Parking Eye contract not with Land Owner

Referring first to the question about directors' authority asked in your other thread - http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=5634641

It would be entirely normal for companies to formulate a set of limits of authority setting out what and how directors and officers may make decisions and what value they may commit the company to/for. Without this the board meetings would be crowded out with requests for permission to buy a carton of teabags for the restroom or toilet paper.

As far as the company who agreed the contract with PE then it would be normal to put a parking company to strict proof that they can demonstrate that they have the authority of the landowner or that there is a clear chain of authority from them.

In such a case as yours a district judge may well take the view that a landowner - especially a council - is likely to be aware that a hotel had been built on their land and that, similarly, a hotel proprietor is likely to be aware that someone is controlling their car park.

That being said, it remains for PE to bring evidence in support of the facts that surround the case but they will only do so if they are put to proof (asked to produce evidence to support their assertions).

The same applies to whether the land on which the hotel and its car park now sits is council-owned land and whether it is covered by byelaws. If byelaws apply then PE cannot rely on POFA (i.e. keeper liability) - although you may have to argue this.

Do PE have planning permission for their signage?

Frank_Exchange wrote: »

Sorry template defence from pepoo. Sorry have to be a bit cagey as they used postings in pepoo in arbitration hearing

Firing off this number of questions in this way is not really very user friendly and suggests that you are not reading that widely.

Without our being able to critique your defence then you are frankly chancing to luck that you have one that is relevant (given things change in this field on a weekly basis). Print-outs do occasionally get produced in court but provided there is nothing inconsistent between what you have set out here and reality then there isn't a problem.

Parking companies did at one point (probably now 8-10 years ago) try to belittle those who took advice from online fora but judges have long taken the view that people are entitled to take advice from wherever they can get it.

Frank_Exchange wrote: »

Good idea re signage needing planning permission but isnt that a seperate offensive by the company unrelated to my alleged contract.

I think you mean separate offence and whilst that is true it remains highly relevant. ParkingEye are members of the British Parking Association Approved Operator Scheme and its Code of Practice. That Code of Practice says:

2.4 When there is relevant legislation and related guidance, this will define the overall standard of conduct for all
AOS members. All AOS members must be aware of their legal obligations and implement the relevant legislation and guidance when operating their businesses.Examples of relevant law and guidance within this sector
are:
• contract law
• tort of trespass
• data protection law
• consumer protection law
• Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (POFA), including
Schedule 4 (included as Appendix C to the Code)
• DVLA Guidelines for Accredited Trade Associations
• equalities law.

Of all the parking companies ParklingEye should be well aware of the words of the judge (or one of them) in their case against Barry Beavis (ParkingEye Ltd -v- Beavis (2015) UKSC 67). These were actually the words of the President of the Supreme Court, Lord Neuburger:

(at para 111 of the judgment)

And, while the Code of Practice is not a contractual document, it is in practice binding on the operator since its existence and observance is a condition of his ability to obtain details of the registered keeper from the DVLA. In assessing the fairness of a term, it cannot be right to ignore the regulatory framework which determines how and in what circumstances it may be enforced.

In other words PE must adhere to the law ("relevant legislation when operating their business"). Given that the very basis of their allegedly contractual offer is their signage is it unreasonable to expect the signs to have been placed lawfully?

Frank__Exchange wrote: »

"That being said, it remains for PE to bring evidence in support of the facts that surround the case but they will only do so if they are put to proof (asked to produce evidence to support their assertions" That is my thought of how courts work. If I raise an objection and ask for evidence, if the judge over rules it gives grounds for appeal as judge not following correct proceedure. Spot the newbie.

The idea of putting PE to proof (that is the legal expression) in your defence ahead of any hearing is that they should then produce that evidence at the hearing. If the evidence is not forthcoming then you can quite properly assert that they have failed to prove the particular point.

Frank_Exchange wrote: »

I work in operational control/ internal audit. In this field if there is no evidence it didnt happen. Does this not extend to law?

Not quite and the maxim "absence of evidence does not equate to evidence of absence". Also keep in mind that in a small claims court the burden of proof is the balance of probabilities. ParkingEye must prove their case and it is not for you, necessarily, to disprove it. That said unless their evidence is challenged by - putting them to proof - then they will win on the basis of little more than assertion. It iust therefore important that you challenge every aspect of their case. Just because you weren't present when the car was parked does not mean that you cannot comment on the signage - bear in mind that there requirements as far as that is concerned (both in the Code of Practice and in case law)

Frank_Exchange wrote: »

"It would be entirely normal for companies to formulate a set of limits of authority setting out what and how directors and officers may make decisions and what value they may commit the company to/for. Without this the board meetings would be crowded out with requests for permission to buy a carton of teabags for the restroom or toilet paper." Yup and that would need a board resolution to set the limits. It does for my company and it is my job to identify when they have exceeded this.

Keep in mind the above. A judge is likely to suggest that given the company have operated successfully for many years it is not unreasonable to draw the conclusion that they have a normal set of limits of authority. More importantly, without going into reams of legalese, the fact that a director was not actually authorised by the company to enter into a contract is unlikely to invalidate it. This not a avenue that is likely to be productive.

Nest time please formulate you questions in one block.