Forum Home» Motoring» Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking

Parking Eye taking me to court - Page 3

New Post Advanced Search

Parking Eye taking me to court

24 replies 4.5K views
13»

Replies

  • Benjo816Benjo816 Forumite
    6 posts
    HI, many many thanks for your posts. I am extremely stressed out about my parking fine issues.

    I appealed to parking eye in writing around 2 weeks after receiving my first letter. The next correspondence I received was for a county court date in northampton an a 160 charge.

    They never confirmed they had rejected my appeal, so i cannot appeal to popla online.

    So is the letter I've copied below a good template to send to the judge? Do I address it to a judges name? Or do I just send it to the court address written on the county court business centre claim form? (Katharine's house, katharine's street, Northampton, NN1 2LH).

    Thank you very much,




    Re: CLAIM NUMBER *********
    I am the Defendant and the registered keeper of the vehicle relating to this alleged parking invoice.

    The Defendant respectfully requests:

    (a) - an Order for the claim to be stayed until the final decision made in the test cases heard on 22nd April 2014 by HHJ Moloney QC in Cambridge, a ParkingEye 'test case' ordered following a glut of Parking Eye litigation.

    Under that original Order at Chelmsford, any similar cases pending in the Cambridge, Essex, Suffolk or Norfolk Courts were to be stayed pending the outcome of the Cambridge proceedings. In other Court areas, many ParkingEye cases have also been stayed for the same reason since this is a test case relevant to all claims this Claimant is currently pursuing. For example, on 29th January 2014 at the request of the Defendant, in 3JD06925 ParkingEye v Hopewell (Halifax) Deputy District Judge Gardner stayed the claim, pending the Cambridge test case and many more have been stayed since then. The most recent documented case - stayed for the Cambridge decision - that I can adduce was at Aberystwyth County Court, case A0JD0727 ParkingEye v Humphries, stayed immediately before listed for any hearing, by Order of District Judge Godwin on 17th April 2014.

    (b) - Further and in the alternative, I request an Order for the claim to be stayed pending the allowance of both parties to undertake ADR in the form of a POPLA appeal.

    This would follow many similar Court Orders in a number of this Claimant's cases now successfully resolved, e.g. in the order made by District Judge Mayor, Croydon Court, 13/09/13 (Case no. 3JD00719, ParkingEye v Mr O), and by Deputy District Judge Bridger, Southampton Court, 21/01/2014 (Case no. 3JD05448, ParkingEye v Gilmartin) and by Deputy District Judge Buckley, Blackburn County Court, 11/02/2014 (Case number 3JD10502, ParkingEye v Mrs P). POPLA impose no deadline and will allow a BPA member to issue a POPLA code at any stage.

    It is not relevant if this claimant 'feels it is unsuitable' because in the legitimate interests of the consumer and in accordance with the Practice Direction, they should have explored this option more fully and offered it again far more openly, in pre-court correspondence. A small claim should be a step of last resort and as far as this overactive claimant is concerned that is far from the case. This claimant has failed to show any justification to refuse the parking industry's bespoke ADR which they merely hide in small print on one early unsolicited letter which impersonates a parking ticket, regarding which the accepted and informed advice for many years was to ignore. ParkingEye are well aware of this and they bank on consumers missing the very limited offer of appeal/POPLA and despite their assertion otherwise, they do not offer it again in other letters nor in their Letter before Claim. However, the British Parking Association, which is their Trade Body, are on record this year as being particularly keen for the authorities to recognise POPLA as the most suitable ADR and they actively encourage cases to be referred.

    A POPLA decision will almost certainly resolve the case without need for court, within 90 days of the claimant issuing a POPLA verification code, whereas the Cambridge decision seems likely to go to the Court of Appeal according to a comment made at the April hearing by HHJ Moloney.

    POPLA is my preferred ADR if the Court should allow an Order to this effect. In the interests of saving the court's time and resolving the matter fairly, I hereby agree to accept the findings of POPLA, even though in the normal course of events their decisions are not binding on a motorist.

    Concluding statement of case for this claim to be stayed:

    This is not about parking management nor the rights of any landowner - this is a vexatious litigant, and as a final alternative, I invite the court to strike this claim out.

    This claimant has no standing or title in the land they ostensibly 'manage' at arm's length with remote cameras and they display an aggressive approach in their prolific forays in the small claims track. I draw the court's attention to this claimant's well-documented disregard for genuine customers of their principal clients, and to the disproportionate, scattergun defence bundle 'weighty tomes' submitted week in, week out, wasting courts time with irrelevant case law, in pursuit of winning some trophy cases, always at a loss. In a recent case at Aberystwyth in April 2014 (which was in the event, stayed pending the Cambridge decision) this claimant reportedly filed over 700 pages in their bundle about a retail car park where they had recently lost a claim, sending a paid solicitor at further cost, purely to attempt to win a case regarding a free customer car park where there was no initial or consequential loss to pursue and the 'PCN' sum claimed was £100. This claimant now routinely loses cases when properly defended and many English county courts have been swamped with this Claimant's paperwork, wholly disproportionate to the sum involved, since 2013.

    Any victory using these methods is a Pyrrhic victory and an abuse of the small claims track. ParkingEye pay £200-£300 for their lawyers, making at least a £100 loss on the day. They further compound this by ordering transcripts of cases won for £200-£300, since hours of court time is taken up in some cases. This is a cleverly designed and orchestrated campaign to create a climate of intimidation. Using their transcripts and mentioning only the wins and never the losses they present a one-sided view of the true situation on their website, in their POPLA appeals, and in the documents used in any court cases. Judge Melville-Shreeve summed this up nicely in ParkingEye v Collins Daniel, case 3JD06533:



    I submit that to proceed to a hearing yet again for this vexatious claimant is another waste of the court's time and should be avoided.
  • MothballsWalletMothballsWallet Forumite
    15.4K posts
    Part of the Furniture 10,000 Posts Name Dropper Photogenic
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    Benjo, you need to create your own thread for your situation please so we don't confuse everyone on this one.
    Always ask yourself one question: What would Gibbs do?

    I live in the UK City of Culture 2021
  • Benjo816Benjo816 Forumite
    6 posts
    I'm sorry. i am new to this and do not really know the process for posting.
  • peter_the_piperpeter_the_piper Forumite
    30K posts
    Part of the Furniture 10,000 Posts Name Dropper
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    No problem, it just makes it less confusing for you.
    I'd rather be an Optimist and be proved wrong than a Pessimist and be proved right.
This discussion has been closed.

Quick links

Essential Money | Who & Where are you? | Work & Benefits | Household and travel | Shopping & Freebies | About MSE | The MoneySavers Arms | Covid-19 & Coronavirus Support