ParkingEye charge

Stroma

I can you have done so already there are 2 different I stances of parking, were there two different drivers by any chance ? They would be knackered if there were as only the driver is liable not necessarily the keeper

BASFORDLAD

Op has been advised on pepipoo to send a pm to bargepole.

Stroma

BASFORDLAD wrote: »

Op has been advised on pepipoo to send a pm to bargepole.

Yeah he's good with this kind of thing

GeMoae

Stroma wrote: »

I can you have done so already there are 2 different I stances of parking, were there two different drivers by any chance ? They would be knackered if there were as only the driver is liable not necessarily the keeper

I would love to say there were two different drivers and realistically if I was to say here that there were two different drivers would they be able to prove otherwise?

Stroma

GeMoae wrote: »

I would love to say there were two different drivers and realistically if I was to say here that there were two different drivers would they be able to prove otherwise?

Don't lie, it can trip you up at the most unexpected time. Just follow the advice on pepipoo and they will help you.

GeMoae

Stroma wrote: »

Don't lie, it can trip you up at the most unexpected time. Just follow the advice on pepipoo and they will help you.

I wouldn't anyway, was being tongue in cheek :P Thanks for the point in the direction, getting lots of help

D-Fend

GeMoae, please keep us up to speed with how your situation develops. I've just received my 2nd payment request from Parking Eye and was calmly awaiting the 3rd, 4th and 5th installments so I could ignore them as well, but after reading your posts I suddenly felt slightly alarmed (edit: having just read your thread on Pepipoo I now feel moderately calm again).

IF you end up in court I'll be rooting for ya! but after reading all of the excellent advice on here I'm sure everything will work out in your favour. Just a thought but would it be too late to wang off a letter to the retail outlets you were visiting which resulted in your parking charges? It seems to have done the trick for others on here.

Final comment; I love this forum. Was a bit stressed when I received my PCN the other week but the advice I got on here put me at ease and browsing this forum every day has almost become a hobby.

Sorry for waffling on, been a quiet night at work

polyplastic

Ignore the letters....don't pay the charge.....they won't take you to court.....The costs are not going to escalate at all from here on in........

They did go to court..........the Costs rule permits them to claim a further £25 at least as the "hearing costs". If you file a defence it goes to a hearing.

VCS-HMRC was a case under the VAT Rules and not under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. Parking Eye operate under that 2012 Act so that when their notices are ignored they take the registered keeper to court because he has not provided the name and address of the driver. From what has ben posted the OP ignored letters and, thus, did not provide the name and address of the keeper. That is the first hurdle the OP has to explain and try to overcome.

If it appears to the court that the driver was the registered keeper there may additional difficult questions to answer.

Then, under the Courts' "PRACTICE DIRECTION – PRE-ACTION CONDUCT there is a requirement to use any available dispute resolution protocol that may be available rather than go to court. If Parking Eye evidence that the defendant did not make use of POPLA then that failure may lead to additional costs being awarded to the Plaintiff due to the conduct of the defendant. Read the Practice Direction as it does make this clear. The Courts expect other dispute resolution forums to be used so as to reduce the number of cases going to court.

If Parking Eye use witnesses in any hearing they can apply to have their costs for attending paid by the defendant.

If a claim is defended the Solicitor used by Parking Eye may be able to claim further costs. Still within the discretion of the court, but it is best to appreciate all of the potential implications.

Then was the driver liable? No one knows on here because no actual detail has been provided, but the OP is still urged to file a defence.

At the bottom of the defence form there is a statement to sign. That is a "statement of truth". Once you sign that you are confirming that everything in your defence is true. If it is found not to be true then by signing that statement you may be charged with contempt. Read VCS and Ibbotson to see that that does happen. It is a concern that the OP does not know what his defence is. Did he break the rules or not? How much is being claimed? Is the claim one in damages which can be challenged under the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999 or is Parking Eye claiming the contract sum and which the 2012 Act leads parking companies to claim? A contract sum cannot be challenged under the 1999 Regulations because of s6. Starts to get complicated.

So, OP, could I suggest that if you are to defend this action you are better placed to go to a Solicitor to discuss the case in full and take his advice on whether to defend, and if so, on what grounds.


Polyplastic

Stroma

Pofa 2012 is meaningless legislation, it just confers keeper liability and that is it! vcs v hmrc is very relevant if you took the time to read it. And the small claims track can be used without the need for solicitors, as their costs far outweigh the claim.

I suggest that you read what the reality of this situation instead of posting what you have, the guys over on pepipoo know what they are doing as they have a proven method of defending cases like this. They have a track record on helping people in situations like this.

As for people saying ignore them it's proven tactic that works in a vast majority of cases, for example this is from 2011 and are verifiable facts

Source Home Office
1.8m fake tickets issued

FOI request to the courts on BPA AOS members
845 claims
49 before a judge
25 wins for the motorist
24 wins for parking industry

So it's quite plain that cases taken to court are minute in comparison to those issued.

Guys_Dad

Stroma wrote: »

So it's quite plain that cases taken to court are minute in comparison to those issued.

You are absolutely right. It's a bit like the annual migration of the Wilderbeest. Thousands face the predators and only a handful get caught. But it isn't much fun if you are one of the handful.

That is why GeMoae has done the right thing by contacting Bargepole et al on Pepipoo to look for a defence. Worrying he is not there at present.

I would like to see polyplastic's comments on Practice Direction tested in such a case as it may very well influence the "ignore - do nothing" general advice if we see a surge in court proceedings coming through and PPCs using this in their claim.

Things change, and if this crops up to the detriment of MSE members, then the advice should take account of this.