Parking Eye court stage

Gary_zero

We have stamped court papers with a case number and the judge has instructed us to let him know if we wish to have a judgement made on the papers alone or whether we require a hearing by 24/12/13 Thanks

BrightonandHove

spacey2012 wrote: »

Wow has kirkby lost the plot, or perhaps he is on the Books at parking Eye now, certainly singing from the Parking hymn sheet of late.

I don't think you're taking into account :

1. The very tight timescales here
2. The quality of the defence already posted
3. Court really can be a lottery

Taking these items into consideration I'd suggest paying the £50 as well.

I'll re-ask what KIL asked you - are YOU prepared to insure this case against failure by offering to pay the costs if it is lost ? It's all very easy to suggest this is winnable but you do need to be measured.

4consumerrights

Gary_zero wrote: »

She did contact parking eye and explained the reasons she had taken so long ie child in pushchair visited numerous stores, and supplied proof of shopping in the aldi store which was quite busy, but all this was after they applied to court. At this stage they offered to reduce the "fine" from £150 to £50 to cover their costs but she can't afford this. The latest letter asks if she wants to have the case dealt with on papers alone or a hearing. Parking eye have already indicated "papers alone". I know it's at a late stage but what is her best option. Thanks for your help

I doubt if the £50 offer to reduce the charge is still open - this was made at the initial court papers stage - not at how to deal with the hearing. Parking eye will have already paid the hearing fee now.

So can you confirm that the £50 offer is still open or not?

kirkbyinfurnesslad_2

spacey2012 wrote: »

Wow has kirkby lost the plot, or perhaps he is on the Books at parking Eye now, certainly singing from the Parking hymn sheet of late.

If you are in receipt of stamped court papers, log in and select defend whole case to buy time.
I think you may be reading the twaddle parking eye send and confusing it with actual court information.
Only take the instructions from the court as real and anything parking eye send as been written by a complete moron on £6.67 an hour.

If you have stamped court papers, I would not trust parking eye as far as you can throw them, they will lose the £50 and hope for an easy default claim.
Once at this stage you must take them on.

The £50 is the solicitors fee which means the principle has cancelled, as parking eyes contract is with the principal once they are instructed to cancel, they have no contract with you and any loss they claim is down to the person contracting them.

Please clear up, do you have a set of stamped court papers, or just a begging letter from parking eye.

Oh dear i really do despair sometimes,
I gave my information based on an evaluation of the information that the OP has given.
What i notice with your advice is you are very anti anti anti, and not willing to look at things from a different angle which can include settling,
Ive dealt with quite a few Parking eye cases off the forum and have in a number of instances advised people to settle, this is because although they have been given help with a defence they dont feel at all confident in court, havent got time , or no one is there to help in this case.

So given this persons defence or lack of it, lack of money to even pay the reduced offer and the affect of not being able to pay a CCJ if they cant pay within 28 days i give them the easier way out.

I repeat, i am not in any way connected to or support any PPC!!!

4consumerrights

kirkbyinfurnesslad wrote: »

Oh dear i really do despair sometimes,
I gave my information based on an evaluation of the information that the OP has given.
What i notice with your advice is you are very anti anti anti, and not willing to look at things from a different angle which can include settling,
Ive dealt with quite a few Parking eye cases off the forum and have in a number of instances advised people to settle, this is because although they have been given help with a defence they dont feel at all confident in court, havent got time , or no one is there to help in this case.

So given this persons defence or lack of it, lack of money to even pay the reduced offer and the affect of not being able to pay a CCJ if they cant pay within 28 days i give them the easier way out.

I repeat, i am not in any way connected to or support any PPC!!!

KIFL - I think that's the longest post I've seen you write on this forum!

I think spacey is well out of order suggesting that you support PE - I KNOW you don't!

KIFL - I've always found your comments interesting, refreshing and even sometimes a little cryptic in their simplicity! But I know you always put your point of view with the OP's situation in mind!

*************************

To the OP: You need to take into account EVERYONE'S comments before deciding what is best for your own situation.

IF - the offer of the reduced settlement is still open - then now we have confirmation of the late stage this process is at- this is something you SHOULD consider accepting considering your daugther's financial situation.

IF the offer is no longer available - then I would request a hearing and request the following to be sent to the court as a response:

I have taken alternatives of the hearing under advisement, but in the course of this have now discovered some material additional information which could have a significant impact on the defence of the case. I would request that you allow the following to be submitted into proceedings for defence:

Breach of planning consent - it has come to my attention that the parking charge was issued for overstaying Parking Eye's terms of the free parking period of 1 hour 20 minutes. However it has come to my attention that the car park has planning consent for free parking for 3 hours - and am awaiting confirmation from the council.

The overstay resulting in the parking charge was just 10 minutes according to Parking Eye's ANPR system which is not a live feed. I would like you to examine this assertion more accurately due to the interruption between taking the photographs which are then passed to computer servers before being time stamped.

Contract between the landowner and Parking Eye including the rights of pursual of charges due to their lack of proprietary interest in the land.

There was no loss to parking eye's client by this alleged breach as the parking was free and I was a genuine customer of the client at the time and covered by the Equality Act. Reasonable adjustments need to be made for mothers of young babies which includes the removal of arbitary time limits imposed on parking conditions. There was no genuine pre-estimate of loss to the client as a result of my parking and I have evidence to support this as Parking Eye include in their charges general business operational costs - many of which are tax deductible expenses.


n.b you need to search the forum to find and attach this information and the court cases won on no contract or lack of ANPR accuracy.

If you go to a hearing you will also need to prepare yourself for the day and present your case well.
*******************

It's a pity you didn't come to the forum either after receiving the parking charge or when first receiving court papers.

The £50 settlement charge Parking Eye offered is usually reserved when the principal has indeed instructed the charge to be cancelled - so it is unusual for them to have offered this at this stage.


PLEASE CONSIDER ALL THE OPTIONS AND ADVICE YOU HAVE BEEN GIVEN AND IF THE OFFER OF £50 IS STILL AVAILABLE YOU SHOULD SERIOUSLY CONSIDER ACCEPTING IT AS COUNTY COURT HEARINGS ARE A LOTTERY AND DECISIONS GO EITHER WAY.

**********************

edit: PS if Parking Eye are asking for the case to be heard on just the papers submitted - then they know they will win on the defence you have given. Don't trust them for one minute!

kirkbyinfurnesslad_2

Yes i never have time to write much tbh,

Straight to the point me!!
https://www.parkingticketappeals.org.uk - Parking eye

Umkomaas

kirkbyinfurnesslad wrote: »

Yes i never have time to write much tbh,

Straight to the point me!!

Bit long-winded again KIFL. :cool:

Coupon-mad

The only things I would do differently in 4consumerrights' suggested court response is to add something about the 'genuine customer exemption' clause and remove the words 'reasonable adjustments' as those words only relate to disabled people, so instead of this part:


''There was no loss to parking eye's client by this alleged breach as the parking was free and I was a genuine customer of the client at the time and covered by the Equality Act. Reasonable adjustments need to be made for mothers of young babies which includes the removal of arbitary time limits imposed on parking conditions.''

...instead I would say at that point in your response to the court where you state that a hearing is required because you are an unrepresented defendant who has only just started uncovering all the facts about ParkingEye's contract and possible breach of Planning Permission (get a copy!!):


There was no loss to ParkingEye's client by this alleged breach as the parking was free and I was a genuine customer of the client at the time and I believe I was covered by the Equality Act 2010 (maternity discrimination). As Service Providers, both ParkingEye and their client, Aldi, have a statutory duty under the EHRC Equality Act Code of Practice (law from April 2011) to take anticipatory steps to avoid any policy or practice causing discrimination to customers with any 'protected characteristics'. In my case I have a young baby so I am protected in that respect and to allege a 10 minute overstay and take me to court over it, when the cameras are not synchronised to the timer, and the delay was caused by queues at the tills by the client, is unlawful.

This has caused me unjustified detriment and potential loss when in fact I now hear that as a genuine customer I was exempt from parking charges all along. I now understand that ParkingEye have a hidden term in their Contracts and/or User Manuals with Aldi, that genuine customers spending over £30 are exempt. And yet this is not communicated anywhere to customers! This is a 'misleading omission' in the contract they are trying to charge me under. ParkingEye are a mere agent with no legal standing at this site, attempting to push through a charge which is a specific breach of the CPUTR 2008 {covered here post #16 where I wrote it as SRM on pepipoo}

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=80716&st=0

And you really must URGENTLY email the Parking Prankster for his info about PE witness statements and all the recent shenanigans:

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

I am NOT one who says this should be paid! Look at the recent wins and learn from them (read the links in full):

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

But if you simply said in defence that she was shopping with a young baby in tow then that was almost fatally naïve - and you have very nearly lost this case already by throwing it away by lack of defence! PE must have been rubbing their hands with glee at the thought of that dreadful 'defence' being the only piece of paper before the judge. They must have thought it was their lucky day and that you'd actually agree to a paper hearing...

NOPE.

Get a decent defence in now and both of you, in 2014 - if there is an actual hearing - go to it armed with all your information which you will have already shown the court (this week, do it without delay).

Gary_zero

Coupon-mad wrote: »

But if you simply said in defence that she was shopping with a young baby in tow then that was almost fatally naïve - and you have very nearly lost this case already by throwing it away by lack of defence! PE must have been rubbing their hands with glee at the thought of that dreadful 'defence' being the only piece of paper before the judge. They must have thought it was their lucky day and that you'd actually agree to a paper hearing...

Thanks for all your help just to clarify this is the letter I sent to parking eye after they initially applied to the court their response was to reduce from £150 to £50 within 7 days which has since elapsed.
Dear Sir
I write this letter on behalf of my daughter because your continued harassment has
reduced her to tears yet again.
My daughter was a regular customer to the Aldi store on Corporation street retail park but of course not any more. On the day in question she spent £35.05 in Aldi please see enclosed bank statement the receipt is no longer available but Aldi can confirm with their records. She also spent a small amount of cash in Pound Stretcher and visited Abakhan store trying to find items for her imminent wedding. I do not think one hour and thirty minutes is excessive for this especially as my daughter is registered disabled and had her infant son with her in a pushchair. Are you actually causing her all this distress because she stayed 10 minutes yes 10 minutes to long?? Aldi is notorious for having a minimum amount of staff at the checkouts to cut costs causing large queues and DELAYING customers so 10 minutes REALLY?
You also stated in your latest letter with regards to her actually shopping that day “Evidence of this has been requested on all correspondence” This is not true What you did write was “please include all information to assist with the appeal. This MAY include a store receipt or bank statement” May is NOT a request it’s an option. Now you have requested evidence it is enclosed with this letter.
As I have stated my daughter is registered disabled with a young child and an upcoming wedding she takes 30MG of citalopram daily for depression and suffers from OCD which is also time consuming she is also forced to take 2.5 MG of Bromacriptine daily because of the Pituitary Tumor in her head. Also I have enclosed proof she was indeed shopping at the Aldi store. If you should need any clarification on the above please let ME know.
NOW bearing all this in mind I would ask you to stop this continued harassment and cancel this “Fine”. My daughter cannot afford to pay £150 for 10 minutes yes TEN MINUTES parking.
DO NOT HARASS MY DAUGHTER ANYMORE Either cancel or go directly to court where all of the above can be made public.
Letter Before action. If you do harass my daughter again I will personally bring action against your company for damages and compensation for undue distress.
DO NOT correspond with my daughter anymore I have her power of attorney (see below) to act for her in this matter because of the state of her health.
I look forward to your response within 14 days from the date you receive this to bring an end to this sorry matter.


Thanks again MSE I hope this helps her case
Can I represent her in court?
What is the worst case senario?

kirkbyinfurnesslad_2

That is not a letter before action.

Yes you can as a lay representative.
Right the info you have given us now Changed things and really does bring in the equality act. Coupon mad is your lady for this angle
Due to the directions given you may be liable for othersides costs if you loose (at a physical hearing)