Filing date for hearing

Range_Rover

Hi, they did not send me a GPEOL, also the letter was sent to me yesterday by PE themselves. I need to know what my options are then i can come up with the best solution for me not them. I know that if i go to court it will cost them more than it will cost me and then i will feel a little better knowing that they have not made a penny out of me. The car park is FREE for two hours but only if shopping at the time. the cameras only went up at the site 3 weeks before the ANPR camera caught me.

Herzlos

Defend it then, it won't cost you much more if you lose, but it'll cost them a lot more.


You could argue that Beavis doesn't apply because PE don't pay the landowner £1000/week for the right to issue tickets, and that it's not commercially justified because you were a genuine customer. It's also not a Genuine loss (because it's a free car park) or a contractual term (because there's no VAT).

You should also argue that they don't have the authority to issue tickets or take court action, that the signage was insufficient (ideally you have photos of the signage at the time?), that for various reasons they are not POFA2012 compliant (Was the Notice To Keeper recieved within 14 days of the alleged incident? Did it meet all of the other criteria?, as that would mean the keeper is not legally liable.

How long did the ANPR claim you were there for? Remember that there's meant to be a grace period, and there is precedent for the argument that ANPR only counts the time on site, and finding a space is not parking. If you're within 20 minutes of the 2 hours, you can argue that you spent about 10 minutes finding a space, and 10 minutes leaving again.

You should also ask them to prove their ANPR system was suitably calibrated.

But do propose POPLA as a form of ADR. Parking Eye will reject it, but it makes you look better.

TDA

I would give serious consideration to accepting their settlement offer. You are going to struggle to differentiate your case from Beavis - indeed it seems almost a carbon copy!

Whether PE pays £1,000 to the landowner or not is irrelevant, the same legitimate interests that were highlighted in Beavis still apply here.

You need to act in your own interests here, not the interests of other board members for whom nothing is at stake. If the matter proceeds to trial you will be looking at paying the wrong side of £200 in the likely event it goes against you, for the charge and fixed costs.

bargepole

Herzlos wrote: »

You could argue that Beavis doesn't apply because PE don't pay the landowner £1000/week for the right to issue tickets, and that it's not commercially justified because you were a genuine customer. It's also not a Genuine loss (because it's a free car park) or a contractual term (because there's no VAT).

Completely irrelevant, the myth about the 'fishing licence' has been done to death about 240,000,000 times on this forum.

Herzlos wrote: »

You should also argue that they don't have the authority to issue tickets or take court action, that the signage was insufficient (ideally you have photos of the signage at the time?), that for various reasons they are not POFA2012 compliant (Was the Notice To Keeper recieved within 14 days of the alleged incident? Did it meet all of the other criteria?, as that would mean the keeper is not legally liable.

The only one of those arguments which might work, is a deficiency in the NTK, but only if the OP was not driving.

Herzlos wrote: »

How long did the ANPR claim you were there for? Remember that there's meant to be a grace period, and there is precedent for the argument that ANPR only counts the time on site, and finding a space is not parking. If you're within 20 minutes of the 2 hours, you can argue that you spent about 10 minutes finding a space, and 10 minutes leaving again.

Might work.

Herzlos wrote: »

You should also ask them to prove their ANPR system was suitably calibrated.

But do propose POPLA as a form of ADR. Parking Eye will reject it, but it makes you look better.

They will produce a load of guff about their ANPR system, and as you say, reject POPLA. Courts have ordered this only in a tiny percentage of cases.

I fear your advice to the OP is asking him to clutch at the flimsiest of straws.