Parking Eye County Court Letter-Help/Advice please

Mcbm

Right how does this sound? Is it too all ovrr the place? Ive mided & matched a few things.

I am the Defendant and the registered keeper of the vehicle relating to this alleged parking invoice.
The Defendant respectfully requests:!(a) - an Order for the claim to be stayed until the final decision made in the test cases heard on 22nd April 2014 by HHJ Moloney QC in Cambridge, a ParkingEye 'test case' ordered following a glut of Parking Eye litigation.!Under that original Order at Chelmsford, any similar cases pending in the Cambridge, Essex, Suffolk or Norfolk Courts were to be stayed pending the outcome of the Cambridge proceedings.
In other Court areas, many ParkingEye cases have also been stayed for the same reason since this is a test case relevant to all claims this Claimant is currently pursuing. For example, on 29th January 2014 at the request of the Defendant, in 3JD06925 ParkingEye v Hopewell (Halifax) Deputy District Judge Gardner stayed the claim, pending the Cambridge test case and many more have been stayed since then. The most recent documented case - stayed for the Cambridge decision - that I can adduce was at Aberystwyth County Court, case A0JD0727 ParkingEye v Humphries, stayed immediately before listed for any hearing, by Order of District Judge Godwin on 17th April 2014.
b) - Further and in the alternative, I request an Order for the claim to be stayed pending the allowance of both parties to undertake ADR in the form of a POPLA appeal.This would follow many similar Court Orders in a number of this Claimant's cases now successfully resolved, e.g. in the order made by District Judge Mayor, Croydon Court, 13/09/13 (Case no. 3JD00719, ParkingEye v Mr O), and by Deputy District Judge Bridger, Southampton Court, 21/01/2014 (Case no. 3JD05448, ParkingEye v Gilmartin) and by Deputy District Judge Buckley, Blackburn County Court, 11/02/2014 (Case number 3JD10502, ParkingEye v Mrs P).POPLA impose no deadline and will allow a BPA member to issue a POPLA code at any stage.!It is not relevant if this claimant 'feels it is unsuitable' because in the legitimate interests of the consumer and in accordance with the Practice Direction, they should have explored this option more fully and offered it again far more openly, in pre-court correspondence.
A small claim should be a step of last resort and as far as this overactive claimant is concerned that is far from the case. This claimant has failed to show any justification to refuse the parking industry's bespoke ADR which they merely hide in small print on one early unsolicited letter which impersonates a parking ticket, regarding which the accepted and informed advice for many years was to ignore. ParkingEye are well aware of this and they bank on consumers missing the very limited offer of appeal/POPLA and despite their assertion otherwise, they do not offer it again in other letters nor in their Letter before Claim. However, the British Parking Association, which is their Trade Body, are on record this year as being particularly keen for the authorities to recognise POPLA as the most suitable ADR and they actively encourage cases to be referred.!I ask the court to strike the case out as having no cause of action, as in previous private parking cases, e.g. 1QT32504 Minster Baywatch v Spalding, June 2011, District Judges Khan & MacKenzie, Hereford: 'surely the case of action must be in favour of the landowner; the present Claimant acting merely as its agent'.ParkingEye have been found in an increasing number of decisions, to have no locus standi (e.g. case no. 3QT60598 ParkingEye v Gardam, 14/11/2013 and case no. 3JD02357 ParkingEye v Gosnold, 23/01/2014).!In case the Judge found that: 'We have a rather bizarre situation where the Claimants make no money apparently from those who comply with the terms...and make their profit from those who are in breach of their contract. Well that cannot be right, that is nonsense. I am satisfied that...{as found in ParkingEye v Gardam} the Claimants are the wrong Claimants.'This Claimant has flawed or post-dated agency contracts as in the above two cases, and also in ParkingEye v Sharma, case no. 3QT62646, Brentford County Court, 23/10/13. District Judge Jenkins found the contract to be a commercial agreement which assigned no rights nor standing.
Parking Eye have lost cases at Barrow in Furness already and another hearing would waste the Court's time.
A POPLA decision will almost certainly resolve the case without need for court, within 90 days of the claimant issuing a POPLA verification code, whereas the Cambridge decision seems likely to go to the Court of Appeal according to a comment made at the April hearing by HHJ Moloney
.!POPLA is my preferred ADR if the Court should allow an Order to this effect. In the interests of saving the court's time and resolving the matter fairly, I hereby agree to accept the findings of POPLA, even though in the normal course of events their decisions are not binding on a motorist.
!Concluding statement of case for this claim to be stayed:This is not about parking management nor the rights of any landowner - this is a vexatious litigant, and as a final alternative, I invite the court to strike this claim out.!
This claimant has no standing or title in the land they ostensibly 'manage' at arm's length with remote cameras and they display an aggressive approach in their prolific forays in the small claims track. I draw the court's attention to this claimant's well-documented disregard for genuine customers of their principal clients, and to the disproportionate, scattergun defence bundle 'weighty tomes' submitted week in, week out, wasting courts time with irrelevant case law, in pursuit of winning some trophy cases, always at a loss. In a recent case at Aberystwyth in April 2014 (which was in the event, stayed pending the Cambridge decision) this claimant reportedly filed over 700 pages in their bundle about a retail car park where they had recently lost a claim, sending a paid solicitor at further cost, purely to attempt to win a case regarding a free customer car park where there was no initial or consequential loss to pursue and the 'PCN' sum claimed was £100. This claimant now routinely loses cases when properly defended and many English county courts have been swamped with this Claimant's paperwork, wholly disproportionate to the sum involved, since 2013.!Any victory using these methods is a Pyrrhic victory and an abuse of the small claims track. ParkingEye pay £200-£300 for their lawyers, making at least a £100 loss on the day. They further compound this by ordering transcripts of cases won for £200-£300, since hours of court time is taken up in some cases. This is a cleverly designed and orchestrated campaign to create a climate of intimidation. Using their transcripts and mentioning only the wins and never the losses they present a one-sided view of the true situation on their website, in their POPLA appeals, and in the documents used in any court cases. Judge Melville-Shreeve summed this up nicely in ParkingEye v Collins Daniel, case 3JD06533:
The Specific circumstances in respect of my own claim are that we used the car park in question on the 19th July 2013, and purchased a ticket for a 1 hour stay. We overstayed by 27 minutes based on the details provided by Parking Eye. (Unable to independently confirm this.) I understand that there is normally a 20 minute period of grace in these circumstances.I HAVE NOT RECEIVED ANY NOTIFICATION THAT THIS MATTER WOULD RESULT IN A COUNTY COURT CLAIM.....I UNDERSTAND A FINAL LETTER CONFIRMING THIS ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN ISSUED BY PARKING EYE.It is denied that any 'Letter before Claim' was received which was compliant with Practice Directions. No exchange of information has taken place. I would have asked for POPLA, and/or evidence of their authority/standing/loss
.I also understand that once I had completed the acknowledgement of service, that further paperwork would be issued to me, and again this has not happened as of the 14th May2014.

Now the help I need ive been advised could be from coupn-mad. I have just been informed of a law in respect to breastfeeding...... I wasca breastfeeding mother at the time & after the 'clean up' of my little boy stated on orig post I did take time to bf my little boy- I was unaware this was of any relevance but now believe it could be a big point in regards to my rights. Any advice on where to add this in my defence or as to anything else ive posted in my defence would be appreciated.
also its removed a link & paragraph somewhere I now cant find so will be a odd bit somewhere!

Coupon-mad

That's based on a defence I wrote for someone - but you'd need to space the lines out and put headings so the court can read it! Courts prefer double line spacing I think (certainly headings and more paragraph spaces).

Re the breastfeeding issue, if the baby is under 6 months you are covered by the Equality Act 2010:

http://www.maternityaction.org.uk/wp/advice-2/mums-dads-scenarios/6-breastfeeding-rights/breastfeeding-in-public-places/

But that point won't win your court case. I'd include it and cite the law but that won't win it. Other things may do, if you can separate out that wall of words a little bit so we can see the wood for the trees!

And don't rush your defence - as long as you have acknowledged it on MCOL, that buys you a little time to work on the defence wording. And keep an eye out for the decision shortly, in the HHJ Moloney test case re PE. If that comes though in favour of the motorist you could then adduce it in your defence, so be patient but ensure you don't go beyond 32 days from the date of the court claim.

ColliesCarer

Hi Mcbm,

Some of the above seems to be more of a letter requesting and making a case for using the ADR process POPLA.

As well as his book did you download Pranksters free Legal Arguments to Use in a Private Eye Court Claim - see the 2nd download in link below

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

See section 2 of that for an example defence - many of those points will apply in your case.

ColliesCarer

Another link which will be useful for you (to a post by Bargepole) for you to take a look at, which also links to the Parking Pranksters recent update to his sample defences

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/65524852#Comment_65524852

Mcbm

Has anyone ever had issues logging into money claim to log the defence... It says in logged in to money claim but won't recognise my claim number!!! Argghhhh!!!!!

Coupon-mad

So try again tomorrow if it was a glitch - and if not then print it with all refs/details clearly set out, and post it.

DCL

What is the format of the claim number on a form, my sticker on the form has a barcode with 7 digit code underneath, then a CCMCC + date, then an 8 digit code mix of letters and digits.?? Confused with just the claim number !!

Mcbm

Hi All, Sorry not posted for a while busy month and was hoping I wouldn't get a response from pe! Deadline came and went for the 22 days they had to respond and the Monday after a bleeping letter came from the courts to say they advise we try mediation and I have to full a form in and respond by 7th July. Question is do I go for this or decline it? Any advise would be appreciated.
I have had no direct correspondence from pe to try sort it like it was suggested I may just the letter from the court.
Thanks in advance everyone x

Aaron_Aadvark

Mcbm wrote: »

... a bleeping letter came from the courts to say they advise we try mediation and I have to full a form in and respond by 7th July. Question is do I go for this or decline it?

You could tell the court that you wish to use the parking industry's "Alternative Dispute Resolution" procedure, ie POPLA.

Coupon-mad

I agree with Aaron Aadvark - there's a letter linked in post #3 of the NEWBIES thread to write to your local court where the case is allocated, to ask for POPLA as the ADR. A few cases have been agreed by the Judge to be directed to POPLA instead and if you are lucky enough to get that agreed, then with a decent POPLA appeal, you've won. Try it.

You could also pm this guy and ask how their mediation went this week although his claim was not from PE:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/65864192#Comment_65864192

If you are not sure what happens when, and about submitting your filed defence before the hearing, you need to read all the links in post #5 of the NEWBIES thread it's people like you that they are there for. After that do ask any other questions you might have as we want you to win like all the winning cases linked there.