Death to Parking Spy - court soon

Big_Bad_Dad

Hello all and Merry Christmas.

I've wanted to post this following information for some time but I thought it best to await Parking Spy's document submission copies (text removed from MSE Forum Team) so that I could first send out my counter documents which I have now served on the court and Parking Spy. My case is set for January and I have nothing to hide now, hence the reason I have joined.

My situation is that I slept a few hours at a motorway service area in what I can only describe as an area excluded from the terms and conditions because it said "Authorised vehicles only", and to which there was no other signage for that area. The spot did not feature any of the symbols in the signage in other places to indicate that this was any form of restricted area but I guess this is a staff spot since it would not suit customers and only gives easy access to back doors (not the public areas). To this end, either my parking in this area was altogether in breach, or it wasn't, and if it wasn't then the two-hour rule does not apply.

However, I do not want the judge to get onto this subject because the basis for my defence lies solely on the penalty factor which I think I have adequately produced. Fortunately since everything Parking Spy do is in template form, I was able to read their Reply to Defence and Witness Statement long before they were served on me (thanks to three or so forums).

What worries me is the timidity of some of the judges. It has already been proven at OB Services vs Thurlow; Excel vs Hetherington, VCS vs Ibbotson, and NHS Aintree vs Perera that the demands are penal, a threat to deter and that they do not constitute losses - Parking Spy in turn claim expenses of £53 each time they are swung into action (though in the witness statement this has risen to £55 and forms part of my defence - too late for them now to amend this as I have reported it) and they put this down to general running costs. Yet Parking Spy's package included some very recent cases whereby the judges did indeed accept these phony running costs when awarding the swines their demand. How these judges could have the nerve to dismiss this as being penal is beyond me, but I don't know quite how the defendants argued - did they simply call it a penalty and back off? Or did they do what I did and gather everything possible to rebut their claim?

I had an incident with Parking Spy in 2012 (pre-POFA) when they threatened to lift the charge to £120 if they didn't get their "final reduced" £90 by a certain date. At the time I had no obligation to divulge the driver and so they never succeeded beyond that point. But they claim that after a certain time they suffer greater losses and use this to justify their "upper charge" - yet nowhere do they specify what causes this rise in price.

There are other things on which I base my arguments too... but why did so many fail on the 'penalty' factor when it is without doubt the case?

The regulars here are more familiar with such cases so I put this to them. Thanks

Redx

given the recent court cases they have lost (the ones not in their pack) I would have thought that if you contacted prankster or bargepole or somebody else like KIFL involved in the defence of these winning cases they would have some great insights to share, plus you may find they can help you as a lay helper or know somebody that can

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/4851371

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

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/4840977

plus there may be others on pepipoo that may help you beat these shysters , so please get some help and dont go it alone as I am sure there are people who will help you just for the sheer fun of beating PE (or excel and vcs and vinci ;or any of the others for that matter)

merry xmas

Big_Bad_Dad

Merry Xmas to you too Redx.

Yes I'll do that. I'll contact prankster and register at PPP. My only concern is that it is too late to produce new information. I've got pictures of their Aldi T&Cs which can be used to rebut the "Parking Eye suffer losses of £53" sewage. There it is £70 with a 40% discount which by my reckoning would mean the discount is a £42 maximum charge.

BTW I forgot to say, I did go through POPLA but refused to abide by their decision because their reasoning was weak - they never explained how PE's claim amounted to "damages" and neither for that matter did PE (save for their "camera installation and maintenance" sob story). I did more recently however earn a victory with POPLA against CP Plus when I double-dipped on the same day, they tried me with the same camera and the vehicle moving in the same direction; my front number plate was broken that day and therefore it avoided detection. I never told POPLA this, I simply pointed out that CP Plus had proven nothing. My original representation to POPLA concerning PE was weak, I didn't care because I thought they wouldn't sue. Nevertheless, it is here now and I must face it!

bod1467

You have No Genuine Pre-Estimate of Loss in your POPLA appeal and LOST?

Big_Bad_Dad

Yes, but this was months ago...my POPLA representation was short and sweet and highlighted my point that I was being penalised. I didn't go into any more detail as I felt I never had to, that was my POPLA debut.

This is how it went:
1) PE sent me invoice, I rejected it by telling them it was unenforceable penalty.
2) PE sent me template "reply" with four cases in whch judge did not deem charges penal but I found all four to be irrelevant for one reason or another - they also sent me POPLA form (as such, they were not willing to discuss my finding)
3) I informed POPLA it was penalty because there was no loss to landowner.
4) POPLA sided with claimant because claimant had cited cases where parking company demands were approved in courts whilst I in turn neither disputed them (I didn't think I had to) and did not reveal any details of my own incident thus "not denying" the claim.
5) Weeks later PE sent me LBA
6) I told them what they could do with their LBA
7) Here we are today!

Concerning Point 4, if you know your informal fallacies, this is known as "attacking the straw man". If POPLA was so independent, I shouldn't have had to explain to them why I felt it was penal. Meanwhile, I could not dispute the case findings by PE because they had already issued a POPLA form which meant they were not going to consider that line of thought - as far as they were concerned, their actions were in accordance with BPA Code of Practice (not so) and legal (questionable).

What both POPLA and the claimant should have done is calculate the losses, that is what the BPA code of practice requires. Even in court I will press for an explanation as to how the claimant believes it could have possessed the money it claims to have lost had the alleged breach not occurred; in my eyes he will have to do better than cite erection of signage - but I fear a biased judge that will buy their rubbish!

bod1467

Just make sure your defence includes references to recent victories for motorists, where judges have struck down PE's claim.

I don't know if it's too late, but I wonder if an appeal to the Lead Adjudicator at POPLA might get your POPLA appeal result overturned, and so kill the court action?

Big_Bad_Dad

Less than 3 weeks. Pushing it a bit...I'll see what I can do.

In the meantime, was there a sticky or page somewhere in which PE's very recent losses have been listed? Sorry to ask again!!!

Redx

I gave links to this info in post #2 , as I remember reading them, but the most recent cases wont be published until jan 10 2014 according to one of those threads

its is also the reason I mentioned contacting prankster and bargepole and kirbyinfurnesslad (KIFL)

Coupon-mad

Big_Bad_Dad wrote: »

Less than 3 weeks. Pushing it a bit...I'll see what I can do.

In the meantime, was there a sticky or page somewhere in which PE's very recent losses have been listed? Sorry to ask again!!!

I believe you can serve a skeleton defence to help the judge see the issues as long as it's more than 2 weeks before the hearing, so send a skeleton summary of 'compelling information' including these cases to both the court and to PE (Recorded Delivery):

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


Also two more were won last week based on 'not a genuine pre-estimate of loss' which would help you no end but they are not able to be shared on the forum yet. I think Bargepole might know when it's safe to let you have details which might be only just before court.

and include the details of the dodgy witness statements and late-dated contracts (insist on PE producing the contract in court). You must get that info from the Parking Prankster asap and include that in your summary of defence evidence - you may as well send a good summary now, nothing to lose. IMHO you will struggle if you ware trying to prove 'it's a penalty'. You may even have something as simple as a dodgy witness statement right there in PE's evidence in front of you already. And you should certainly be saying this is the wrong claimant as PE are not the landowners and have no standing(Sharma and Gardam refer, and other posters have the transcript to at least one of those cases which you can send the judge...best to have the actual transcript).

It appears that showing a charge is a 'penalty' is a pretty steep hill to climb against a solicitor who will have all sorts of ways to rebut that (it somewhat misses the point, rather like your POPLA appeal did). Saying something is a penalty isn't quite the same as saying it's not a genuine pre-estimate of loss.

Also can you pm me or another regular like Bargepole or kirkbyinfurnesslad or the ParkingPrankster himself, the name of the court and the date of the hearing as we may still be able to help you...