ParkingEye PCN - County Court hearing date set

mattfromwales1984

Hi All,

The recent judgement in the Beavis case has dented my confidence a bit on a successful challenge of a ParkingEye PCN issued to me back in July 2015. However, I'm still going to challenge it via the Court, and here within is a summary of events so far. Obviously, I'll post the outcome once the Court has made its decision:

1. Setting the scene: in June 2015, I parked in a Parking Eye controlled car park at 18:54, and stayed there until 22:25 that same evening. This particular site in Caversham, Reading is behind the high street and doesn't have any store fronts directly accessible accessed off it (unlike in a more traditional retail park where it's pretty clear which shops are serviced by the car park. I was eating at a local restaurant across the high street from this car park. I have asked ParkingEye to provide a list of the retailers that it's enforcement serves on this particular site, as it isn't clear from the arrangement of the shops. There is a 3 hour maximum free period for this site. All of the retail premises in the vicinity were actually closed at the time of the overstay (i.e., from 21:55 to 22:25). .
2. I didn't see the signs when I parked, however I have not submitted this as part of my defence. They are visible and not obstructed in any way, so there was no grounds for this. It was just my mistake that I didn't note that there was a 3 hour maximum stay period.
3. On 2nd July, PE issued the first PCN requesting payment of £100, reduced to £60 if paid within 14 days. I considered this to be unreasonable, so I sent a letter stating that I would not be paying, citing the charge being disproportionate and not a genuine pre-estimate of loss. I also stated I would not be entering into any further correspondence and that this would be my only letter.
4. On the 11th July, I received a PCN Reminder, which I ignored as I said I would be doing
5. On 5th August, I received a letter to the Registered Keeper, notifying me of their intent to pursue me for the outstanding Parking Charge (now £100 as the period in which the reduced amount applied had now passed). I ignored this, as I said I would be doing.
6. On 20th August, I received a "Letter Before County Court Claim"
7. On 14th September, I received a Claim Form from the County Court Business Centre, Northampton, outlining PEs case against me. I acknowledged this (now in County Court territory so obviously I wasn't going to ignore these letters) and also submitted my Defence, both online using the Money Claim.
8. Receipt of my Defence was acknowledged by the County Court Business Centre on 22nd September.
9. On 23rd October, I and PE were both issued with a letter informing us that the case was being transferred to my local County Court
10. I submitted by Directions Questionnaire (Small Claims Track)
11. A few days later, I received a copy of PEs Directions Questionnaire directly from PE.
12. On 27th October, I received a "Notice to Proceed" from PE, containing 52 pages - yes, 52 pages - of arguments and copies of previous judgements. In it, they state that they never received my initial letter stating that I wouldn't be paying the charge, and the reasons for that. They also advise me that if I wish to amend my Defence, I should submit an N244 form
13. On 14th November, I received a letter from my local CC informing me that a date has been set for the hearing (early January)

So, I now have to submit all documents I intend to use on the day to both the Court and PE, and also a Witness Statement.

Following on from the judgement a few days ago, it would seem that £100 isn't going to be considered an extravegant amount of money to be charged as a deterrent for overstaying in the car park for 30 minutes.

Instead, my point is far more the legitimacy of issuing a Charge at all at 10pm on a non-24 hour, free site which serves premises which were all closed at the time of the overstay (subject to confirmation of which businesses the car park actually serves, although I can think of none in the area which would have been open then anyway).

It's not even about the money - it's the principle. If it costs me £175 because I lose in the County Court, then so be it, but I can't just let it go because these people have now been given a license to charge whatever they like, regardless of circumstances, and I think that's grossly unfair on those who may not be able to afford £100, or even the £60 charge for overstaying.

mattfromwales1984

Hi All,

As an update to this, the County Court found against me in the hearing, stating that ParkingEye were well within their rights to charge for the overstay, and that the level of charging has been found to be proportionate by the Court of Appeal. The fact the retail premises were closed for business at the time made no difference and I now have to pay £200 to PE.

So, it would seem that the courts have now given complete justification to PE for how they do their business and there's no way around it. Therefore, be very careful when parking on any site run by one of these private firms - if you overstay your time and are issued with a charge, there's going to be very little you can do to avoid paying it.

Guys_Dad

mattfromwales1984 wrote: »

Hi All,

As an update to this, the County Court found against me in the hearing, stating that ParkingEye were well within their rights to charge for the overstay, and that the level of charging has been found to be proportionate by the Court of Appeal. The fact the retail premises were closed for business at the time made no difference and I now have to pay £200 to PE.

So, it would seem that the courts have now given complete justification to PE for how they do their business and there's no way around it. Therefore, be very careful when parking on any site run by one of these private firms - if you overstay your time and are issued with a charge, there's going to be very little you can do to avoid paying it.

No, not really. If the main point of your defence was "Instead, my point is far more the legitimacy of issuing a Charge at all at 10pm on a non-24 hour, free site which serves premises which were all closed at the time of the overstay (subject to confirmation of which businesses the car park actually serves, although I can think of none in the area which would have been open then anyway)." then you were on a doomed course. The court is not there to determine whether or not your viewpoint is reasonable or not - it is there to judge on the facts and legitimacy of the PPC.

Did you ask them to prove that they had the right to pursue you in court and produce the contract to prove it? Did you challenge the wording on their PCN and NtK? Did you check that their contract was with the actual landowner and not some company leasing the land?

These are the sort of winning arguments, not claiming that you didn't think that their t&c aren't fair.

mattfromwales1984

Guys_Dad wrote: »

No, not really. If the main point of your defence was "Instead, my point is far more the legitimacy of issuing a Charge at all at 10pm on a non-24 hour, free site which serves premises which were all closed at the time of the overstay (subject to confirmation of which businesses the car park actually serves, although I can think of none in the area which would have been open then anyway)." then you were on a doomed course. The court is not there to determine whether or not your viewpoint is reasonable or not - it is there to judge on the facts and legitimacy of the PPC.

Did you ask them to prove that they had the right to pursue you in court and produce the contract to prove it? Yes - they produced a legitimate contract.

Did you challenge the wording on their PCN and NtK? There was nothing to challenge - it contained all of the required information.

Did you check that their contract was with the actual landowner and not some company leasing the land? Yes I did, and yes it was.

These are the sort of winning arguments, not claiming that you didn't think that their t&c aren't fair.

Thanks for the reply, but my warning to people is just that you can no longer rely on these things being unenforceable because the Court of Appeal has legitimised it. Have you read the judgements from the Beavis case in full? I went through it, with a lawyer friend of mine, so feel I have a pretty good understanding of the nuances now.

The main argument in my case was that the amount being charged was not a genuine pre-estimate of loss due to the fact the site was closed. The CoA has now dismissed this as an argument, hence the failure of my case.

The_Deep

Did you mention the signs? They seem very high, with masses of small print, and do not appear to be lit.

Did you also point out the differences between this and Beavis? It is most unlikely PE paid £52,000 pa to farm this car park as Caversham is hardly shoppers paradise, unlikely to be abused as station a good 20 minutes walk to main line station.

Finally, did you check with RbC that all permissions were in place?

I feel that you should have won this. There is little commercial justfiication for this level of penalty in this location, and RBC charges £30/£60 for a similar transgression.

salmosalaris

Indeed but what is the legitimate interest in enforcing a charge for overstaying a 2hr max in an empty car park when the shops were shut ?
Most of the justification in Beavis that prevented the charge being a penalty is absent here . The points were

“a. The need to provide parking spaces for their commercial tenants’ prospective customers; - irrelevant

b. The desirability of that parking being free so as to attract customers;- irrelevant

c. The need to ensure a reasonable turnover of that parking so as to increase the potential number of such customers; - irrelevant

d. The related need to prevent ‘misuse’ of the parking for purposes unconnected with the tenants’ business, for example by commuters going to work or shoppers going to off-park premises; and
Irrelevant
e. The desirability of running that parking scheme at no cost, or ideally some profit, to themselves.”- ahh !

The only legitimate interest in this scenario is keeping motorists off when the shops are shut . In that case why allow 2hrs ? Why not fit a gate ?

Did you broach the fact that you couldn't have entered into a contract as parking was only offered to customers ?

Marktheshark

Did the signs having planning permission ?
They should not act illegally and then sue someone whilst acting illegally.

salmosalaris

The_Deep wrote: »

Did you also point out the differences between this and Beavis? It is most unlikely PE paid £52,000 pa to farm this car park as Caversham is hardly shoppers paradise, unlikely to be abused as station a good 20 minutes walk to main line station.

This payment is irrelevant


[/QUOTE] I feel that you should have won this. There is little commercial justfiication for this level of penalty in this location .[/QUOTE]

There doesn't need to be

mattfromwales1984

The_Deep wrote: »

Did you mention the signs? They seem very high, with masses of small print, and do not appear to be lit.
The signs aren't really an issue - there are several dotted around the site at various heights, none of which I'd say are particularly high. They are lit as they are all attached to street lamps. There's a lot of text on those signs, but the key points are contained in the main, larger text of the signs. There was little point in pursuing this."

Did you also point out the differences between this and Beavis? It is most unlikely PE paid £52,000 pa a to farm this car park as Caversham is hardly shoppers paradise, unlikely to be abused as station a good 20 minutes walk to main line station. I laboured the point about the differences between this and Beavis quite heavily. The judge wasn't interested. I hadn't even sat down before he said "I'm not going to be able to help you. If you knew you were going to be longer than 3 hours, you should have paid for more than three hours." I had to point out to him that this is a free car park, with no pay and display facility, and that I hadn't realised I'd overstayed - suggesting he wasn't as up to speed with the details of my case as I'd have hoped!

Finally, did you check with PBC that all permissions were in place? Yes, checked this, and it was all above board, unfortunately.

I feel that you should have won this. There is little commercial justfiication for this level of penalty in this location, and RBC charges £30/£60 for a similar transgression.

Agreed. I talked about this at the hearing, but the judge dismissed it, stating that it wouldn't be worth companies enforcing a lower level of penalty, and that I did have the option of paying the lower £60. The CoA appeal backs this stance up.

I don't want to put anyone off challenging them if they think they have legitimate grounds (technically incorrect PCNs, unclear signage, etc). All I'm saying is that the argument that the fine is unreasonable/unjustifiable/not a pre-estimate of loss is now, in my opinion, dead in the water.

Marktheshark

The old defence is dead in the water, the pundits refuse to bury it.
Going in lower, pulling planning permissions, researching contracts and landowners and nuisance counter claims against landowner forcing the greedy landlords that hire them to pay for a solicitor to defend the counter claim.
The landlords will soon get sick of turning up to dozens of court cases every week.

If the fear of losing a few quid is paramount, just pay up whilst its £60.
If you are going toe to toe in the ring, be prepared to make it cost them far more than they can re-claim.

salmosalaris

@Matt
Most DJ's will follow Beavis blindly so I reluctantly agree with you