New Parking Eye charge notice

Guys_Dad

Going right the way back - their initial demand was in excess of £100 and that breaches BPA COP.

Do not lose sight of that as that alone could get it chucked out at court.

Are you able to just precis/list the 6 other PC points without typeing their exact content?

please_help_my_daughter

The two that shes going to court over are both £100 each, the £125 shes heard nothing about yet. and the PC points briefly are:
1. As above.
2. Parking eye allow a grace period which she outstayed (being there for 37 mins). and its reasonable to assume she didnt drive round constantly for nearly 40 mins so was parked and by her own admission outside the bays further breaking the terms and conditions!!.
3. No parking on a Sunday outside certain times, broke terms and conditions again.
4. Parking charges are fair and reasonable. 'A charge of £75 pounds was found by HHJ Hergarty QC in the case of Parkingeye V Somerfield Stores (2011) to be a reasonable charge, by which the motorist would be contractually bound.'
5. Parking eye is prepared to let her pay by installments based on proof of earnings once judgement has been given. Initial fee was £60.
6. The signage is fully compliant with B.P.A. regulations and there is adequate signage. The BPA does not stipulate that the signs must be lit at night. All signage is reflective so she should of seen it with her lights on (which she didnt).

Stroma

You still haven't posted this on pepipoo, please do so as asked previously. Only a few people can help you here, there are lot more on there who can

please_help_my_daughter

Thank you for your advice Stroma, I have now posted it on Pepipoo as you suggested.

Stroma

please_help_my_daughter wrote: »

Thank you for your advice Stroma, I have now posted it on Pepipoo as you suggested.

So people can follow this on pepipoo
http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=80953

please_help_my_daughter

The court date is 16th August 2013. I will post the out come of the hearing on here. Thanks for all your help so far.

Coupon-mad

please_help_my_daughter wrote: »

The two that shes going to court over are both £100 each, the £125 shes heard nothing about yet. and the PC points briefly are:
1. As above.
2. Parking eye allow a grace period which she outstayed (being there for 37 mins). and its reasonable to assume she didnt drive round constantly for nearly 40 mins so was parked and by her own admission outside the bays further breaking the terms and conditions!!.
3. No parking on a Sunday outside certain times, broke terms and conditions again.
4. Parking charges are fair and reasonable. 'A charge of £75 pounds was found by HHJ Hergarty QC in the case of Parkingeye V Somerfield Stores (2011) to be a reasonable charge, by which the motorist would be contractually bound.'
5. Parking eye is prepared to let her pay by installments based on proof of earnings once judgement has been given. Initial fee was £60.
6. The signage is fully compliant with B.P.A. regulations and there is adequate signage. The BPA does not stipulate that the signs must be lit at night. All signage is reflective so she should of seen it with her lights on (which she didnt).

I do hope you have shot all those points down in flames - you can write to PE right up until the hearing in an attempt to avoid the hearing and to sort it out (without you paying of course). Please don't fold at mediation (pre-hearing) or in the corridor outside even if you feel pressurised to settle (I would go ahead to hearing unless the ticket is cancelled, but that's just me, walk in confidently and know your defence inside out). And it looks better for you if you answer each point. E.g. an irrelevant court case from 2011 which wasn't even about an individual parking situation, does not show that the figure claimed here (for this car park and this alleged 'breach') is a genuine pre-estimate of loss (which it has to be under PFA and the BPA CoP).

Throw in your own court cases which you think are persuasive too and stuff about contract law. I have never defended a small claim but I posted some info here in post #44:

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=79937&st=40

and here in a reply earlier to someone:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/4692839

And obviously there signs are not compliant if they are too high and there are no clear signs visible to a motorist at the entrance (which is where a PPC with a camera contend a 'contract' started). If they want to make the details clear there should be a sign at the entrance which can be read without leaving the car so the driver only proceeds in once they have read the t&cs. An unlit sign is not meeting the burden of clarity and was why it wasn't seen.

Etc, etc, knock down every one of their points, write to PE directly and keep a copy as part of your evidence bundle.

nigelbb

Everybody seems to be forgetting the impossibility of enforcing the contract as your daughter was 17 years old at the time of the parking event. PE are spouting rubbish when they claim otherwise.

A contract entered into with a minor is voidable by the minor who is able to cancel any contract at any time prior to reaching the age of majority and afterwards. There is no requirement for a minor to have a justifiable reason for cancelling the contract, they can do it for whatever reason and if they feel it may be advantageous for them to do so. This is all designed specifically to protect those under the age of majority when entering into a legally binding contract.

Stroma

Nope I ain't forgotten at all, but defending on one thing is not wise in a small claim , that is why I advised to post on pepipoo as well, which has been picked up on I can see

please_help_my_daughter

Thank you for your help, I will answer their claims and send it to them directly as suggested as my daughter is not confident at all and will probably fold as soon as someone asks her name!!!! I have pictures of the signs too which i shall print and send in along with measurements from ground height too. Thank you all again for your continued help.