PARKINGEYE ARE CROOKS (please help!)

Coupon-mad

Coupon-mad wrote: »

Same as here:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5344168

Good luck with that. Next to no chance now.

I meant the above. No chance. Make an offer at the same time as writing a defence. PE sometimes settle for £50 and you are highly likely to lose or find your defence struck out without a hearing as this is an overstay in a retail car park with similar signs to Beavis.

I say it like it is, have to be realisitic.

The Supreme Court Judges (except for Lord Toulson) don't know what they've done and IMHO should be ashamed of - what seems to us to be - trying hard to find a reasoning that supported PE's £85 charge that PE had not justified at all. They even said 'we couldn't see it at first' in the judgment (so presumably they had to look hard to find how to reach their conclusion then). Astonishing.

A green light to a cowboy industry using ANPR in car parks to charge up to £100 a pop, when Local Authorities are restricted to half that sum AND are banned from using that method now, as it's predatory, fails to take circumstances into account and is unfair on consumers.

But never mind that, ex-clampers can use it...thanks to the great Judiciary, victims like you are royally stuffed. Complain to your MP and be prepared for your defence to be struck out.

4consumerrights

salmosalaris wrote: »

From the signage
1. No contract for parking is offered if you are not a customer therefore how possibly can they sue for breach of contract ?
2. They clearly advertise they operate for and on behalf of the landowner . This precludes them bringing an action in their name .
3. If anything you were a trespasser for which only the landowner may sue ( quote the Beavis SC judgment ) for the value of your stay

The SC made great reference to the signage in Beavis , you need to make plain the clear difference in your case

I know judges won't go for this but we shouldn't just bow down to this rollux because they are being rollercoasted , bamboozled and misled

Exactly

The case has aspects which distinguish from Beavis as well in the event that the retail park has closed then the commerical and social / economic justifications for providing ample parking spaces to Customers disappears as specified in Beavis.

Additionally as Parking Eye's standard terms also dictate their relationship does not create any landlord/tenant position between them.

wooder

Coupon-mad wrote: »

The Supreme Court Judges (except for Lord Toulson) don't know what they've done and IMHO should be ashamed of - what seems to us to be - trying hard to find a reasoning that supported PE's £85 charge that PE had not justified at all. They even said 'we couldn't see it at first' in the judgment (so presumably they had to look hard to find how to reach their conclusion then). Astonishing.

Oh, come now... it's perfectly clear that the charge levied by a subsidiary of a 'respectable' company like Capita, with a £4.3 bn turnover and god knows who on the board or as shareholders, is justifiable....

.... cynical, moi ?

AdrianC

wooder wrote: »

company like Capita, with ... god knows who on the board...

http://investors.capita.co.uk/leadership-and-governance/board-of-directors.aspx

...or as shareholders

http://investors.capita.co.uk/shareholder-centre/major-shareholders.aspx

Guess I must be God, then?

Coupon-mad

Nileonfire wrote: »

the next thing I received was the claim form...

...Right so I should use the signs wording to my advantage then? Sorry if that's wrong, I'm a complete novice when it comes to this, all I know they're acting unfairly!

Have you written some bullet points in defence now, and considered whether to make an offer as well (separately in a 'without prejudice' letter to PE, asap, if you are going to) in case your defence is just struck out as I fear it might be?

Have you acknowledged the claim? The paperwork explains how and by when.

As Redx said to you at first:

with a good defence and proof of failures by PE then you may have a chance, or if the landowner is on your side

but if BB failed 3 times, what chance have others got ? difficult to say so no point in answering the question

good luck with your case, I hope you win, so come back and let us know, win or lose

ps:- nobody is going to write your defence for free, but check parking pranksters book

So, have you contacted the landowner urgently to see if they can achieve anything (probably at best, a reduced amount I would expect but some landowners get PE to cancel completely). Very important to try this urgently for obvious reasons.

Have you read any info such as the Parking Prankster's guide to defending a PakringEye claim (Google it) which was written prior to the Beavis case but will show you the sort of legal points to put in defence (which is not you 'excusing' why you did what you did).

But do NOT forget to also acknowledge the claim on MCOL (by day 14) and then send a bullet point defence in time, setting out why your case differs from the Beavis case and what your defence points are (another 14 days max, to submit that).

I also hope you will win but think you have to be realistic. I'm sorry but I repeat, it's my own opinion that I think (sadly) you have next to no chance in court. It's because this is PE in a retail park and an overstay situation which will be far easier for them to argue than for you to counter it, particlarly if this goes to a hearing (if you lose, it would be up to maybe £170 - £200 to pay, not more unless you are unreasonable and vexatious, so don't be!).

I believe you'd do better to try the landowner and consider making an offer to PE at the same time as submitting the acknowledgement and defence.

salmosalaris

Defence statement

The defendant denies liability for the entirety of the claim .

The claim is brought for a purported breach of contract but the defendant denies there was a valid contract between the defendant and claimant upon which the Claimant could sue .
The supposed contract is purely brought by signage therefore careful analysis of the wording on the sign is essential . This makes plain that the offer of a parking contract limited to 2 hours is only made to customers whilst shopping in the store , presumably as there would be a need to ensure a turnover of spaces during opening hours . As the store was shut during the stay there would be no requirement for this and under no interpretation of the sign can it be suggested that an offer of a parking contract outside of the opening hours was made to the defendant . There was no contract which the defendant could have breached. As the claim is entirely dependant upon a valid contract the claim should be dismissed .

In the unlikely event the court concludes there was a contract , the sign ( contract) discloses that the Claimant acts on behalf of the landowner . This disclosure removes any right of the Claimant to enforce a contract in their name , they have no Locus Standi. Any claim should be brought in the name of the contracting party , the landowner .

The claim should be dismissed .

Then if you want to avoid court negotiate with Parking Eye on a "without prejudice save as to costs" basis .