Parking Eye Claim Form Defence

4consumerrights

That will do nicely!

Just try and contact the landowner/retailer now to get them to cancel.

Panhan

What would paying a pound do (the original charge) for any action if they only have to be recompensed and not receive any profit?

The_Deep

It would seem that PE are paxoed,

Coupon-mad

I was pretty certain that the cinema would get PE to cancel the claim as they assured me they had contacted PE twice.

You will get the 'pay us £50 costs' begging letter next. Read this thread:

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=87707

and please tell us which court this will be (your nearest) as it may be relevant.

Guys_Dad

Would OP not stand a better chance in court if the cinema actually are the car park landowners/landholders and they have agreed to cancel the ticket as they have not suffered any loss?

Of course, the GPEOL argument may still be a killer at POPLA as well as what is in the contract between PPC and client re landholder's authority to cancel ticket.

I only say court may be better given the recent cases where PPC have been thrown out as no loss to landowner and right to pursue action.

kirkbyinfurnesslad_2

cinemas are very rarely land or leaseholders

crusty_uk

Update on the situation...

Thanks for your help so far.

So, i've received the 20 odd page reply to defence letter from parking eye which responds to all my points in the skeleton defence. Within it includes all of the usual stuff that they send including pictures of sign age, original parking eye charge notice, copy of the contract with the landowner and also a lengthy reply including case law to my defence.

Upon reading through this reply, it seems to me that they have quoted each one of my points, disputed it and backed it up with good case law.

They've also pointed out that i've used a template from an internet site and that the defence discloses no statement of case and 'fails to comply with various aspects of cpr 16'.

They also responded so section e. by saying that they 'have had no contact from the landholder and thereby refutes the defendants assertion that a request has been made to drop the claim. Parking eye would as the defendant to evidence his assertion that a request has been made to drop the claim.'

I believe this to be untrue on parking eyes behalf and that they have simply ignored the request from the landowner. Would it be reasonable for me to ask the landowner for a signed letter of some sort to actually provide some evidence that they have asked the claim to be dropped? I have had email correspondence with the landowner.

I'm currently waiting on the N180 letter from the courts.

Is there any more advice anyone could provide? thanks!

Coupon-mad

crusty_uk wrote: »

So, i've received the 20 odd page reply to defence letter from parking eye which responds to all my points in the skeleton defence. Within it includes all of the usual stuff that they send including pictures of sign age, original parking eye charge notice, copy of the contract with the landowner and also a lengthy reply including case law to my defence.

That's normal - they always send loads of pointless bluff and bluster. Is it really the CONTRACT or a mere photocopied witness statement? If it's a witness statement then I think the Parking Prankster would like to see it as he collects them to help defence info for people. I hope you have read his Guide to Defending Parking Eye small claims?

http://parking-prankster.com/court-claim.html

It will help you later on and you will need the transcripts of winning cases to use as evidence in your full defence.

crusty_uk wrote: »

Upon reading through this reply, it seems to me that they have quoted each one of my points, disputed it and backed it up with good case law.

Nope, they really haven't. Not good case law if they are citing PE v Shelley and other wins by them, or VCS v HMRC appeal, or Combined Parking Solutions cases which don't even use the breach of contract business model...etc. We've seen it all before. Oh, and the rubbish about 'commercial justification' citing some irrelevant case about a yacht.

crusty_uk wrote: »

They've also pointed out that i've used a template from an internet site and that the defence discloses no statement of case and 'fails to comply with various aspects of cpr 16'.

So what? You are a lay person and you are entitled to research on the internet - a Judge who found in favour of a defendant recently v PE said he saw nothing wrong with internet use for court statements - after all lawyers all use it all the time, he said!

And their Letter before Claim probably failed to comply as well! Their failures are much worse as they are a huge firm with an employed legal team and Solicitor.

crusty_uk wrote: »

They also responded so section e. by saying that they 'have had no contact from the landholder and thereby refutes the defendants assertion that a request has been made to drop the claim. Parking eye would as the defendant to evidence his assertion that a request has been made to drop the claim.'

I believe this to be untrue on parking eyes behalf and that they have simply ignored the request from the landowner. Would it be reasonable for me to ask the landowner for a signed letter of some sort to actually provide some evidence that they have asked the claim to be dropped? I have had email correspondence with the landowner.

Totally reasonable! When you get your N180 form I would assume the Judge has so far read nothing of your defence because it has gone through an automated process at Northampton and not been locally considered as yet. So at that stage put a covering letter enclosing the proof from the landowner that they required PE to drop the claim and state that the claim should be struck out. Or 'stayed' {put on hold} pending the test Parking Eye cases in Cambridge, to be heard by HHJ Moloney in April. And/or request an Order for the dispute to be referred to POPLA which is the bespoke ADR for this parking industry {cite the cases where this has happened - I think they are in the Prankster's Guide}.