Parking Eye summons

Coupon-mad

So it's a retail park and the complaint is for the Managing Agents; Google the name of the car park and look for who runs/owns it or a contact number.

spacey2012

Forget everything other than preparing a robust defence and file this as quickly as possible, ignore the waiting advice, hit them hard, hit them fast and leave them little time to prepare and book the agency of failed solicitors they use.
Start a diary and log every second and estimate a cost for time so you can file a claim for accrued costs.

Consider a N226 form application for Parking eye to produce 3 years audited accounts (for purposes of taxing accounts VS Loss claim) plus all contracts relating to operation allocations.
Also include a sworn affidavit is required from the actual land owner that they are the signatory on the contract and the date is correct.
That any persons submitting statements shall be required at the court on the day of the hearing for questioning.

Try to be well on the day, if you have to request adjournment due to sickness, they all get sent home and have to come back again, £50 fees don't get them very far.

With this and a robust defence of penalty not loss, operation costs for purposes of taxation exemption vs loss, use of non VCA approved ANPR equipment not fit for purpose of court evidential use (they wont want to lose that one trust me) , no propriety interest in land to offer a consideration to form a contract, plus all other points of contract law as to why a non expressed term which is not convened in the initial signed contract with the landowner is invalid.
They would have to be mad to turn up.

I wish they would take me again, but having spanked them hard before they ignore me now.

namregd

Coupon-mad wrote: »

Is it only Waitrose in the car park? It's just that they normally use Britannia (as in Brighton). If it's a retail park the complaint is for the Managing Agents.

It must be just for Waitrose and Iceland, more or less next door to each other, but they use different systems for enforcing parking it seems. I thought it was just one big car park. If it was on the day that my daughter had her induction day, which I suspect it was, I can only assume that the waitrose end of the car park was full and I parked at the other end, still thinking it was waitrose, but apparently not.

nigelbb

As PE don't actually monitor or manage parking but rather inaccurately log entry & exit it's perfectly possible that you drove through their car park and parked in the Waitrose area then drove out through their car park again.

namregd

Sorry Spacey - just saw your post That sounds like a plan - I think

nigelbb wrote: »

As PE don't actually monitor or manage parking but rather inaccurately log entry & exit it's perfectly possible that you drove through their car park and parked in the Waitrose area then drove out through their car park again.

Hmm. Double hmmm. I'll have to wander down there and have a look around to see how that would work. Or I drove through their car park to drop my daughter off (which I actually used to do at that end of the car park), then parked in Waitrose, then on the way out I couldn't find the exit and ended up back in Iceland car park before I got out. Hmmm again. In fact, that is all more than possible. Thanks Nigel

4consumerrights

Originally Posted by nigelbb
As PE don't actually monitor or manage parking but rather inaccurately log entry & exit it's perfectly possible that you drove through their car park and parked in the Waitrose area then drove out through their car park again.

namregd wrote: »

Hmm. Double hmmm. I'll have to wander down there and have a look around to see how that would work. Or I drove through their car park to drop my daughter off (which I actually used to do at that end of the car park), then parked in Waitrose, then on the way out I couldn't find the exit and ended up back in Iceland car park before I got out. Hmmm again. In fact, that is all more than possible. Thanks Nigel

Don't just wander down and take a look - take some photographs as well. Check to see if there are any clear defining boundaries and make a note of where all the signs are - Is there a clear sign at the entrance? Any site which uses ANPR must have a visible sign of a prescribed size at entrance at a specified site and inform what data is collected for. Parking Eye's minute logo does not comply with this requirement.

Check with your local planning department at the council regarding any planning consents regarding free car parking at the site.

Also check that parking eye have the relevant planning for installing the ANPR system.


Have you found out who owns the site yet?

namregd

4consumerrights wrote: »

Have you found out who owns the site yet?

Haven't had a chance yet, but will get onto that as soon as. I'll go down there tomorrow, smart phone in hand, and take some snaps. That'll be interesting.

namregd

Hi guys

Went down to this car park this morning - quite early so still dark and couldn't take photos. There is a sign as you go through from what I now know it the boundary between waitrose and the adjoining car park, but it's the first time I've noticed it as I was looking for it on this occasion. The area that I would have parked in, right next to the walkway were customers enter waitrose, also has a sign, but is quite low and would have been obscured by anything larger than a small van parking there. I have two questions that hopefully someone can help with:

1. As I understand it, this action is for "breach of contract". Surely both parties must be aware of the contract for there to be a breach? Signs or not, I genuinely believed I was parking in Waitrose car park (in fact, the waitrose part of the car park would have been quite empty at that time - why would I park somewhere else if I didn't believe I was in waitrose car park?) I certainly wasn't aware I had entered into a contract with parking eye, so how can I have breached it? Or doesn't that hold water?

2. The claim states "...in relation to a parking charge issued on 19/12/2012...." Would that be the date of the "offence"? If so, it doesn't seem to fit with the date I would have been there in relation to my daugter's recruitment. If that's the case, I can't imagine what I would have been there for - I never go there apart from to drop my daughter off.

Hope you all had a good Christmas

Coupon-mad

namregd wrote: »

I have two questions that hopefully someone can help with:

1. As I understand it, this action is for "breach of contract". Surely both parties must be aware of the contract for there to be a breach? Signs or not, I genuinely believed I was parking in Waitrose car park (in fact, the waitrose part of the car park would have been quite empty at that time - why would I park somewhere else if I didn't believe I was in waitrose car park?) I certainly wasn't aware I had entered into a contract with parking eye, so how can I have breached it? Or doesn't that hold water?

I agree, and Judges do indeed take into account whether a person was aware of a contract, whether the signs were clear or not. Cases are won and lost on signage, so it does hold water if you argue it well.

Along with all the other defence points for a PE case. Have you emailed the Parking Prankster on his website blog yet and got up to speed with the shenanigans with their witness statements and contracts?

http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2013/11/i-am-collecting-parkingeye-witness.html

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

Have you considered all the recent wins v ParkingEye and included their points in your skeleton defence summary, and seen this advice which was in the sticky threads?

Advice: Small Claims & PPCs

List of PPC Court Cases (non-exhaustive)

Have you discovered, read and learnt from the hundreds of PE defence cases already advised on, in this forum on pepipoo.com?

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showforum=60

So much advice already out there. I always say newbies with a small claim defence to submit should read at least a dozen pages back on that forum, reading only the cases where Parking Eye and 'court/Northampton/MCOL' are in the thread title. Read the advice and links already given to others, read their defence wordings, use the information to help you along with Parking Prankster's info and your knowledge gleaned from the winning court cases linked above.

Remember this is not a summons, not such a biggie as you first thought. You will either have to pay or not, and either way there's no effect on your credit rating (if you paid up after all in the end) and you don't even have to sit on the naughty step!

You should also 'up the ante' of the complaint by snail mail in a formal complaint letter to both CEOs of both stores IMHO, Waitrose and Iceland, showing that you have copied them both into the complaint. It is wholly unfair and unclear of both their parking agents not to make the situation completely clear when a customer parks. This is a ridiculous situation that a person who brought their daughter to a job-related recruitment meeting in good faith, is having to submit a defence to a court claim from a notoriously litigious parking firm that they (Waitys & Iceland) only have to Google to find out more about. Demand to know what are they going to do about it, etc?

namregd wrote: »

2. The claim states "...in relation to a parking charge issued on 19/12/2012...." Would that be the date of the "offence"? If so, it doesn't seem to fit with the date I would have been there in relation to my daugter's recruitment. If that's the case, I can't imagine what I would have been there for - I never go there apart from to drop my daughter off.

No that's not the date of the contravention. That's the date they sent their Notice. Was your daughter's recruitment date more than 14 days before that? If so then you can also argue they sent the NTK too late under POFA 2012. Notice to Keeper letters from PE, dated that far back, would not have identified the creditor either, which they should (and PE changed the NTKs in May 2013 to reflect it):

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=80531 (read Broadsword's post #7 about identifying the creditor)

But you need more in your defence than that and the signage, so use the links I have given you. Also post on pepipoo yourself once you have read loads of advice there (read first, post later, especially as forums are quiet over the next week or so) and see if they can help you perfect your defence.

namregd

Thanks CM, for that very comprehensive response I've got a lot to do it seems And I have mailed The Prankster, and got a response from him. In the process of following up on that