Your browser isn't supported
It looks like you're using an old web browser. To get the most out of the site and to ensure guides display correctly, we suggest upgrading your browser now. Download the latest:

Welcome to the MSE Forums

We're home to a fantastic community of MoneySavers but anyone can post. Please exercise caution & report spam, illegal, offensive or libellous posts/messages: click "report" or email forumteam@.

Search
  • FIRST POST
    • kkzs
    • By kkzs 6th Jun 16, 12:53 AM
    • 20Posts
    • 4Thanks
    kkzs
    Help - County claim form recieved, parking eye, event day
    • #1
    • 6th Jun 16, 12:53 AM
    Help - County claim form recieved, parking eye, event day 6th Jun 16 at 12:53 AM
    Hello,

    Please can you help me out!

    I have received my county claim form via parking eye, and have acknowledged the claim online, and as of today i have a few days left to register my response/appeal, the amount claimed against me is 175 GBP

    There is a similar case, however it was at a less advanced stage than mine, but am hoping it can be used as a template.

    google search term: Parking Eye parking charge £100 on event day (date is 26 august, 2014, i cannot post the link, its from this forum)



    "Case" against me


    May2015, Wembley retail park I went shopping and stayed in total 1 hour 59 minutes, when there is a limit of one hour, according to the PCN, however please continue to read.



    Further background

    Staying 2 hours i thought was perfectly fine as the limit says 2.5 hours, and have used the car park before however it turns out there is probably (see further below) a clause
    for "event days", doing a web search turns out there was an event, however i can assure you it was not on the scale of an FA cup final, i had no inkling of an event.

    Happy to post details of said event, as long as it wont prejudice my case by being too specific (i.e. give date away of "offence", these forums might be monitored?), it is on the wembley stadium event day calendar, so i presume that qualifies it as an "event".

    Now the signage on the car park does i believe currently make a reference to event day limit, however thats as of now.

    At the time (may 2015) i had no inkling there was an event, and the signage at the time (may 2015) i dont think made reference to an event, this however i cannot prove now, but it certainly wasn't made obvious to me on the day.

    The PCN makes no reference to an event day, it does say i overstayed the limit of one hour (which i presume is the event day limit, usual limit is 2.5 hours) so they are probably trying to catch me out a bit it seems.
    My correspondence so far


    I have made no correspondence with Parking eye regarding this PCN, i still do have at least some of the letters (cant be sure if all), however i was under the impression it was okay to ignore, i guess not so unfortunately i am where i am now, which is with a claim form!
    So far i have recieved

    -PCN
    -A few follow up letters chasing that i owe them, that i have made no appeal/contact, and that i have not confirmed whether i am the owner/registered driver etc...



    Questions


    Please please do I have a chance of getting off? I have seen the case on this forum which is pretty much identical, however didn't get to the stage i am at, can i just more or less use the same defense at the stage i am at?
    google search term: Parking Eye parking charge £100 on event day (date is 26 augyst, 2014, i cannot post the link, its from this forum)
    Can i still contact the landowners and try to have them cancel it? i think so bust just wanted to confirm.

    I have been studying recently and just had to prioritise my time, i have found this site > privateparkingappeals.co.uk/, who will charge 19GBP to provide a defence, can anyone recommend them, i dont mind paying the fee in the case that i cannot copy the above referenced thread, i really really need to value my time right now, however would be good to know if they are worthwhile?

    Thanks in advance!
    Last edited by kkzs; 06-06-2016 at 1:21 AM.
Page 2
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 8th Jun 16, 12:03 AM
    • 40,335 Posts
    • 52,172 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    It is believed the signage was not lit
    Only include this if it was at night. As I see you say this was in August I would resume it was daylight?

    The signs are believed to have no mention of any debt collection additional charge, which cannot form part of any alleged contract.
    I don't think PE add a debt collection sum? They add £50 'legal fee' don't they, which you can put them to strict proof to show was incurred, seeing as they have an in-house 'legal team' who churn out over 30,000 claims per year. That doesn't incur any £50 fee for any solicitor to handle it, otherwise she would be earning millions, see here (just to read, not to include a Blog in your defence):

    http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2013/06/how-much-do-parkingeye-pay-rachel-ledson.html

    Or did they add £60?
    and they are put to strict proof that they have actually incurred and can lawfully add an extra £60 to each PCN
    'each PCN' needs removing as it sounds like you got more than one. Is £60 right?

    The claimant has specified in a prior PCN that a one hour parking limit has been breached.
    I wouldn't say 'prior' which sounds like you had another PCN. But more to the point, their NTK actually state the maximum free time was one hour? Even if it does, the NTK doesn't use the words 'event day' nor show a keeper the signage at all, so it is extremely difficult for the recipient to make an informed decision about the reason for issue.

    And I would remove #5 and #9 which are not right in various ways and add nothing useful. And remove the suggestion to settle this via POPLA because I think a Judge would arguably have a better understanding of why an ambiguous sign is unfair, than POPLA would. Sadly POPLA are not good at grasping relevant points of law right now, and an unclear/ambiguous contract is something a court would consider.

    See if anyone adds any more points, if not then you are right, you have just days so I would look to submit your defence tomorrow. IMHO the event day ambiguity in the signs is your strongest point and takes it off on a different defence tangent than the Beavis case - and the Beavis case on signage actually supports your side of this argument - which is a good thing.

    Last edited by Coupon-mad; 08-06-2016 at 12:08 AM.
    PRIVATE PCN in England/Wales? DON'T PAY BUT DO NOT IGNORE IT

    Click on the breadcrumb trail, top of page: Household & Travel > Motoring > Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking & READ THE 'NEWBIES' FAQS THREAD.
    DON'T read old advice to ignore, unless in Scotland/NI.

    • kkzs
    • By kkzs 8th Jun 16, 11:00 AM
    • 20 Posts
    • 4 Thanks
    kkzs
    Ok thanks, I'll make those changes.

    Please see particulars of case below in case I missed anything.
    Claim for monies outstanding from the defendant, as registered
    keeper, in relation to a parking charge, issued
    21/05/2015, for parking on private land in breach of the terms and
    conditions (the contract).

    Parkingeyes automated number plate recognition system, monitoring the
    wembley retail park, HA9 0EG, Engineers way,
    Wembley, london, captured vehicle (my number plate), entering and leaving
    the car park, overstaying the max time.
    The signage, clearly displayed at the entrance to and throughout the
    carpark, states that this is private land,
    is managed by parking eye ltd, and is a max stay site, along with other
    T&C's by which those who park on site
    agree to be bound. In accordance with the T&C's set out by the signage, the
    parking charge became payable.
    Notice under the protection of freedoms act 2102 has been given under the
    Sch 4, making the keeper liable. This
    claim is in reference to parking charge(s) .
    • kkzs
    • By kkzs 8th Jun 16, 3:25 PM
    • 20 Posts
    • 4 Thanks
    kkzs
    Please see new attempt

    **********************************

    am xxxxxxx xxxxx , defendant in this matter and deny liability for the
    entirety of the claim.

    1./ It is admitted that Defendant is the registered keeper of the vehicle
    in question.

    2/ It is not believed that the signage on site at the time included any
    stated additional costs or surcharges nor even that the £100 was legible on
    each occasion. No sum payable to this Claimant was accepted nor even known
    about by any driver; they were not given a fair opportunity to discover the
    onerous and nebulous terms by which they would later be bound, nor was it
    possible for the terms to be understood as the terms themselves are subject
    to wide interpretation.(please see below regarding "event day" clause)

    3/The claimant has specified in the original PCN that a one hour parking
    limit has been breached. This implies that the claimant believes the
    specific “event day” parking restriction is applicable and that this is the
    specific condition of the contract which has been breached (not the 2.5
    hour usual limit), and that the claim is being pursued on the "event say"
    clause.

    This specific condition the claimant believes to be relevant has not been
    specified within the particulars of the case, however it is implied given
    that the "PCN" states a one hour limit. The claimant has been ambiguous
    regarding this in its communications. The claimant is believed to be devoid
    of having any basis to pursue a claim to such an extent, but moreover it
    can also be demonstrated the claimant could not reasonably expect an
    individual using the car park to fully comprehend what the T&C's were, even
    if they did attempt to adhere to the T&C's on the basis the claimant is
    specifying.

    a.. The claimant has been ambiguous and unclear as to which specific clause
    it believes has been (accepted) and breached. It is inferred that since the
    claimant is referring to a one hour limit breach they are referring to an
    "event day" condition, as the usual restriction applied by the claimant is
    2.5 hours, however this has not been made made clear in communications, or
    particulars of the case.


    b.The claimant is assuming that there was foreknowledge, or reasonable
    basis to deduce knowledge of its definition of an “event day”.



    c. The claimant assumes there was clear and compliant signage in the car
    park that would clearly inform an individual of its “event day” definition,
    however only an imprecise reference is made within the signage, which is in
    a smaller font referring to a “see stadium schedule” (actual words from
    signage recently seen). It is not clear what stadium, particular facility
    or schedule is being referred to, and where this schedule is. It is also
    not proven what signage was present at the time of the parking event.



    d. No additional proof has been provided that there was


    i) An acceptable and compliant standard of signage within the car
    park premises that an “event day” was taking place on the day of the
    parking event.


    ii) Any proof of clearly defining an “event day” such that an
    individual could even attempt to glean the meaning on the day of the
    parking event.


    iii) Any evidence of a schedule being present to even attempt to
    refer to on the day of the parking event.


    iv) Any evidence that there was "an event" (as per the claimants
    definition) taking place on the day of the parking event.


    v) Any proof that an individual entering the car park will understand
    a definition which clearly requires much fuller explanation than what the
    signage currently shows ("see stadium schedule"), and then they
    subsequently would or have accepted the terms and conditions.


    vi) Any proof that even if a fuller definition were to be provided,
    that it would lawfully bind an individual to a "contract" to that extent
    that the claimant believes.


    The claimant has therefore been ambiguous regarding why it believes there
    is any breach of a contract when the terms it expects an individual to
    “agree” to are vague to begin with. It is also not accepted that the
    claimant has any standing to enforce any charge.



    e. The claimant also assumes it is agreed by anyone entering the retail car
    park what the definition of an event day is, or that there is even an
    “event day” taking place. It is also assumed that an individual has
    consented to being bound by this nebulous description, and this acceptance
    of consent is denied.



    f. The claimant has specified that the duration of the parking event is
    1hour 59 minutes. Given that no reasonable basis was provided to possibly
    discern the definition of an “event day”, and given that there is no proof
    of any acceptable signage of an “event day” taking place within the
    premises of the car park, or any proof of any "stadium schedule" being
    available to refer to, the claimant cannot claim that it’s “event day”
    clause had any realistic possibility of being understood, and therefore any
    event day clause should not be regarded as a condition or clause that
    anyone could reasonably attempt to adhere to.



    g. Since the parking event is within the 2.5 hour limit, as specified by
    the claimant, and that there was no reasonable or realistic possibility to
    discern the “event day” definition (let alone for that condition to be
    contractually applicable as explained earlier), no offence should be deemed
    to have taken place according to the claimants own terms and conditions
    which specify that any stay under 2.5 hours is permissible, the parking
    event stay was 1 hour 59 minutes according to the claimant.


    4/ Inadequate signs incapable of binding the driver - this distinguishes
    this case from the Beavis case:

    (a) Sporadic and insufficiently defined signage - breach of the POFA 2012
    Schedule 4 and the BPA Code of Practice and no contract formed to pay any
    clearly stated sum.



    (b) No promise was made by the driver that could constitute consideration
    because there was no clear offer known nor accepted. No consideration
    flowed from the Claimant.



    (c) Absent the elements of a contract, there can be no breach of contract.



    5/ No standing - this distinguishes this case from the Beavis case:



    It is believed Parkingeye do not hold a legitimate contract at this car
    park. As an agent, the Claimant has no legal right to bring such a claim in
    their name which should be in the name of the landowner. I have the
    reasonable belief that they do not have the authority to issue charges on
    this land in their own name and that they have no locus stand to bring this
    case.

    6/ The Beavis case confirmed the fact that, if it is a matter of trespass
    (not breach of any contract), a parking firm has no standing as a
    non-landowner to pursue even nominal damages.



    7/ The charge is an unenforceable penalty, neither based upon a genuine
    pre-estimate of loss nor any commercial justification. The Beavis case
    confirmed that the penalty rule is certainly engaged in any case of a
    private parking charge and was only disengaged due to the unique
    circumstances of that case, which do not resemble this claim.


    I therefore ask the court to



    - strike out the claim as showing no cause of action



    OR



    - draw the reasonable conclusion that the claimant has no standing to offer
    parking contracts, nor to pursue them to court in their own name or even
    pursue a claim based on an “event day” condition that was wholly
    insufficiently defined both in the particulars of the case and on the
    signage, and therefore I ask the court to strike out the claim as the
    claimant lacks standing



    I believe that the facts stated in this (name the document and the date of
    the document) are true
    Last edited by kkzs; 08-06-2016 at 3:39 PM.
    • bod1467
    • By bod1467 8th Jun 16, 3:41 PM
    • 14,806 Posts
    • 13,447 Thanks
    bod1467
    Edit the post to remove personal, identifiable info.

    Proof-read the defence to remove grammatical or factual errors. (e.g. Locus Standi ... would or have accepted ... "event day" clause)
    • kkzs
    • By kkzs 8th Jun 16, 3:53 PM
    • 20 Posts
    • 4 Thanks
    kkzs
    Thanks, done, posting from phone!

    I'll proof read for grammar.
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 8th Jun 16, 6:49 PM
    • 40,335 Posts
    • 52,172 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    Good luck, I see you have had comments on pepipoo too. Looks good and relies on different arguments than the Beavis case.

    Submit that defence then relax and revisit bargepole's post as linked under the 'small claim?' heading in the NEWBIES thread, to see how to jump through the next hoop.
    PRIVATE PCN in England/Wales? DON'T PAY BUT DO NOT IGNORE IT

    Click on the breadcrumb trail, top of page: Household & Travel > Motoring > Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking & READ THE 'NEWBIES' FAQS THREAD.
    DON'T read old advice to ignore, unless in Scotland/NI.

    • kkzs
    • By kkzs 9th Jun 16, 9:17 PM
    • 20 Posts
    • 4 Thanks
    kkzs
    thanks, website is down, hope its temporary, or back on tomorrow!!
    • kkzs
    • By kkzs 12th Jul 16, 8:54 PM
    • 20 Posts
    • 4 Thanks
    kkzs
    Update - I have received a copy of the directions questionnaire.

    Box a1 has been ticked no, about it being referred to the small claims mediation centre.

    All I have is a a copy of the questionnaire, am unclear what the actions are on me, and next steps I need to prepare for, court hearing I presume? Please help!
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 12th Jul 16, 9:20 PM
    • 40,335 Posts
    • 52,172 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    First port of call for you each time is not this thread. It's the NEWBIES thread at the top, the heading 'small claim' and the second link there to Bargepole's post telling you about the paperwork at each stage and which boxes to tick, etc.

    We get LOADS of court defence threads and so the NEWBIES thread is there to help with that stage so we can keep up and not have to repeat ourselves about basic paperwork stages. Once you have re-read Bargepole's post (no link given) if you have any queries please ask.

    It's just very hard when every poster says each time' help, I've got this letter, what do I do?' Much better for us if a few people just say, I've looked at the NEWBIES FAQs thread and read Bargepole's advice so I know what stage I'm at and what to do next but I have a query...
    Last edited by Coupon-mad; 12-07-2016 at 9:23 PM.
    PRIVATE PCN in England/Wales? DON'T PAY BUT DO NOT IGNORE IT

    Click on the breadcrumb trail, top of page: Household & Travel > Motoring > Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking & READ THE 'NEWBIES' FAQS THREAD.
    DON'T read old advice to ignore, unless in Scotland/NI.

    • kkzs
    • By kkzs 10th Oct 16, 1:51 PM
    • 20 Posts
    • 4 Thanks
    kkzs
    **update** some advice on how to approach next step please required.

    I have received hearing court papers and a court date for this claim,which is late November.

    However,over the past few months parking eye have been sending me letters to settle, we went into an exchange haggling over amounts and a couple of weeks ago I received a letter from ParkingEye,with reference to the court claim number, saying

    "we are writing to notify you that we wish to discontinue the above numbered claim and that we now consider this matter to be closed. We would kindly request that the hearing is vacated and if a hearing fee has been paid, that this is refunded "


    So I consider the matter closed, however ParkingEye sent another letter I received today(WITHOUT PREJUDICE SAVE AS TO COSTS) asking that I pay them 40pounds, as a gesture of good will to finally settle,which refers to their PCN number.


    So are they contradicting themselves, or are they trying to reclaim some court fee from me?

    How should I respond?obviously I still have the letter where they say the matter is closed hence I am thinking to send a letter both to the court and ParkingEye reminding them of this. Please advise.
    Thanks.
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 10th Oct 16, 2:02 PM
    • 40,335 Posts
    • 52,172 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    "we are writing to notify you that we wish to discontinue the above numbered claim and that we now consider this matter to be closed. We would kindly request that the hearing is vacated and if a hearing fee has been paid, that this is refunded "


    So I consider the matter closed, however ParkingEye sent another letter I received today(WITHOUT PREJUDICE SAVE AS TO COSTS) asking that I pay them 40pounds, as a gesture of good will to finally settle,which refers to their PCN number.
    Sounds like they have mucked this up. That request for a refund WAS SURELY ADDRESSED TO THE COURT, with you copied in (they are not trying to get you to refund it, BTW, despite the reply on pepipoo forum). There was never a suggestion of you paying their fee!

    Call up the court and ask them if they have the case noted as 'discontinued'.

    If yes, then send an email to:

    enforcement@parkingeye.co.uk marked for the attention of Rosanna Breaks, Solicitor. Tell her that it is beyond belief that you have received a demand for £40 after the case was discontinued (enclose proof). Ask for her assurance within seven days that this matter has not been somehow resurrected and if they are claiming it has, state that you object to this misinformation and require their explanation which you will include in your evidence of their unreasonable conduct.

    If the court say no, still send the above email with the two conflicting letters, to try to force PE's hand into discontinuing now.

    What was the date by which YOU had to get your evidence/witness statement to the court and PE? Have PE served theirs to you? Have you complied with the Court's Direction in time or do you still have time, in case this is not discontinued?
    Last edited by Coupon-mad; 10-10-2016 at 2:12 PM.
    PRIVATE PCN in England/Wales? DON'T PAY BUT DO NOT IGNORE IT

    Click on the breadcrumb trail, top of page: Household & Travel > Motoring > Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking & READ THE 'NEWBIES' FAQS THREAD.
    DON'T read old advice to ignore, unless in Scotland/NI.

    • kkzs
    • By kkzs 10th Oct 16, 2:17 PM
    • 20 Posts
    • 4 Thanks
    kkzs
    Thanks.

    I have submitted my skeleton defence, submitted my directions questionnaire, have done nothing else except exchange letters with ParkingEye about settlement amount.

    ParkingEye have served their papers to me, I have not submitted a full defence or any other papers
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 10th Oct 16, 3:24 PM
    • 40,335 Posts
    • 52,172 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    Your date to serve your end paperwork would have been given when you got a court date.
    PRIVATE PCN in England/Wales? DON'T PAY BUT DO NOT IGNORE IT

    Click on the breadcrumb trail, top of page: Household & Travel > Motoring > Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking & READ THE 'NEWBIES' FAQS THREAD.
    DON'T read old advice to ignore, unless in Scotland/NI.

    • kkzs
    • By kkzs 10th Oct 16, 5:36 PM
    • 20 Posts
    • 4 Thanks
    kkzs
    It says documents must be received no later than 14 days before the hearing, so I have a couple of weeks, atleast 3.
    • kkzs
    • By kkzs 10th Oct 16, 5:53 PM
    • 20 Posts
    • 4 Thanks
    kkzs
    Have ParkingEye materially messed up then with their letter saying the matter is closed? Some advise on this please.

    I'll try and confirm tomorrow if the case is still on.
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 10th Oct 16, 6:57 PM
    • 40,335 Posts
    • 52,172 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    Have ParkingEye materially messed up then with their letter saying the matter is closed? Some advise on this please.

    I'll try and confirm tomorrow if the case is still on.
    Originally posted by kkzs
    Yes, as already advised.

    It seems from your description that they have written to the court to discontinue the case and they copied you in, so you can expect it to be discontinued (if that letter had the right claim number/details in the heading). They have mucked up but find out first whether the court also got that discontinuance letter. If they did, the court will tell you it's dead and you can then email PE with impunity telling them to cease & desist.
    PRIVATE PCN in England/Wales? DON'T PAY BUT DO NOT IGNORE IT

    Click on the breadcrumb trail, top of page: Household & Travel > Motoring > Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking & READ THE 'NEWBIES' FAQS THREAD.
    DON'T read old advice to ignore, unless in Scotland/NI.

    • kkzs
    • By kkzs 10th Oct 16, 7:27 PM
    • 20 Posts
    • 4 Thanks
    kkzs
    Ok thanks, I hope that's the case and then finally I can put this matter to an end.
Welcome to our new Forum!

Our aim is to save you money quickly and easily. We hope you like it!

Forum Team Contact us

Live Stats

5,281Posts Today

7,127Users online

Martin's Twitter
  • It's not fair or accurate to assign all leave voters (nor remainers) one voice. The vote may have been binary but t? https://t.co/QMqKrfY1jv

  • That's cos the UK voted for Brexit. The choice now unless something radical happens is what type. (Plus twitter o? https://t.co/SLmh2jL4bU

  • Todays twitter poll: The lib dem leader says more people now want soft brexit (ie still in single market etc) than hard - what do you want?

  • Follow Martin