ParkingEye. Letter before county Court

ken979

PART4 FINISHED





This is the end of the letter. I just need some advice to reply, but so far I feel I did pretty well responding.

What do you think my next steps should be, I feel quite alone in this.

Thanks,

Ken979

Coupon-mad

You are not alone - loads of people get that response.

I would send an email to the Parking Prankster and ask for his details about witness statements, and if he has the list of all the POPLA cases where PE have lost every time on 'no genuine pre-estimate of loss' and throw those facts back at them saying it's clear why they want to waste the court's time and sidestep the bespoke ADR of POPLA. Re-state that because no POPLA code has been provided at any point there is no reason to justify them not mitigating their 'losses', nothing to justify using Court unnecessarily:

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

I know you are currently doing your best to avoid a court hearing and haven't got to that stage but PP's info might help you here. You can respond and tell PE you know about their discredited witness statements and contracts which when scrutinised, have conflicting points about their 'rights' (if any) as agent.

I would also cite the cases you know that PE have lost recently (Sharma and Gardam, read about them) when a judge looked at their landowner contract and spotted discrepancies:

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showpost.php?p=62971894&postcount=65

http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2013/11/parkingeye-strategy-of-shooting-fish-in.html

And is this a car park where you have EXHAUSTED the complaint opportunities with the owner/occupier? If not then up the ante with another robust complaint about this harassment by their agent:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/4766249


HTH, don't drop the ball, knock it back in PE's court each time.

The_Deep

What on earth is that all about? Is the judge supposed to read it? Is the appellant supposed to answer it?

It seems to me that bombarding the appellant with this stuff is in fact an attempt to intimidate him into throwing in the towel, I looked up one of the cases referred to, it concerned a £69 million merger between two companies, hardly parking overstay stuff.

Would it be possible to get this letter in front of a judge? It seems to me that PE are deliberately time wasting and abusing the process, this is a minor breach of contract concerning a sum smaller than most people earn in a day, Jarndyce - v - Jarndyce it is not.

The whole point of the small claims track is to bring affordable justice to people without involving expensive lawyers. How does PE's posturing do this?.

ken979

Thank you Coupon Mad, I have read some of your posts and they absolute brilliant. I will email Parking Prankster after this post. Hopefully I get a reply back soon.

How long do I have to reply back to PE? Do I only have 2 weeks?

@ The Deep: I might some of the advice in the follow up letter.

Thank you every one : )

Coupon-mad

I would aim to reply within two weeks at the most, yes. Someone else has posted today about getting that letter as well, have a look at today's new threads.

ken979

I actually have 2 of these letters. I haven't has a reply to another letter yet. I wonder if it's a tactic to get me in court. I thought I mention this.

Coupon-mad

No it's a standard template letter to try to scare you into settling. Don't.

Just respond robustly every time and suggest they drop the matter as it's not in the interests of the principal and as they are agents only, they have no standing as in the Sharma and Gardam cases they lost last month, when a judge looked at clause 22 in their contract. And if they try to submit a landowner witness statement you will raise the fact that these statements are wholly unreliable photocopies and in any case there are clauses in the actual contract which must be shown in court.

Write really assertively and succinctly.

ken979

This is what, I'm thinking of sending to ParkingEye. What do you think? Can i make it better?

---

Dear Parking Eye,


Thank you for your recent templated letter of all these court cases where all these people have lost to ParkingEye through Court. If you don’t mind, I still like to receive which documents you intend to rely on in court. The Practice Direction states the person taking me to court must provide a list of the documents that you intend to rely on to prove your claim towards me. I have no objection if you produce further documents, once I have seen you defence. The point of the Practice Direction is; you must disclose a list of documents you intent to rely on to prove your claim towards me. You must know what the documents are and I am entitled to be told what those documents are.

In your recent template letter you have sent me on November 2013, which I have also seen online:

a) Your charge is not a genuine pre-estimate of loss
b) As you have lost several court cases recently on this point I consider there is reasonable doubt that you do not have written authorisation in place with the landowner allowing you to charge for parking and pursue unpaid charges to court in your own name
c) Your signage is not sufficient to create a contract between yourself and the motorist

I would suggest you to use Popla and stop using the courts precious time. If you use Popla, you will limit your costs to £27. If you use the court, then you will incur further costs, including £15 filing fee, £25 hearing fee, and approximately £250 cost of your lawyer from LPC Law.
I will robustly oppose any costs over £27.

I refer you to the Sharma versus ParkingEye where you have lost:

Case No. 3QT62646 in the: Brentford County Court 23/10/2013
Before: District Judge Jenkins.
The judge said that contract was a commercial matter between PE and the landowner, and didn’t create any contractual relationship with motorists who used the car park.

Please don’t send me a generic template letter which does not address my requests for information because I shall send all correspondence to the Solicitors Regulation Authority and ask it to investigate your breach of the Principles set out in the SRA Handbook version 8, published on 1st October 2013.


Yours sincerely,

ken979

If I reply quickly, this will buy me time to give a better response to the letter templates. Is this correct?

Any advice would be appreciated.

Coupon-mad

I may have got some facts wrong (was the driver a customer and have you complained to the retailer/landowner yet - you MUST!) but here's a draft I have come up with after reading yours:






Dear Parking Eye,


RE: PCN number xxxxxxxxx

Thank you for your recent letter of all these court cases where all these people have lost to ParkingEye through Court; that template might have been interesting if it had not already been in the public domain several times over. Clearly this is mere bluster - a standard unhelpful and frankly misleading response which does nothing to address my previous points. I would mention that I am an unrepresented individual and your disdain for my situation when the driver was a customer of your principal, will be brought to your client's attention as part of an ongoing complaint.

Of course I still await a list or sight of the actual documents you intend to rely on in court and a considered response to my individual case.

As you are aware, the Practice Direction states the entity intending to take me to court must provide a list of the documents that will be relied upon to establish a cause of action and a claim. As a parking company which is routinely involved in litigation and which has an in-house Solicitor, you must know what these documents are - and I am entitled to be told what those documents are, and ideally I should be shown them at the earliest opportunity.

From your recent template letter and the previous Notices it is clear that:

a) Your charge is for an alleged (your words) 'breach of the terms and conditions' and yet clearly it is not a genuine pre-estimate of loss. As such, this is a breach of the BPA Code of Practice. As no loss has been established whatsoever, this charge is also unenforceable in contract law and indeed the Office of Fair trading stated to your Trade Body the BPA Ltd that a 'parking charge' is not automatically recoverable simply because it is stated to be a parking charge, as it cannot be used to state a loss where none exists. Parking charges cannot include tax-deductible business costs for running a parking company, such as site signage and maintenance, staff employment, membership fees, postage, etc. It should not be recoverable as it is being enforced purely as a penalty. Since there is no other income at this site, PCNs for alleged 'breach' represent the only profit for ParkingEye and it is clear that you cannot be operating at a permanent loss. The fact that the 'charge' is fixed at the same cost, whether the allegation is a serious matter of obstruction or a trifling matter (such as a few minutes perceived overstay) shows it to be merely a penalty where no loss exists.

b) Your charge has no 'commercial justification' because it is punitive, relies on obfuscation by a mere agent with no standing nor authority and it is not in the legitimate interest of your principal to proceed. A complaint has already been lodged with your client and will be escalated if you do not cancel this charge. POPLA are not accepting your spurious 'commercial justification' argument and I expect a court Judge to see through this too.

c) The driver was a genuine customer and yet you have never made it clear that this would have exempted them for any charge, if they had known your secret 'user manual' terms in the landholder contract. This is a misleading omission - an unfair, hidden but vital term which must be communicated at the point of alleged contract - and therefore any alleged contract causing loss or detriment to me is unenforceable.

d) I consider there is reasonable doubt that you have written authorisation in place with the landowner, specifically allowing you to form contracts with drivers and to pursue unpaid charges to court in your own name. I believe your contract has clauses similar to the contract in ParkingEye v Somerfield where ParkingEye were a mere agent. This is confirmed by your very recent lost court claims in ParkingEye v Gardam and ParkingEye v Sharma, where the District Judges scrutinised your basic contract and found ParkingEye to be an agent with no standing. Clearly I will require sight of your unredacted contract to make an informed decision about my position, prior to any proceedings and I will consider the fact you are withholding this vital information as proof of inherent flaws in your case. A witness statement will not suffice and will no doubt raise more issues, as it has done in recent cases ParkingEye has lost or been forced to drop, e.g. ParkingEye v Walkden, ParkingEye v Byrne and ParkingEye v Barrett.

e) Your signage is not sufficient to create a contract between ParkingEye and the motorist because it is unreadable, being placed eight or nine feet up on a pole, far too high to be in a driver's line of vision on arrival, before parking. Not only does this, once again, breach the BPA Code of Practice on mandatory entrance signs but it fails to create any contract at all when a driver does not see the terms before parking, as in this case.

Resolution of the Dispute - ADR (POPLA)
I would suggest that this matter is resolved using the bespoke ADR for private parking, POPLA, to save your wasted costs and the court's precious time. The above points a) - e) can be considered to represent my appeal points in order to prompt a rejection letter and POPLA code now. If we use POPLA, as you are aware your costs will be a mere tax-deductible £27. If you use the court, then you will incur further costs, including £15 filing fee, £25 hearing fee, and approximately £250 as costs payable for your legal representative from LPC Law or other firm.

Failure to agree to my offer of both parties abiding by a POPLA decision would be evidence of ParkingEye failing to mitigate your alleged loss which I will draw the court's attention along with your unreasonable behaviour, obfuscation and delay. I will also invite the Judge to apply the principle of Halsey v Milton Keynes General NHS Trust [2004] EWCA Civ 576 regarding costs.

If you reject this resolution and proceed to court I will robustly oppose any costs over £27 and will in my first defence statement, ask the court to stay the case and insist on a POPLA decision instead. I am aware that in many cases in the public domain, ParkingEye has issued POPLA codes much later than your self-imposed 28 days guideline and indeed POPLA have confirmed that a code can be issued by the operator at any time. The 28 days is merely a time limit that starts when the code is generated and sent to the motorist and I will state this fact to the court if ParkingEye suggest otherwise.

There is a current compelling initial order, as you know, in the Croydon County Court where a similar claim by ParkingEye has been stayed by order of the court and you have been required to issue a POPLA code instead. I will point that out to the court at the earliest opportunity along with your refusal to mitigate your loss and consider the obviously appropriate ADR.

Please do not send me a generic template letter which does not address my requests for information because I shall send all correspondence to the Solicitors Regulation Authority and ask it to investigate your breach of the Principles set out in the SRA Handbook version 8, published on 1st October 2013.

I look forward to hearing from you within 14 days with either:

- the documents you intend to rely upon in these proceedings including your unredacted landholder contract and user manual, or

- a rejection of points a) - e) along with a POPLA code, or

- confirmation that this matter is not proceeding and the charge is cancelled.


yours,


the registered keeper's name