Free Traffic Legal Advice
Live cases legal advice => Private parking tickets => Topic started by: LoveTheseParkingFirms on June 08, 2026, 07:14:54 am
-
It’ll be down to terms and conditions, signage and Evology, but I can see from https://autopay.evologyparking.com/Pages/Terms
27. Where you have not selected Auto-Top up as your Payment Preference and the process in clause 24 would not result in a Balance sufficient to cover the Automated Billing Parking Tariff, We shall not seek to take payment via your Payment Preference, and We will notify You, by either email or SMS, to advise that a payment request has been received and Your Balance is insufficient to settle the Automated Billing Parking Tariff. We will provide a period of up to 24 hours for You to make a successful Manual Top-Up to Your Balance to cover the cost of the Automated Billing Parking Tariffs; or to revise or review Your Payment Preference including the Payment Card details.
If this is applicable here, you didn’t need to be told you only had 24 hours because you’d signed up and agreed to the terms and conditions.
-
I get it that they won't care. That was not the question. The question was whether paying £2 now would make a difference if this ever goes to court.
Would it be a stronger argument with the court, to the extent it would allow me to say: see, I didn't want to cheat the system - even if their online system didn't notify me that I only had 24 hours to pay, I still paid the £2 ?
Or is this (whether I pay £2 now) most likely going to have no impact on whether the court finds in my favour or not?
-
Parking Eye won’t have got the £2 anyway, their usual modus operandi is that all the money paid for parking goes to the land owner, in return for which Parking Eye get the right to pursue anyone breaking the rules and gets to keep the money. So they won’t care about £2 now.
-
PS The amount in question is the grand sum of £2.00, made up of a £1.61 parking charge and a £0.39 convenience fee.
There has never been any way to pay this amount after the system tried to collect it automatically.
Would it make sense to send the £2.00 payment? I can do it only by sending a postal cheque in the email, since their online system does not allow me to pay an amount other than £48. And, if this costs them time and money to process, it's not my fault, is it...
Seriously, I ask because I understand that Parkingeye are very litigious and might take the registered keeper or driver to court. If that happens, is it any defence to show that there was intention to pay, that the correct amount was paid, but that there is no way a £2 charge can balloon into £48, or £80, or whatever other amounts they will try to add on top if this gets to court?
-
I will not confirm if the registered keeper is the driver (unless you tell me there is no advantage in not doing so).
The car in question has a staff parking permit to park at a certain university in England.
With this permit, you must still pay every time you park.
The registered keeper has an account with the Evology parking system, which is a trading name of Parkingeye.
Users must top up their Evology account online, and then the system automatically deducts payment from the prepaid balance every time you park.
The driver parked on 26-May.
On Friday 29-May, Evology sent an email that they were unable to collect payment for the 26-May parking, and would try 3 more times.
On Sunday 31-Jun the registered keeper topped up the balance again. By now, Evology had already tried to collect payment 3 times. The keeper can see this from the statement, logging into their Evology online account.
The keeper has contacted the landowner (the university). However, based on similar experiences to other people, it is reasonable to assume the landowner will do nothing.
I can think of two main points:
1) The registered keeper topped up their Evology account promptly (email received on Friday, topped up on Sunday). Evology sent an email notification on 29_may at 13.06, then tried to take a payment for the last time on 30 May at 13.06. The email notification did not clarify that the user had 24 hours. These time stamps are confirmed from the Evology statements. The willingness to pay seems clear to me. Notifying the user late, giving them only 24 hours, but not even telling them so, is neither fair nor reasonable.
2) The university car park is vast, with multiple entrances. Neither the notice received nor the evology statement show which of the many entrances was used, where the car was parked, nor where the signs are. I am not sure to what extent any of this can be used in an appeal.
Thanks!
(https://i.postimg.cc/rdcgYPGt/Parking-charge-notice-2026-05-26-A.png) (https://postimg.cc/rdcgYPGt)
(https://i.postimg.cc/1gPMYj0q/Parking-charge-notice-2026-05-26-B.png) (https://postimg.cc/1gPMYj0q)