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:
https://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/procedure-rules/civil/rules/pd_pre-action_conduct
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
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:
https://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/procedure-rules/civil/rules/pd_pre-action_conduct
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