Parking Eye Notice to Proceed

danielfoley22

Hi all

A few weeks back I wrote about getting a Parking Eye fine for an offence I did not commit, they claim I had parked somewhere for xx minutes which I do not agree with.

They have issued a County Court claim against me and after submitting my skeleton defence to MCOL they have now responded with a notice to proceed.

They have apparently put answers and justifications to everything, you can see the documentation they sent me here:

URL REMOVED

I'm a bit lost about what to do, they have put all sorts of claims in that their charges are justified or the BPA wouldn't allow it etc. etc.

I would actually pay for help, I am that determined not to let these rats try and force me to cough up. Even if the court rules in their favour I can refuse right? maybe take myself of the electoral roll, change my second name and move?

I do not care I am not being forced into paying for something like this, especially when I did not park, I turned round in an area which was private, I did not park at all!

If anyone can look at the PDF and see if there is anything I can do?

Redx

have you done the basics and read the parking pranksters 2 books on this subject ?

ie:- the free one , and if necessary the paid for one

details are in the NEWBIES sticky thread , as is other advice to help on here and pepipoo

ColliesCarer

Daniel you need to remove that link

ColliesCarer

Daniel,

You really need to stop believing what they say - best part of it is BS!

Take a look at this
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/4946282

and this
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/4947514

and this
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/4944755

and this
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/4948188

and those are only in the last few days - hope they've given you a bit a different perspective

Now have a read of this to see what's possible when you get your sleeves rolled up and get stuck in.

This lady already had a default judgement against her but with the forums help she took them on - got the judgement set aside - took it to POPLA and won!!

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/4802567

One of the forum members recently won a case against P Eye which ruled that driving round a car park wasn't parking - there's lots of info and help here

hoohoo

The signage in the pack is the key to this case.

It says 'This car park for permit holders only'
'Strictly no unauthorised parking'

They cannot therefore argue they have a contract with you, as a contract needs consideration both ways, and there is none here. They are not giving you anything, and you are not giving them anything.

In this case, you are a trespasser, not someone who has made a contract and then breached it.

Only the landowner can sue for trespass, so they have no standing to bring the case.

All the other usual stuff applies, such as their 11 page 'Parking Charge Amount' being more creative fiction than Captain Pugwash

salmosalaris

there can be no valid contractual offer to do something you are not permitted to
nonsense

danielfoley22

Ok, should I remove that link? is it for data privacy / protection?

I've done some reading, so here are some of my arguements now, including the ones you mentioned above:

1. A law of contract does not allow penalties, when a contract is broken the aggrieved can claim damages, the amount of damages claimed must be a fair assessment of the losses made because of the breach of that contract, you cannot add on penalties.

2. The fine being £100, how does parking eye account for it being a loss if they can deduct £40 for early payment?, how do they cover the £40 loss if paid early?

3. How are parking eye generating turn over if they claim to not profit from the fines? since charges are their source of profit its immediately obvious that any charge is not a valid "Loss" and thus every case where the landowner does not pay money for their service, these cases should be thrown out.

Plus your points above about the landowner suing for trespass, and that they cannot say I have entered into a contract when their signs state explicitly no unauthorised parking

Am I going in the right direction here?

da_rule

Point 5 of their reply says that the back of ALL of their correspondence sets out that the recipient has 28 days to appeal. So is this 28 days to appeal every time a letter is sent? So would an appeal be possible (if you have received a letter from them in the last 28 days). Either they allow the appeal or point 5 is at the very least unclear, if not misleading. Also, if you can find a letter that doesn't give you the 28 days then you could prove that they have lied.

Also, clause 22 of their contract sets out that they are not an agent of the Land owner so you'll probably have an argument there for their lack of ability to stand. It's a bit blurry so i'm struggling to read it, but I can't see anywhere where it says they can bring legal action.

da_rule

1) Bang on with contract law, although they try to argue this commercial justification.

2) Early payment discounts can be allowed to encourage settlement but there should be some relationship between the higher amount and the lost suffered. So if you pay on the 15th day rather than 14th has it really cost them £50 (just a random number) extra?

3) There lies the problem. They redact that part of the contract.

Also, and you must not lie to the court when dealing with this, but did you actually park? They claim you parked, if you were just driving around then you did not park, you may have entered a restricted area etc, but their signage says no unauthorised parking. There was a case (I'll find the link/citation) which set out that waiting to leave a site is not parking. So therefore if you just drove around and didn't actually park you wouldn't have contravened the 'restriction'.

danielfoley22

I'll review the documentation, in the meantime, I am slightly concerned that they have changed the writing on their signs to catch people who are apparently "Waiting" in the car park?

Basically, I turned around in a private car park, but the parking warning signs state that it is a permit holders car park only, the small writing at the bottom of the sign is tiny, my question is, would you not have to park to get out and read their terms and conditions? there is no way you can read it from your vehicle?

I turned around in a car park, they are claiming I parked for 18 minutes, the thing is, where is the evidence? you should have to have sufficient photographic evidence to show someone being parked, not a grainy black and white ANPR snapshot of your vehicle entering and leaving the car park?

da_rule

So you'll have to challenge the time stamp on the ANPR then as well. Was anyone in the car with you who could be a witness?

And this is a stupid question on my part, you're basically saying that you went in, realised it was permit holders only, so turned around and left? Which obviously wouldn't take 18 minutes (unless it was very busy or a huge car park).