Parking Eye court case

Greatest_Player

Hello.

I received a Parking Eye invoice for oversatying when I fell asleep at a service station earlier in the year. In line with pre POFA advice, I ignored everything from them. A Letter Before Action was sent to me and now I have received court papers which are genuine.

I intend to defend my position on account of the charge amounting to an illegal penalty but as I begin to submit my defence, I have read other pieces of advice on these invoices and one caught my attention.

The Notice to Keeper is drafted by Parking Eye and the client is named as the service station but there is no mention of who the creditor is and this is a POFA breach. Am I right in assuming that Parking Eye or the service station is the creditor, or should this be specified? Can this be a good enough reason when writing the defence to have the judge throw it out? ...Especially since their more recent invoices now list the creditor (according to threads at Pepipoo and here)

Orrin

You can certainly try, but I wouldn't rely on it. It all depends on how you present your case and what the judge decides on the day.

In the Kevin Shelley case that PE like to crow about he apparently brought up the issue of POFA compliance and the judge just waved it away.

Have you considered a 'without prejudice' offer to pay a reduced amount?

Coupon-mad

Greatest_Player wrote: »

Hello.

I received a Parking Eye invoice for oversatying when I fell asleep at a service station earlier in the year. In line with pre POFA advice, I ignored everything from them. A Letter Before Action was sent to me and now I have received court papers which are genuine.

I intend to defend my position on account of the charge amounting to an illegal penalty but as I begin to submit my defence, I have read other pieces of advice on these invoices and one caught my attention.

The Notice to Keeper is drafted by Parking Eye and the client is named as the service station but there is no mention of who the creditor is and this is a POFA breach. Am I right in assuming that Parking Eye or the service station is the creditor, or should this be specified? Can this be a good enough reason when writing the defence to have the judge throw it out? ...Especially since their more recent invoices now list the creditor (according to threads at Pepipoo and here)

You are right but that's a TINY point among lots in any defence - and a penalty isn't illegal, it's 'unenforceable'. There are LOTS more important defence points!

Read this info about defences I give to people with a Small Claim from a PPC:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/62845730#Comment_62845730

and this thread too, one of many:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/4587137

You need to follow the advice on all those links, acknowledge the claim saying you will defend in full and then send a skeleton defence to the court. As this was a Motorway Service Area (MSA) there are also other arguments to be put forward in addition to the usual defence points. To find out about the specific MSA signage and '2 hours rest' government requirements (yes I know you overstayed) search this forum for the single acronym 'MSA' and change the default search to 'show posts' (using the 'search this forum' heading above the threads on page one of the parking forum itself which is always one click away from here of course, see my signature). It is important in your defence to point out the compelling evidence of exactly what the Dept for Transport and Highways Agency says about MSA signage and rest, and you will find it quoted more than once, when you read other MSA threads.

Was there any medical reason why the driver overstayed (I mean not just asleep, but was there any chronic illness or medication that would mean they may have needed longer to rest, under the Equality Act 2010, than another person? Was the driver elderly, ill, taking meds or had ANY longterm condition? Just checking!).

In the meantime once you have done that, send a written or emailed URGENT COMPLAINT to whoever contracted PE at this car park, the MSA Manager (or CEO of Welcome Break or whoever the MSA was). These fake PCNs can be cancelled even at a late stage:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/62837690#Comment_62837690

Hope the links help.

You need to see what to include in any defence and the links DO contain such information if you follow and read everything on other links that then lead off others.

Custard_Pie

Orrin wrote: »

You can certainly try, but I wouldn't rely on it. It all depends on how you present your case and what the judge decides on the day.

In the Kevin Shelley case that PE like to crow about he apparently brought up the issue of POFA compliance and the judge just waved it away.

Have you considered a 'without prejudice' offer to pay a reduced amount?

Why admit guilt by paying an amount for which the claim is not entitled or just?

Yes, Small Claims can be a lottery at times, but a well-thought out and documented defense can still see PE moving onto easier targets. Remember, if they lose at Small Claims then they lose loads of money. If they win at Small Claims, then they lose a smaller amount of money, but they still lose. They do not want to take anyone to Court, apart from when it suits them to crow about how tough they are by picking and choosing default or easy-win cases.

Guys_Dad

This may be of interest to you. Including the link to the legislation.
http://motorwayservicesonline.co.uk/Parking

Orrin

Custard_Pie wrote: »

Why admit guilt by paying an amount for which the claim is not entitled or just?

According to the OP the facts are not in dispute, only the level of the charge. Assuming the original parking charge was £10 after the first 2 hours, why shouldn't the OP offer to pay at least that much?

Custard_Pie wrote: »

Yes, Small Claims can be a lottery at times, but a well-thought out and documented defense can still see PE moving onto easier targets. Remember, if they lose at Small Claims then they lose loads of money. If they win at Small Claims, then they lose a smaller amount of money, but they still lose. They do not want to take anyone to Court, apart from when it suits them to crow about how tough they are by picking and choosing default or easy-win cases.

What evidence do you have to support this?

Greatest_Player

@Coupon Mad

Thanks for the links and the detailed explanation. It would be silly not to mention the absence of creditor but I won't depend on it.

To be honest, the question of penalising and whether it is illegal or just unenforceable is not a major issue. You see, PE openly deny it is a penalty and contend that the amount sought is purely for damages flowing from the allegation. I on the other hand have enough evidence to prove beyond reasonable doubt that their demand is penal but to be honest, I very much doubt the judge will need any convincing about this. This post is to answer your other question.

I drove. I don't deny it. POFA already lands the responsibility on the keeper and even pre-POFA, it could not be denied in court. This may be heading for court so I declare in advance here to all that I drove and I fell asleep in the MSA. But who am I? That's what the spies reading this need to work out.

Yes there was a mitigating circumstance. I had worked the whole night prior to that, had no sleep in the daytime and I was driving home from one of the London airports when not only was I finding it hard to keep my eyes open (and you know the big sign, "TIREDNESS KILLS, TAKE A BREAK") but had sinus pains which were getting worse and worse. No medical certificate but that is the fact!

Greatest_Player

Orrin wrote: »

According to the OP the facts are not in dispute, only the level of the charge. Assuming the original parking charge was £10 after the first 2 hours, why shouldn't the OP offer to pay at least that much?

The allegation is not in dispute, no. Obviously what you say here makes far more sense than what was stated in your previous post which suggested pay the "reduced amount". By that I take it you meant the "if received within 13 days" sum. The problem there is that - as Coupon Mad mentioned - a penalty per se is unenforceable, and the "reduced figure" is an unconscionable 600% of the "staying beyong 2 hours" fee. The "after 13 days" charge is 1000% of the legitimate fee for staying beyond 2 hours.

Naturally I am happy to pay the on-the-day fee as well as the small fee for their stamps and acquisition of keeper details (provided doing so was legal) but that figure falls well short of their "reduced settlement".

I have yet to broach it because I had not entered into communication with PE until more recently over a separate issue but that is by the by.

Greatest_Player

...plus, government allows 2hrs at MSAs and regardless of entrance/exit times, I was asleep for the whole night, several hours beyond limit. When I awoke, I simply continued my journey like a zombie!

Orrin

Greatest_Player wrote: »

Obviously what you say here makes far more sense than what was stated in your previous post which suggested pay the "reduced amount". By that I take it you meant the "if received within 13 days" sum.

I meant exactly what I said: an offer to pay a reduced amount, being less than the amount claimed, but greater than nothing.

If you're confident of your arguments regarding the charge being an unenforceable penalty (and there are certainly strong arguments to be made that it is) then by all means keep your cash in your pocket and see them in court.

Custard_Pie

Orrin wrote: »

According to the OP the facts are not in dispute, only the level of the charge. Assuming the original parking charge was £10 after the first 2 hours, why shouldn't the OP offer to pay at least that much?


What evidence do you have to support this?

Any offer of monies will be considered to be an admission of guilt for what is a genuine error. Lining the pockets of these parasites achieves nothing, but to give them confidence to go out and seek other victims.

We have seen cases on here and other forums where the Small Claims has proven to be a bit of a lottery at times. We have also seen PE send legal representation at Court and try and claim thousands in legal expenses, which they can not claim. We have also seen them splash random names on their web site of supposed wins at Court, without explanation if they were undefended defaults or genuine wins based upon case law.

Enough evidence?