Parking Eye Court Claim

nigelbb

I stand corrected.

Crabman

Stroma wrote: »

I will ask a forum guide to merge the threads for you.

Thanks Stroma, I've merged three threads together

liseylou

Coupon-mad wrote: »

Same advice for you and your friends, as you already read on the other thread you landed on:





Let me know when you've done enough reading & preparation and have acknowledged the claim so you and your friends would be ready for looking at a suggested defence wording I can send you. But I never send it 'up front' before you've all sit down over the weekend and researched the situation first, like bartos1976 is in the process of doing. This has to be approached with knowledge on your part and is a real learning curve!

Tell your friends it is fairly pointless to panic and pay in full IMHO seeing as you can defend, we win quite a lot now, and even if lost you'd each pay average £195 so the difference is small and paying zero and claiming your costs would be really getting your own back! And if you are desperate to later on, you can negotiate (separately, after making sure a defence is submitted to cover you, though!). DO NOT IGNORE IT OF COURSE!


P.S. You should BOTH separately send in your own words a massive complaint to Newquay Council about them letting this pariah ruin their tourism. But that's for AFTER you have addressed the immediate matter of defending the claim.

Coupon-mad thank you for your PM - although I tried to reply but your inbox is full.

Thank you very much for your help, it is most appreciated - it all seems rather daunting and although I really do not want to go to court as it scares me to death, I want to defend myself because PE are such criminals!!

I have seen your generic defence too, which I will tailor accordingly - I didnt realise I am able to file my defence online? (via MCOL). I completed the AOS online but thought I would have to send the defence by post. Also, you mention 'skeleton defence'. So does that mean that I only need to make a statement at the moment, like the defence you have PM'd me?

Therefore, I would then assume that all the paperwork, pictures of the signage, letters etc etc, are not submitted until the hearing? Which is why I need to gather all the evidence prior to the date of the hearing, am I correct?

liseylou

cont...

Can you please let me know the reason why you have mentioned the test cases you referred to in your PM? I just wanted to check that you are recommending this is referred to in my skeleton defence, even though I do not live in the South East and will not be attending one of the 3 courts in question:

Further and in the alternative, an Order is requested:
-for the claim to be stayed pending the result of the test cases to be heard inApril 2014 by HHJ Moloney QC in Cambridge (adjourned from 14/3/2014).

Coupon-mad

liseylou wrote: »

cont...

Can you please let me know the reason why you have mentioned the test cases you referred to in your PM:

Further and in the alternative, an Order is requested:
-for the claim to be stayed pending the result of the test cases to be heard inApril 2014 by HHJ Moloney QC in Cambridge (adjourned from 14/3/2014).

Because it's a few Parking Eye cases together, being considered by a Circuit Judge for the whole of Essex, Cambs, Suffolk and Norfolk and would be a persuasive decision if it works in the public's favour. It's been discussed LOADS on this forum and would be worth mentioning in your defence now even if you don't come from those Counties.

Search this forum for 'Suffolk' or 'Moloney' to read more. The Judge in Chelmsford got so fed up with PE small claims cluttering up the courts in his area he ordered them all to be lumped together - this is something you'd want your Judge to know. Reiterate all this once the claim is allocated to your local court, when you send your full defence in later on.

Therefore, I would then assume that all the paperwork, pictures of the signage, letters etc etc, are not submitted until the hearing?

Please read the links I directed you to read, under Small Claims court, post #5 of the NEWBIES thread. Timeline of what happens when is summarised well in a link there by bargepole, that you need to read & understand. And you need court case transcripts & info as per the Parking Prankster's Guide to defending a PE small claim.

liseylou

Wow - I don't know where you find time to sleep!! I had found further information whilst trawling through the PP guide last night/this morning. But thank you again.

liseylou

I just wondered if someone can take a look at my skeleton defence before I submit it please:

Re: CLAIM NUMBER XXXXXXXX
I am the Defendant and the registered keeper but am not the driver of the car in question.

The Defendant respectfully requests an Order:for both parties to resolve this dispute via POPLA, the bespoke ADR for this industry, as in the Orders made by DJ Mayor, (Croydon 13/09/13, 3JD00719, ParkingEye v Mr O), and by DDJ Bridger (Southampton 21/01/2014, 3JD05448, ParkingEye v Gilmartin). This is a vexatious litigant which prefers to avoid POPLA, which always finds their charges not to be a 'genuine pre-estimate of loss'.

POPLA is not normally binding on the motorist. However, I agree to respect the findings of POPLA, an ADR still open to me as POPLA imposes no deadline. This costs ParkingEye £27. However, they will be better off financially than if we carry on to a court hearing, whatever the result.

Further and in the alternative, an Order is requested: for the claim to be stayed pending the result of the test cases to be heard in April 2014 by HHJ Moloney QC in Cambridge (adjourned from 14/3/2014).

Notwithstanding the above, the Defendant hereby provides a skeleton defence and will provide transcripts of the cases cited, in a full defence not less than 14 days before a hearing:

1 I dispute the entirety of the claim.
2 ParkingEye did not send me a letter before claim which was compliant with practice directions. As a result the parties have not been able to complete the exchange of information needed for me to file my full defence and have not been able to complete Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR).
3 Parking cases explore complex areas of law. I estimate that any hearing will need between a half day to a day to hear all the issues.
4 ParkingEye never attend court personally, but use an advocate from LPC Law who offer a fixed fee service for around £250 for a 3 hour hearing (ParkingEye can confirm the exact amount) or more if the hearing is longer.
5 It is clear therefore, that as legal costs are not normally reclaimable in the small claims court, that ParkingEye have no sensible financial basis for pursuing this claim as they will make a loss, whatever the result. Moreover, this case will take a great deal of the court’s time.
6 In the event the court decides POPLA is not suitable, then I request that the case be stayed for both parties to compete pre-court actions. I will then file my defence based on the following points:
a. In the event ParkingEye claim they are charging for breach of contract then according to well established case law; and also the British Parking Association code of conduct, which they have agreed to obey; and also which their standard contract with the landowner states they must comply with; then any charge for breach of contract must be a true pre-estimate of loss. The creditor for breach of contract, as shown by ParkingEye’s standard contract, is the landowner. The landowner’s loss in this situation is zero or negligible. As ParkingEye’s standard contract does not pass on recovery costs to the landowner then the landowner has made no loss from recovery costs. In any case, as ParkingEye’s accounts show they make over 30% profit on charges for breach of contract, the charge cannot be a true pre-estimate of loss.
b. The signage is not sufficient to create a contract between ParkingEye and the motorist.
c. Ideny any breach leading to this charge. The driver paid for parking but the cameras added time spent waiting for a space - which was not 'parking time' as found in 3JD08399 (Altrincham 17/03/2014). ParkingEye at Fistral Beach in a similar case.
d. The short overstay was caused by heavy vehicular and pedestrian traffic, at the height of the summer season in Newquay. The vehicle was not actually parked for the times alleged but was queued trying to park, pay and leave the car park. As the ANPR camera detects entry and exit times, this is not the actual time parked.
e. The existence of any 'relevant obligation' under the Protection of Freedoms Act, Schedule 4 (POFA 2012) is denied. A 'sum in the nature of damages' can only be potentially claimed in specific circumstances 'in the case of a relevant obligation arising as a result of a trespass or other tort'. Breach of contract is not a tort.
f. The existence of any 'relevant contract' with the driver under the POFA 2012 is denied, since the car was not parked for this time so no further parking fee is due.
g. The charge is a penalty, contrary to the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 and the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contract Terms Regulations 1999 (UTCCR 1999) and is unrecoverable.
h. ParkingEye are not the landowner, and have not shown they have the landowner’s permission to take court action in their own name. They therefore have no standing to bring the case.
i. This operator had no locus standi at the material time. The findings in 3JD06533 ParkingEye v Collins-Daniel, 24/01/2014 were that this Claimant has no standing, flawed signage, an unjustified charge and no cause of action.
j. The registered keeper was not driving the vehicle at the time. The Notice to Keeper served was not compliant with POFA 2012 and therefore the keeper cannot be held liable.

bod1467

Please edit your post above to make the text readable.

Stroma

Very difficult to read, could you put it into notepad then paste it here. When you do it on word or similar the formatting is really bad posted into forums

hoohoo

Probably worth mentioning this case

3JD08399 ParkingEye v Ms X. (Altrincham 17/03/2014). Fistral Beach. The defendant spent 31 minutes waiting for a car park space during the crowded holiday season. The ANPR evidence was therefore not relevant as it showed the time in the car park, not the time parked. The judge ruled this was not against the terms and conditions of the signage. The judge also stated that in any case £100 was not likely to be a true pre-estimate of loss.