Parking Eye court case

Guys_Dad

Looking at my link, the comment was that few of the motorway service centre station signs comply. Didn't read all the legislation points re signs but might be worth checking out if you are likely to be on a motorway before POPLA hear your case.

You can include signage as a point and submit the evidence as an addendum to your case after the PPC denies it. If it complies, then it's on to the next appeal point.

Buzby

Most of the MSA cases I've seen (4) were won on the basis of no contract being entered into. The driver had never even left his vehicle so could not have been deemed to have read or accepted the terms the site operator had planned to impose.

I've also noticed that the parking rule signage is now being placed in the toilets - no doubt to catch those that need a Wizz before falling asleep.

Greatest_Player

Buzby wrote: »

Most of the MSA cases I've seen (4) were won on the basis of no contract being entered into. The driver had never even left his vehicle so could not have been deemed to have read or accepted the terms the site operator had planned to impose.

I've also noticed that the parking rule signage is now being placed in the toilets - no doubt to catch those that need a Wizz before falling asleep.

It's been quite a few months in my case. I intend to be honest and it inspires confidence to hear that remaining in the vehicle does not seal the contract - only problem is that it has been a few months and I cannot recall whether I simply put the seat back, pulled the blankets and dropped off or whether I used the washroom first. I wasn't feeling well and that is a fact, I know that when I awoke I simply resumed the trip.

Umkomaas

Greatest_Player wrote: »

It's been quite a few months in my case. I intend to be honest and it inspires confidence to hear that remaining in the vehicle does not seal the contract - only problem is that it has been a few months and I cannot recall whether I simply put the seat back, pulled the blankets and dropped off or whether I used the washroom first. I wasn't feeling well and that is a fact, I know that when I awoke I simply resumed the trip.

I guess if you don't know, then nobody else will.

No one is going to go through hours of CCTV footage to try to identify whether you had a pee or not. In fact, even if there was an inclination to do so, as they don't know what you look like, how would they identify you from any one of the hundreds of punters desperate for a leak going through the toilet door per hour.

PS - conspiracy theory - there's a hidden CCTV directly above each urinal. The judge may want to examine the evidence. "Just pop it out on my desk will you sir?".

spacey2012

At what point do the services make it clear you have left the highway ? do they have a clearly marked boundary ?

What I do know is the Old defences place you in too high and in to the POFA, this has been shown in recent losses, once you enter POFA by admitting to the evidence they hold the judges hands are quite tied by pofa.
It needs to start much lower and attack the foundation evidence of the case first.
Right to audience to represent trespass and claim on behalf of landowner (services can be leased or rented from the Government as opposed to land owned)
Is this the highway ? I am quite sure the police enforce upon it.
ANPR are the VCA approved ? if not does the court allow non VCA approved ANPR devices, request a Clark attend to read the protocol on VCA approval for evidence, local councils have been thrown out of higher courts for failing to adhere to it.
Then start moving in to the penalty area.

However Once you make admission you were there, POFA will rule and has in other recent cases.
You are not denying you may have used the car park in the past, just unsure of the timing and dates, can they prove this with the equipment if it is non VCA approved.
Provide examples of failure of ANPR DIY camera systems (I have requested a sticky on these) , they are many proven occasions where this evidence has been found to be far less than accurate (see parking pranksters double dip tests)
Next attack planning permission and rateable value, are they dodging bussines rates and breaching planning consent for the cameras and charging to park.

Coupon-mad

Greatest_Player wrote: »

It's been quite a few months in my case. I intend to be honest and it inspires confidence to hear that remaining in the vehicle does not seal the contract - only problem is that it has been a few months and I cannot recall whether I simply put the seat back, pulled the blankets and dropped off or whether I used the washroom first. I wasn't feeling well and that is a fact, I know that when I awoke I simply resumed the trip.

Remaining in the vehicle is likely to be irrelevant, IMHO, as any PPC would suggest & argue that a driver has seen their signs as they drove in.

No-one is saying you should not be honest, far from it! But it's not about whether you got out of the car or not, it's about whether their signs comply (they don't) plus all the other usual points of defence as already linked. It's already covered in detail, with Highways Dept policy links on other MSA threads, what is required of signs at MSAs. Hope you've done the search I suggested and read the other MSA threads, I can think of half a dozen I have replied to this month with lots of digging for evidence about the MSA traffic signage 'rules' already done for you.

Greatest_Player

spacey2012 wrote: »

However Once you make admission you were there, POFA will rule and has in other recent cases.

Naturally this is so! It is not POFA that I am afraid of! I mean let's face it, PE can call their idea of enforcement anything they so wish but nowhere within POFA does it state that "keeper is liable for penalty from operator". If PE can prove damages, best of luck to them. But then I'm a fair chap, if they simply explain to me how I caused them to lose what they claim (along with proof that it is true, such as the broken statue of Rachel Ledson I accidentally on purpose drove over when leaving!!!!!) then I will pay it immediately.

Greatest_Player

I've been looking at the standard Parking Eye rejection letters and the cases they list which they believe come down in favour of their terms and conditions as well as their charges.

Of the four examples, two I am not worried about because they were initial claims in which the judges accepted the claim figures where the nature of the charges had not been challenged. It is the other two which are alarming: Vine v Waltham Forest, and the Somerfield saga.

The Vine v Waltham Forest was a clamping issue on private land against a private company and dealt with by the county court. This is PE's "prominent terms and conditions" card - but since there was an authority involved here, a London Borough, does that not make matters different? I mean, where authorities manage the enforcement, isn't that within the remit zone of council/police and public matters (Road Traffic Act)?

And Somerfield is even more worrying. Case law here openly announced £75 was not a penalty but £135 was. No figure was set for determining how high an enforceable charge can be and the two sums presented to me by PE sit on each side of £75, the "reduced" one less, the other more. Either way, this still contravenes the Dunlop case aftermath which describes anything unconscionable as being penal. £75 for overstaying in a free car park cannot be fair here. Have I missed something?

So what about POFA 9.2f? It allows them to chase the amount specified in 9.2d, the "unpaid charge in full". I realise 'charge' can mean legal fee to park on day or the "penalty". Since penalties have never been legalised, and bearing in mind operators called those charges "penalties" until around 2009 (despite Somerfield judge dismissing it), the new usage of "charge" as its replacement to cover up the intent must surely not be protected by 9.2f. Likewise, concerning the Vine case, PE signage still threatens clamping, so I believe neither prominence nor any old condition set by landowner can be binding. Have I missed something?

Any replies!!?? Thanks

jkdd77

Vine v Waltham Forest dealt solely with the issue of "volenti non fit injuria" (i.e. consent to risk of clamping), and has minimal relevance to the question of whether a valid contract was entered into.

Case law relating specifically to contact formation would appear to be more favourable to the motorist than that on clamping.

Re-reading the Parking Eye v Somerfield ruling:
http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2012/1338.html
three things stand out:
1) the lower court (quite wrongly, IMO) held that £75 was not a penalty (paragraph 5); this was not directly challenged or ruled upon by the Court of Appeal, so does not represent binding case law;
2) Parking Eye were found guilty of the 'tort of deceit' (numerous falsehoods in their letters) by the lower court (paragraph 13), and this decision was not challenged on appeal;
3) The lower court also held that the contract was between the motorist and Somerfield, and that "no debt was due to Parking Eye" (paragraph 11); this too was not challenged on appeal.

Somerfield's appeal focused solely on a narrow technical ground relating to supposed dishonesty and illegality as justification for their cancelling their contract with PE, and so the case law set has relatively little wider impact to cases brought by PPCs directly against motorists.

Parking Eye like to quote this case in support of their claims, but in fact it principally shows that they have 'unclean hands' and that their invoices are possibly Schedule 4 non-compliant in incorrectly identifying themselves, rather than the landowner/ managing agent, as the "creditor".

Greatest_Player

jkdd77 wrote: »

Parking Eye like to quote this case in support of their claims, but in fact it principally shows that they have 'unclean hands' and that their invoices are possibly Schedule 4 non-compliant in incorrectly identifying themselves, rather than the landowner/ managing agent, as the "creditor".

Yes that is spot on. As you'll see from my recent posts I was aware of that. You know the interesting thing? As I had never spoken one to one with somebody from ParkingEye prior to recently AFTER court papers arrived, it dawned on me that those two tacky photos of my motor entering and leaving are their whole evidence and I as keeper have been challenged entirely within the decree of POFA - and here they are flouting the very same legislation they intend to pursue.

Thanks for the rest of the useful information. Because PE v Somerfield was not an operator v motorist/keeper issue, naturally the acceptance by the lower court of £75 not being penal was merely an acknowledgement.