Parking Eye - Court Claim

Tandon

I have put together a draft defence and would appreciate advice on how to improve it.

The sign at the entrance was not in the line of sight and was small. The defendant was not aware of the sign when entering the car park and only became aware of it when he returned to the car park after having received Parking Eye’s PCN. As far as the defendant was aware the car park was a free for paying customers. The sign was too small and too high so was not visible to a driver entering the site. Even if the sign had been at driver’s eye level at the point the sign was placed, it would not have been possible to void passing the sign and entering the main part of the car park. Therefore no contract can have been entered into by the defendant because the signs fail to properly inform drivers of the full terms & conditions in a very prominent place at a low enough height at the entrance, the elements of a contract have not been met: ref Mendelssohn v Normand Ltd [1970].

The car park was free to park and half empty when the defendant parked there, also the car park is not owned by Parking Eye Ltd, so neither Parking Eye nor the land owner have incurred a loss. Therefore the claimed parking charge is neither reasonable nor a genuine pre-estimate of loss.

Further, the charge remains the same irrespective of the length of overstay, i.e. the charge is the same for a ten minute overstay as it is for a ten hour overstay, thus it is disproportionately high for a short overstay and is clearly not proportional to any supposed loss and therefore is a penalty for overstay.

With reference to The Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999, if there was a contract with the defendant the requested payment of £100 was not individually negotiated with the defendant and causes a significant imbalance in the parties’ respective rights and obligations and is therefore an unfair term and unenforceable.


Letter Before Action

The Letter Before Action sent by Parking Eye Ltd does not comply with the Practice Direction.

The letter does not specify the basis on which the claim is made, whether it relates to a breach of contract claim, a trespass claim or a debt claim. It states that by staying longer than authorised, the parking charge was now payable.

It does state that Parking Eye Ltd want the defendant to pay them £100.

It does not indicate that they have suffered a financial loss and there is no indication of how the amount of £100 has been arrived at.

It fails to list the essential documents on which the Claimant intends to rely.

It fails to mention Alternative Dispute Resolution, nor an ADR the claimant considers suitable.

It does not contain a request for documents nor an indication that none are required.

It fails to mention the Practice Direction nor draws attention to paragraph 4 concerning sanctions for failure to comply with the Practice Direction.

The letter states that if payment is not made within 14 days action will be taken and the costs will increase.

Stroma

You are using mitigation in a court of law, I'm sorry in court you use legal arguments not mitigation, IMO this will fail

Tandon

Stroma wrote: »

You are using mitigation in a court of law, I'm sorry in court you use legal arguments not mitigation, IMO this will fail

Can you expand on that please?

Coupon-mad

I'm out of this one.

Tandon

Coupon-mad wrote: »

Wow. Words almost fail me - and that's rare from a woman!

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?p=62390347#post62390347

You are being a little unfair in your selective quoting, I said there is a lot about the LBA and refuting/defending that but not about court defence.
The other link you give, I had already found from another members post and that and another are what I used to produce the draft that I posted, but as you have seen, I am told that is no good. I am at a loss because I thought I was defending not mitigating in that draft but presumably not. I have no legal training or special knowledge so presumably don't know enough to understand the difference?

Tandon

Stroma wrote: »

You are using mitigation in a court of law, I'm sorry in court you use legal arguments not mitigation, IMO this will fail

I was hoping you would explain your comment a little more as I thought that statements such as "[FONT=&quot]Therefore no contract can have been entered into by the defendant because the signs fail to properly inform drivers of the full terms & conditions in a very prominent place at a low enough height at the entrance, the elements of a contract have not been met: ref Mendelssohn v Normand Ltd [1970]." was defence not mittigation? I have no legal training so obviously from your comment, I don't understand the difference, that that is why I'm asking for help and advice.[/FONT]

Coupon-mad

You'll have seen Ed666's thread and SpaceCowboy55's thread on here I presume?

Tandon

Coupon-mad wrote: »

You'll have seen Ed666's thread and SpaceCowboy55's thread on here I presume?

Yes I had read Ed666's thread. SpaceCowboy55's thread is particularly interesting.

Coupon-mad

I have popped back as I wanted to make sure you have seen this:

http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2013/11/do-you-have-court-hearing-with.html

HTH

Tandon

Coupon-mad wrote: »

I have popped back as I wanted to make sure you have seen this:

http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2013/11/do-you-have-court-hearing-with.html

HTH

Thank you, that's very interesting. There hasn't been any mention of landowner witness statements from Parking Eye. Do you know what (text removed from MSE Forum Team) relationship with Parking Eye is, is he a solicitor or employee?