Parking Eye - Court Claim

mysterywoman10

Thank you Nigel, that is basically what I was trying to say when I posted the link about the different types of lease. But you have explained it very well.

So their right to sue in the first place if people took this stance from the offset is a very good way of getting the case thrown out then?
Assuming all the contracts don't say they can?

bod1467

Exactly. I'm sure it has been mentioned before - I recall a very good thread about court action, and the basis being to attack the foundation of the case ... the right to bring action is a foundational element ... but I can't remember who created that thread. (I don't see it in daisy's sticky).

trisontana

In addition, I thought that any supposed "loss" should be that suffered by the landowner and not by the PPC. Apart from a couple of quid from an unpaid P&D ticket the PPC suffers no loss at all.

mysterywoman10

I'm relieved I was trying to get to the foundation of the defence

No one wants a CCJ against their name and obviously this is a much more serious situation that an appeal or going to POPLA.

I'm sure the thread you mention would be very useful for Tandom.

Tandon

4consumerrights wrote: »

or as Watford council are the freeholders - why not complain to Trading Standards?

That's interesting. What would the approaach to this be, presumably the complaint would be against Parking Eye and for attempting to enforce an unfair contract?

Tandon

4consumerrights wrote: »

Tandon - I hope you have photographs of both before and after the times changed. This is one of the most relevant points yet - and a clear indication that the 2 hour parking contravened planning regulations.

This is vital evidence should it go to court as you would not have been issued a parking charge had it been the 3 hours when you parked!

I have photos of the original 2 hour signs but not the new 3 hour ones, I'll have to make a trip to the site and photograph the new ones. I've got photos of the car park entrance road which does not have a sign at the point it leaves the public road and once you have turned into the entrance road, you cannot turn around but have to go through the car park to the exit. I was going to use this in the defence, i.e. no sign at the entrance, once a driver has turned into the road he cannot avoid passing the sign which is at the end of the entrance road and the fact the small sign was mounted well above the drivers eye level so a driver could not see it if the driver was looking where he was going. If the driver did spot the sign, he would have to look up so would be driving in a dangerous manner.

I also know of a local, camera controlled car park that is sensibly signed with large signs at the drivers eye level. Also the signs are on the entrance road to the private land BUT before you turn into the car park so it is easy to decline the contract and exit without entering the controlled car park. I was intending to use this as a comparison in the defence.

Tandon

mysterywoman10 wrote: »

In this instance I don't think the technicality of the Council owning the freehold is relevant. I suspect if you looked into a lot of these parks the investors named as the owners may not actually be the freeholders.

Exactly what I was getting at. Although the freeholder is the land owner, the leaseholder can act in a similar way as the landholder (subject to convenants) for the duration of the lease, so I suspect that would be regarded as the "landowner"

Tandon

4consumerrights wrote: »

TANDON - PLEASE TAKE NOTE OF MY POST # 67 REGARDING PARKING EYE'S NEW CHANGE IN THE FREE PARKING PERIODS ALLOWED.

TRY STILL TO LEVY PRESSURE ON B&Q OR THE OTHER RETAILER ON THE SAME SITE TO CANCEL THIS CHARGE AND THIS PAGE GIVES B&Q's HEAD OFFICE AND CEO DETAILS:

http://www.diy.com/diy/jsp/corporate/content/about/index.jsp

I will have to go back to photograph the new signs. I have already written to the CEO of B&Q and received a feeble reply in which they claim Savills own the car park. However it is now clear that Savills almost certainly don't own (the leasehold) the car park and they don't even appear to be the managing agents. I have put a request into Watford Borough Council asking them to confirm who the landowner is (freeholder), who the leaseholder is and who the managing agent is, so fingers crossed.

mysterywoman10

What a performance, seems you are doing everything you can.

Presumably there is nothing on the signs to say who they are acting for?

The reply from B&Q seems very odd doesn't it? Maybe write back to them and say well who do you pay your rent/lease to then?! Or who do you go to if there is a drainage problem or any other site problem for that matter. They must know if they say they don't own the land or have bought the leasehold who the managing agents are how do they deal with any other problems that might come up?

Going above B&Q to Kingfisher their owners might be worth an email as well.

Because someone must have employed "Parking Eye" or are they just randomly now just putting cameras in where ever they like?!! On the basis no one will know!

Tandon

mysterywoman10 wrote: »

Cases have been won at court by parking companies which is why I don't understand Nigel's paragraph below

"Unless the PPC actually owns or leases the car park they almost certainly have no right to sue as they are only the agent of the actual leaseholder or landowner & that is who the motorist contracted with."

So to clarify IF the PPC does not lease or own the car park under no circumstances can they sue is what is being said?

Therefore if Tandom has asked for the "contract" previously and has not received it from the PPC surely the case would be thrown out on these grounds? a) no contract produced means they cannot demonstrate anything or b) if it is produced then unless they own or lease the land from what is being said they cannot sue ?

So therefore as previously suggested Tandom should ask for more time and specifically say that she has requested information (I'm assuming here she has already requested the contract from PE) state what she has requested and why without this proof of the right to sue in the first place she doesn't see how the case can proceed.

Surely for the case not to proceed at all is the best option and why she needed to speak to B&Q/Kingfisher. Or the Council. Regardless of the defence of whether the signs have changed before and after?

My guess is that the PPCs have won some cases by their obtusification of the issues.

I (he ) has asked PE for the contract. I have filed a skeleton defence and stated that I have requested information and will file a full defence when I have recceived the information (including the contract). My main defence will be on two main issues 1) PE not having the right to impose and oursue parking charges. 2) No contract having been formed due to the poor signage. Then secondary issues such as their failure to follow the practice direction.