ParkingEye charge

polyplastic

And no matter what contract says they cannot act for the landowner in court as they don't have the right to do so. As outlined by the judge in vcs v ibbotson.

No one has seen every contract Parking Eye has with landowners so it is not possible to reach that conclusion. In one case cited above the management company (Parking Eye) is recommending that the landowner takes the motorist to court and which clearly circumvents any problems that may arise under the VCS principle.

Parking Eye may have been appointed the agent for the Landowner with sufficient locus to represent the landowner via their appointed Solictor. It is not beyond the wit of any Solicitor to tie that one up. Anyway, we are not discussing other matters but the OP

Each case needs to be considered on its own merits and not against some generalities which may or may not be relevant.

Can I ask what is your agenda here ?

The OP asked for advice and I am providing him with a reality check upon the issues that he needs to consider and address particularly if he wishes to defend his corner. It's not just a case of file a defence and forget. There is so much more that needs to be undertaken.

When he comments "I've always stated that as soon as they took it as far as court I'd pay as I have neither the time, energy or resources to defend it. It's a shame they've added £25 court fees and £50 solicitor costs into the bargain "

"I'm happy to fight it providing the cost's don't escalate but I'm also concerned about the stress. I'm a full time degree student and my partner is also in full time studies so time is very limited. Plus I'll be honest, I don't have a clue what I'm doing lol.

I've never experienced anything like this before!"

He sets out the issues of concern. So, in providing advice it is necessary that we take on board those issues and advise accordingly. "Fight it, don't worry there can't be any more costs, ignore them etc" is not, in my view, the correct approach. So, what do we need to consider when offering advice?

1. He doesn't want costs to escalate. When Stroma provided advice to ignore etc., there was no mention of potential costs of £75. Nor was there mention of the potential extra £25 hearing fees. No mention of the courts right to award additional costs if it considers the conduct of the defendant made the courts involvement nesessary e.g use of POPLA - which would have been free for the OP but now it is costing him to lodge a defence. Money saving? The OP proceeded without knowledge of the potential risks. My own view is that such risks should be identified so that an individual can take a view on the way forward knowing what the risks are and not based upon someone else's agenda.
2. He wishes to avoid stress. If you have never been in court it may be stressful and especially if you are a litigant in person unaware of process. Not everyone is cut out for it and we need to respect that.
3. Does he have time to appear at court? They tend to give a time to be there and you can wait around for ages. Has he the time whilst undertaking an educational course? We don't know but "fight it it won't cost anything" is not sufficient advice in my view.

It is clear that this issue is causing the gentleman quite some concern. It is also clear that he needs guidance on the Court protocols, without which, if he chooses to defend the case, he would be lost. I am endeavouring to provide a much broader reality check being concerned that, having followed the advice he has been given on page one, he now finds himself in difficulty.

Can I ask what is your agenda here?
Anyone looking back over this thread will observe that everything you offered in advice has placed the gentleman in that difficulty. It's time for practical matters to be discussed. Bravado is all well and good but once the litigation door has been opened the case has to be dealt with in accordance with the rules.

Stroma may be right that Parking Eye cannot bring an action agains the OP. However, it is not enough to say that to a court you have to know how to go about evidencing that .

Polyplastic.

Stroma

Look there are no certainties in life, parking eye went to court 5 times in 2011, and that is the reality of going there. 5 times out of the 100s of thousands they dish out. Since the vcs v hmrc case even less went court. If you looked at the OP thread on pepipoo they discuss this in more detail.

As for my advice being wrong, can I just say that it's based on the 99.993 % of the time it doesn't go anywhere near a court, the 0.007 that it does is minute. So I would say that there is virtually no chance of it going there.

Your advice of getting legal advice is frankly stupid, that would probably cost more than what is being claimed, so the OP might as well pay! The fact of the matter is that it won't cost more than what is claimed. And parking eye must win first! The fact that the second part of the defence would be the loss and that does not reflect the charge.

I can see parking eye not even turning up here once they receive the defence, like they have done in the past.

polyplastic

So I would say that there is virtually no chance of it going there.

Ah, but this has gone to court so let that be a lesson to everyone. Think about your options, consequences and risks and take whatever action you can to protect your position. God gave us hindsight but sadly overlooked giving us foresight. Yes, Stroma you base your advice on statistics. Here is a statistic - the court can order you to pay all of the other side's costs if you have not used an alternative appeal forum which is available to you rather than leave the matter to come to court. Not saying they will, but it is an option.

From what the OP has posted it appears that he would have preferred to pay up on the first demand rather than have to pay an extra £75. He may even have said to himself "I wish I had paid now"

When giving advice, my own view is that we should think about the difference between

"Just continue to ignore them like what you've been doing already. They will not take you to court IMO. They won't risk another hiding. The costs won't go up if you lose."

and an alternative approach........

"You can ignore it and evidence to date is that the parking company will not take you to court. However, that evidence does not take into account any effect that the POFA may have on the parking company's thinking. It's early to say yet whether there will be any increase in court cases because of that legilstaion. If you do ignore the notice and letters then the parking company can sue the registered keeper if they wish. Under the Rules applicable to small claims proceedings there is an expectation that you will use POPLA so if you choose not to appeal to POPLA (which is free) this may be taken into account, should they take you to court, when considering an order for costs. "

Rather than tell someone to ignore, give them options.

Better still when giving advice assume that you have to pay up if that advice is incorrect.


Polyplastic

halibut2209

It hasn't gone to court.

polyplastic

halibut2209 wrote: »

It hasn't gone to court.

OP said "Unfortunately, a few days after this letter I received court papers through the post "

Later he confirmed that they were genuine

Polyplastic

edward123

polyplastic wrote: »

OP said "Unfortunately, a few days after this letter I received court papers through the post "

Later he confirmed that they were genuine

Polyplastic

And how many times has the PPC served court papers but then withdrew due to a proper defence proferred?

halibut2209

polyplastic wrote: »

OP said "Unfortunately, a few days after this letter I received court papers through the post "

Later he confirmed that they were genuine

Polyplastic

Yes. It hasn't gone to court

polyplastic

Think we may be at cross purposes. I think you mean it hasn't gone to a hearing. That is clear from the OPs posts.

Polyplastic

halibut2209

And it is also clear from experience that simply filling out a form does not mean it will go that far.

Guys_Dad

polyplastic wrote: »

Interesting point mentioned above that Parking Eye " will recommend to the landholder to commence County Court proceedings."

So, in that case they are recommending that the Landowner takes the court action. This picks up perfectly what I posted in my last post about PPCs getting their act together since the VCS case.

Perhaps the times they are a changing. New rules apply to the game

Polyplastic

Appreciate your various posts on this thread clearly with some knowledge behind them. Just 2 things.

1. In the quote above, you do recognise the difference between landowner and land holder, the latter term being able to be conferred upon a 3rd party, such as a PPC, by contract?

2. You did not comment on my previous point
If a motorist loses a court case, then it is possible that the costs awarded could be higher because they had not gone through POPLA

On the other hand, if the motorist went down the POPLA route, it wouldn't get to court if PPC had lost the POPLA appeal and the court could take the view that motorist should have taken POPLA decision instead of "wasting court's time" and allow the same costs anyway.

So what do you see as the benefit from going through POPLA, except for the possibility of winning at that stage?