the litigation. Many companies operate on volume, sending thousands of threatening letters in the hope that a proportion of recipients will pay without questioning the charge. When a motorist files a competent defence, the economics of pursuing the claim often no longer make sense for the parking company.

The court process is governed by the Civil Procedure Rules (CPR), specifically Part 7 (general procedure for issuing claims) and Part 27 (the Small Claims Track). Almost all private parking claims fall within the Small Claims Track because the amount claimed is below the £10,000 threshold. This is significant because the Small Claims Track has simplified procedures and heavily restricted cost rules, making it accessible for individuals representing themselves.

The Court Process Explained

Understanding each stage of the court process removes much of the anxiety. Here is the timeline from claim to resolution.

How to Respond to a County Court Claim Form

When you receive the claim form, do not panic and do not ignore it. Ignoring a County Court claim will result in a default judgment being entered against you, which means the court will order you to pay the full amount claimed without hearing your side. A default judgment can also affect your credit rating.

Your first step should be to read the Particulars of Claim carefully. Note the claimant's name, the amount claimed, the date of the alleged contravention, and the location of the car park. Cross-reference these details against any correspondence you have received previously -- the original parking charge notice, any appeals you made, and any letters from debt collectors such as Gladstones Solicitors or DCB Legal.

File your Acknowledgment of Service immediately, indicating that you intend to defend the full claim. Then focus on preparing your Defence. A strong defence addresses the specific weaknesses of the claimant's case, and private parking claims typically have many. The key is to put every element of the claim in issue, requiring the claimant to prove its case to the standard of the balance of probabilities.

Gather your evidence: photographs of signage at the car park, any correspondence you have exchanged, the original parking charge notice, and a record of the timeline. If you took photographs at the time of the alleged contravention, these can be particularly valuable. If you did not, consider returning to the car park to photograph the current signage, noting any deficiencies.

Key Defence Arguments

A well-drafted defence will typically raise multiple arguments. Not every argument will apply to every case, but the following represent the most commonly successful grounds for defending a private parking charge in the County Court.

The ParkingEye v Beavis Case Explained

ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67 is the leading authority on private parking charges. Mr Beavis overstayed a two-hour free parking limit at a retail park managed by ParkingEye and was issued a charge of £85. The Supreme Court held, by a 4-1 majority, that the charge was enforceable. The Court found that ParkingEye had a legitimate interest in managing the car park for the benefit of the retailers and their customers, and that the £85 charge was not extravagant or unconscionable relative to that interest.

However, the judgment is far narrower than parking companies suggest. The Court emphasised several factors specific to the Beavis case: the signage was large, prominent, and clearly visible at the entrance; the car park served a busy retail park with a genuine need for turnover management; and the charge was at the level approved by the British Parking Association (BPA) at the time.

Beavis does not apply, or can be distinguished, in a number of common scenarios. Where the car park is not a busy retail or commercial site -- for instance, a quiet residential area or a near-empty car park -- there may be no legitimate interest in deterring overstaying. Where the signage is poor, hidden, or ambiguous, the reasoning in Beavis does not hold because the motorist was not adequately warned. Where the charge exceeds the level that was considered proportionate in Beavis, there is an argument that it has crossed the line into a penalty.

It is also worth noting that Beavis concerned a case where the identity of the driver was not disputed. In cases where POFA 2012 keeper liability is relied upon, additional procedural hurdles apply that were not at issue in Beavis. A claimant cannot simply point to Beavis and assume the charge is valid; it must also demonstrate strict compliance with the statutory framework.

POFA 2012 Compliance Challenges

The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (POFA), Schedule 4, created a statutory framework allowing parking operators to pursue the registered keeper of a vehicle where the driver cannot be identified. Before POFA, a parking operator could only sue the driver, not the keeper, because parking on private land creates a contractual obligation on the person who made the contract (the driver), not the vehicle owner. POFA changed this, but only where the operator strictly complies with detailed procedural requirements.

The key requirements under POFA Schedule 4 include: the operator must be a member of an Accredited Trade Association (currently the International Parking Community or the British Parking Association); a Notice to Driver must have been issued or affixed to the vehicle at the time of the alleged contravention, or sent by post to the driver; and a Notice to Keeper (NTK) must be served on the registered keeper within a strict window of 29 to 56 days after the event. The NTK must contain specified information, including the amount of the charge, the grounds for the charge, and a statement that the keeper is not liable if they were not the driver and they name the driver.

Common compliance failures that defeat keeper liability include: the NTK being sent outside the statutory timeframe; the NTK omitting required information; the charge amount on the NTK not matching the charge on the Notice to Driver; the operator not being a member of an ATA at the relevant time; and the operator failing to apply for keeper details from the DVLA within the permitted timeframe.

If POFA compliance fails, the parking operator can only recover from the driver. If the claimant has issued the court claim against the registered keeper and cannot prove that the keeper was the driver, the claim must fail. This is one of the most common and effective defences in private parking cases, and many claims are discontinued once this point is raised in a properly drafted Defence.

What Happens at a Hearing

If the parking company does not discontinue the claim after receiving your Defence, the case will be allocated to the Small Claims Track and a hearing date will be set. Small Claims hearings for parking charges are typically short, lasting between 30 minutes and one hour, and are conducted informally. The district judge will have read both parties' paperwork in advance.

At the hearing, the claimant goes first. In many parking cases, the claimant does not send a representative to attend in person, particularly for low-value claims. Some parking companies instruct solicitors such as Gladstones Solicitors or BW Legal to attend, while others rely on a written submission. If the claimant does not attend and has not filed a written application for the case to be heard in their absence, the judge may strike out the claim.

You will have the opportunity to present your case, referring to your filed Defence and any supporting documents. The judge may ask you questions for clarification. Be prepared to address the specific points in your Defence -- particularly signage issues, POFA compliance, and whether the charge is a penalty. Bring organised copies of all correspondence, your photographs, and any supporting evidence.

The judge will usually give a decision on the day, providing a brief oral judgment explaining the reasoning. If the claim is dismissed, that is the end of the matter. The parking company has no automatic right of appeal from the Small Claims Track, and appeals are only permitted on a point of law or serious procedural irregularity. In practice, appeals in parking cases are extremely rare.

Why Parking Companies Often Drop Cases

The economics of private parking litigation work heavily in the defendant's favour. A parking company issuing a claim for £100 must pay a court issue fee of £35 (for claims up to £300) and allocate resources to manage the litigation. If a solicitor is instructed, those costs can quickly exceed the value of the claim itself. On the Small Claims Track, the parking company cannot recover its legal costs from the defendant even if it wins. This means the company is spending more to pursue the claim than it can ever recover.

When a motorist files a well-drafted Defence that raises legitimate legal arguments -- particularly around POFA compliance, signage deficiencies, or the penalty doctrine -- the parking company's legal team must assess the merits. If there is a real risk of losing, the rational commercial decision is to discontinue the claim and cut losses, rather than invest further resources in a hearing they may not win. This is why the majority of defended private parking claims result in a Notice of Discontinuance before the hearing.

Companies like CP Plus, Excel Parking, and Civil Enforcement have all been known to discontinue claims when faced with a competent defence. The key is not simply to ignore the claim or send a vague letter of complaint, but to file a formal, legally structured Defence through the court that puts every element of the claimant's case in issue.

Frequently Asked Questions