Parking Eye summons

namregd

One thing I'm not sure about - having entered my intention online to defend this matter, should I expect a pack from PE in the post, with details of the contravention? Without this, I don't know when the contravention occurred, so how can I prepare a defence?

Coupon-mad

namregd wrote: »

One thing I'm not sure about - having entered my intention online to defend this matter, should I expect a pack from PE in the post, with details of the contravention? Without this, I don't know when the contravention occurred, so how can I prepare a defence?

No, you will get nothing yet at all at this stage. You will have to summarise a defence for now, based on what you do know.

You can state that you are not aware of the date of the alleged incident but honestly believe that PE did not send the NTK within 14 days and in any case that Notice would not have identified the creditor because you have seen examples of their NTKs in the public domain (and they only added the creditor information in May 2013). So the NTK was flawed under POFA 2012 and failed to establish 'keeper liability'. Also that this charge was never a genuine pre-estimate of loss...and they are the wrong claimant as they are not the landowner, that you think they do not have a relevant contract giving them assignment of title so they have no standing...etc. And all the stuff you will read examples of, in pepipoo court threads.

None of that needs the contravention date! Write ONLY as the registered keeper, NOT driver.

namregd

Cheers CM. I find that amazing - issuing a claim without the date of the alleged contravention. Ridiculous. Hey ho

Coupon-mad

Hence why it could be a point in your skeleton defence, especially if PE didn't send you a compliant Letter before County Court Claim first either (compare it to the LBCCC thread). You could 'paint a picture' of a cause of action not clearly established regarding any specific parking event at all, fettering your position to make an informed judgment and to defend. Then add the usual general points of defence as outlined, and cite the Sharma and Gardam cases and maybe Thurlow as well (already linked I think in the court cases link).

namregd

All the other correspondence I received in relation to this matter I binned CM, as per the previous advice on this forum. I don't know if I received a compliant Letter before County Court Claim or not, so any defence along those lines may be a bit shaky

hoohoo

Pe should have sent particulars of claim with copies of all letters. Phone the court to find why you don't have this. Perhaps pe forgot. In the past their mail provider had a problem and failed to send loads of these out

namregd

Ah, that's contrary to what CM just told me hoohoo. I haven't filed my defence yet

Coupon-mad

hoohoo wrote: »

Pe should have sent particulars of claim with copies of all letters. Phone the court to find why you don't have this. Perhaps pe forgot. In the past their mail provider had a problem and failed to send loads of these out

Really? I thought people just got this:

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=86488

a court claim...?

namregd

Hi guys

Can anyone definitively answer the question as to whether I should have received photos etc from PE before I received the Claim Form? At the moment I don't even know the date on which this alleged contravention is supposed to have occurred. I read a post on pepipoo last night that suggests that I should have received photographic evidence, including presumably the date of the contravention, before receiving the Claim Form.

It transpires that the event my daughter had to attend at Waitrose was in August, so can't be the date on which this contravention occurred. Now I can't think for the life of me what I would have been doing in that car park for that length of time.

Coupon-mad

It could even have been a double visit couldn't it? Popping there for something then popping back later for a forgotten item? Known as a double dip on this forum (and something that happens a lot with ANPR-generated private invoices, PE included). The camera shots show the first arrival and last time of leaving. Could be that.

Why don't you simply introduce your defence points with a paragraph at first, submitting that you have never had a chance in 2013 to address this and suggest the court should order a stay of proceedings so that both parties can undertake the POPLA process of appeal. State that in a case in Croydon (someone here has the case number!) the Judge ordered this as ADR recently, so it can be done to save the court's time. It makes sense for all parties to use the bespoke appeals system for this exact situation as the best Alternative Dispute Resolution. Submit that you agree to accept the decision of POPLA in this matter but need PE to send you their evidence, photos and all letters first. An appeal you have been denied so far. You can say you honestly believe PE didn't send the first letter in time which is why you never took it seriously (as registered keeper you were not liable in law as PE had not issued a POFA compliant Notice). Nor was it clear about your right to appeal to POPLA, nor did it identify the creditor (a POFA2012 requirement) and nor did it state the fact that genuine customers are exempt from these charges. It now appears all of this could have been resolved if PE had said clearly that a receipt at the time would have got it cancelled, or if they had made the appeal to POPLA clearer at the outset. POPLA was new and unknown in 2012 and PE should have made the process very clear in any letter; they did not and then never sent any further letters.

Say that your chances to defend this have been fettered because their particulars now have been served out of the blue, and include no evidence, no photos and not even the date of the event. And they never sent you a Letter before Claim*, never followed the Practice Direction, never gave you a chance to challenge this in 2013 and you have no idea whether this was two drivers and/or two short visits and another ANPR error by Parking Eye, since they are well known for that in articles in the public domain. But you are willing to overlook PE's error in never issuing a Letter before Claim, thus not following the Practice Direction despite having an in-hose Solicitor, if PE will now accept your offer to take the matter to POPLA. State that POPLA has no time limit (except that arbitrary 28 days PE might impose themselves sometimes) but in fact POPLA can be undertaken at any point once PE issue a verification code. No code has been issued yet, no POPLA case made by either party, so there is no lawful reason why it cannot be effected now instead of a hearing.






*is this right or did you bin it? Would have been a letter from PE themselves, in recent months.