County Court Claim Form Received from ParkingEye

TheShroud

My wife has received 'County Court Claim Form Received from ParkingEye' with charges. We have the usual 14 days to respond which is down to about 8 days now.


Please can someone advise best course of action to avoid paying.


It is worth pointing out that my wife is 37 weeks pregnant and was pregnant at time of parking charge.


We have so far ignored the letters from ParkingEye (not the best course of action I now know) which have included photos of the car. She had paid for a ticket but overrun by 50 mins. It was a pay and display car park at Walker Street, Preston.


Any advice appreciated. Thanks for your time.

Redx

read and follow the advice in the NEWBIES sticky thread

search the forum for similar threads using the search box and follow the same advice

ps:- you are not the first and wont be the last, they issue thousands of these every year at the moment

Coupon-mad

Start with the NEWBIES thread - post #5 of it only. All links!

TheShroud

I have acknowledged a County court claim which I intend to defend.

I have a had a good look on this forum and have a good idea of my first defence letter.

My situation is that I paid for a 3 hour parking ticket and overstayed by 50 minutes. I would be grateful if experienced posters could advise if I can still put in a good defence.

I got photos of the car park signage today and spoke to car park attendant who was very helpful and sympathetic. He passed on details of the landowner who I contacted. The landowner was not so helpful in that he would not consider cancelling the claim against me. I thought he would have been a bit more sympathetic. Is it worth me pursuing correspondence with the landowner? If so, what is the best plan of attack?

All advice appreciated. I am aware of the sticky threads but could do with more precise advice regarding the landowner.

Worth pointing out that I was 6 months pregnant at the time of the parking overstay.

Thanks

Dee140157

I am no expert on court claims, so will bow to the wisdom of others here, but I suspect it is a waste of time beating your head against a brick wall with the land owner

Instead I would suggest downloading the free Parking Pranksters guide and buying the paid for one.

Sorry I can help much more than that.

Redx

you may have a SEPARATE case under the EA 2010 against the landowner but coupon-mad is better placed to answer you, but she is on holiday

dont let it distract you from this case however

londonTiger

this one is rare, parking enforcement taking someone to court.

Redx

londonTiger wrote: »

this one is rare, parking enforcement taking someone to court.

not really, PE do it all the time , every week , 52 weeks a year

probably between 8000 and 12000 cases a year ?

others will know better than I , like this thread here

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/4912827

Northlakes

Follow Prankster! He knows what to do.

Umkomaas

londonTiger wrote: »

this one is rare, parking enforcement taking someone to court.

Wrong PPC mate, we're talking ParkingEye here, the most litigious PPC in the UK, and as Redx points out above, issuing thousands upon thousands of court papers over the past 12 months. And Redx's estimate is probably on the low side!

TheShroud

Here is a draft of my initial defence to a County Court Claim.




Charges are £165 inc Court Fee and solicitors costs for a 50 min overstay at pay and display (had paid for 3 hours)




Any advice on changes / additions appreciated








Claim Number: [REF]


BETWEEN:


ParkingEye Ltd (Claimant)


vs


[NAME] (Defendant)





___________________________________________________________________________





I am [NAME] of [ADDRESS], [POSTCODE], defendant in this matter.





I am the registered keeper and I wish to defend the charges issued from ParkingEye. I dispute the entirety of the claim and submit the points below to show that I am not liable for the parking charge.





I have not received a letter before claim from ParkingEye which was compliant with practice directions. As a result, the parties have not been able to 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.





ParkingEye have not filed enough information in the particulars of the claim to establish a cause of action. They are not the landowner and have not established under what authority they bring the claim. I therefore request the claim is stayed until ParkingEye provide full particulars of the claim.





Proposal to use POPLA





I wish to point out that 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. 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. 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.





I therefore propose we use the industry standard dispute mechanism which is to use ParkingEye’s appeal service first and then the independent adjudication service POPLA next. This costs ParkingEye £27. However, they will be better off financially than if we carry on to a hearing, whatever the result. POPLA is not normally binding on the motorist. However, I will agree to be bound by the result of POPLA.





ParkingEye are known never to agree to use POPLA unless the court orders


this. I refer to the case of ParkingEye v Mr O, 3JD00791 at Croydon County Court,


Judge Major ordered that:





1. Proceedings are stayed.


2. Refer the dispute to POPLA in the first instance.


This case then proceeded to POPLA and I would like to point out that a similar order would save costs for all parties and the court.





In the event the court decides POPLA is not suitable then I request that the


case be stayed for both parties to complete pre-court actions. I will then file my defence based on the following points:





1) ParkingEye are not the landowner of Walker Street Car Park, Preston 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.





2) As 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.





3) As the driver, I was 6 months pregnant at the time of the parking event and within the meaning of the Equality Act 2010, reasonable adjustment therefore needs to be made. In this case, reasonable adjustment would mean allowing myself more time to park than more able bodied persons.