Parking Eye LBCCC

pattyb1986

I would be grateful if someone could help me with this LBCCC I received from Parking Eye. I want to know whether it is compliant with para 2 of Annex A of the Practice Directon. I have read Daisy's thread in depth but the letter I received from PE has some changes so I need some advice. Thank you

Dear Sir/Madam,

LETTER BEFORE COUNTY COURT CLAIM

We write regarding the above referenced Parking Charge Notice, which concerned a breach of the terms and conditions on 26 February 2016 at University Hospital Llandough - CP 8 Children's Unit Staff. The charge is therefore levied for breach of contract.

It has recently been brought to your attention that your appeal to POPLA (Parking on Private Land Appeals) has been unsuccessful. You have been advised that the amount payable is £70 and you were provided with a period of 28 days from the decision date to make the payment. ParkingEye is still not in receipt of this payment.

This payment is now required withing 14 days to prevent further action. If payment of £70 is not made, further action will be taken and court proceedings will be issued, which will incur further costs. These costs will include, but are not limited to £50 solicitor's costs and £25 court claim issue fee.

PE would further draw your attention to the recent Supreme Court decision detailed at paragraph 5 overleaf. The appeal concerned the value of PE's parking charges and the Judgement, granted in PE's favour, delivers a binding precedent in respect of the sum sought, as the court found that the parking charge was set at a reasonable amount. Should you wish to contact PE, you must do so within 14 days of the date of this Letter Before Claim.

Yours faithfully,

PE Legal Department

Page 2

1. Please be aware that the LBCCC is fully compliant with the Practice Direction on Pre-Action Conduct. We must draw to your attention to this Practice Direction [they provide a URL] and to paragraphs 13 to 16 concerning the court's powers to impose sanctions for failure to comply with the Practice Direction.

In particular, please be aware of CPR 17.1. If legal action is taken, either payment of the full claim amount or a defence to the claim should be made. Once the defence and reply are submitted, the claim will be allocated to a County Court, and a witness statement and documents should be submitted. We would remind the defendant that if they wish to amend their defence, they should submit an N244 Form, and pay the relevant fee. Once permission to amend the defence has been granted, this new defence should be submitted both to the claimant and the court. The claimant will then reply to this amended defence. We would request that any amendments to the defence are made in good time, so as to allow the claimant to respond fully prior to the filing and serving of witness statements and documents. Further defence points should not be raised in the witness statement.

2. It should also be noted that PE believes it has used all relevant Alternative Dispute Resolution available at this stage. This case has already been assessed on its merits by an independent assessor at the Parking on Private Land Appeals Service and they found in ParkingEye's favour. This decision will be replied upon in court along with any relevant documentation in Point 4.

Should this letter be ignored, and legal action taken, further costs will be incurred. However, PE will remain open to Alternative Dispute Resolution, and suggests that this takes place directly between the two parties on a without prejudice basis. Please put this in writing to the address listed on the front of this letter and ensure such correspondence is clearly marked 'without prejudice'.

3. The loss claimed in this LBCCC is in line with guidelines set out by the British Parking Association (BPA). PE have also ensured that their parking charge amount is not punitive and set on the basis of a strong commercial justification for charges of this nature. The charge is proportionate to our loss, and has been calculated using our company records and accounts, which are publicly available. The parking charge amounts are calculated in conjunction with the landholder, and have been approved and prescribed by the BPA.

4. As court proceedings have not yet begun, and as no defence has not yet been filed, it is impossible for PE to state exactly the documents that will be relied upon. The essential documents will be; all Parking Charge notices that have been sent. any defence submitted by you, any reply to defence submitted by us, any document proving PE's authorisation to operate on site and any signage plan or images of signage from the site in question. These could include, but are not limited to; the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 and the BPA Code of Practice.

5. The Supreme Court handed down judgement on 4th November 2015 in the matter of PE and Mr Barry Beavis. The majority decision reached by the SC panel dismissed Mr Beavis' appeal on both grounds. The SC found that the parking charge issed by PE was neither 'unfair' nor 'penal'. The court also agreed with the analysis previously proffered by both HHJ Moloney and the Court of Appeal, finding that the sum sought of £85 was neither 'extravagant, nor unconscionable'. This judgement delivers much needed clarity to motorists, landowvers and the Parking Industry and is binding upon all lower courts and any Independent Appeals Service. A full copy of the Judgement can be found here...

Redx

I cannot answer the question (this is not a legal assistance forum unlike legal beagles) but the P.D. details have changed since daisy wrote her thread, they changed last year I believe ? so maybe 18 months ago ?

PE will be using current P.D. rules and as they issue thousands of claims per annum I would suspect they are following the latest P.D.

The_Deep

PE would further draw your attention to the recent Supreme Court decision ...

What has a hospital car park to do with Beavis? Surely PE have shot themselves in the foot here.

Coupon-mad

pattyb1986 wrote: »

I would be grateful if someone could help me with this LBCCC I received from Parking Eye. I want to know whether it is compliant with para 2 of Annex A of the Practice Directon. I have read Daisy's thread in depth but the letter I received from PE has some changes so I need some advice. Thank you

Dear Sir/Madam,

LETTER BEFORE COUNTY COURT CLAIM

We write regarding the above referenced Parking Charge Notice, which concerned a breach of the terms and conditions on 26 February 2016 at University Hospital Llandough - CP 8 Children's Unit Staff. The charge is therefore levied for breach of contract.

It has recently been brought to your attention that your appeal to POPLA (Parking on Private Land Appeals) has been unsuccessful. You have been advised that the amount payable is £70 and you were provided with a period of 28 days from the decision date to make the payment. ParkingEye is still not in receipt of this payment.

This payment is now required withing 14 days to prevent further action. If payment of £70 is not made, further action will be taken and court proceedings will be issued, which will incur further costs. These costs will include, but are not limited to £50 solicitor's costs and £25 court claim issue fee.

PE would further draw your attention to the recent Supreme Court decision detailed at paragraph 5 overleaf. The appeal concerned the value of PE's parking charges and the Judgement, granted in PE's favour, delivers a binding precedent in respect of the sum sought, as the court found that the parking charge was set at a reasonable amount. Should you wish to contact PE, you must do so within 14 days of the date of this Letter Before Claim.

Yours faithfully,

PE Legal Department

Page 2

1. Please be aware that the LBCCC is fully compliant with the Practice Direction on Pre-Action Conduct. We must draw to your attention to this Practice Direction [they provide a URL] and to paragraphs 13 to 16 concerning the court's powers to impose sanctions for failure to comply with the Practice Direction.

In particular, please be aware of CPR 17.1. If legal action is taken, either payment of the full claim amount or a defence to the claim should be made. Once the defence and reply are submitted, the claim will be allocated to a County Court, and a witness statement and documents should be submitted. We would remind the defendant that if they wish to amend their defence, they should submit an N244 Form, and pay the relevant fee. Once permission to amend the defence has been granted, this new defence should be submitted both to the claimant and the court. The claimant will then reply to this amended defence. We would request that any amendments to the defence are made in good time, so as to allow the claimant to respond fully prior to the filing and serving of witness statements and documents. Further defence points should not be raised in the witness statement.

2. It should also be noted that PE believes it has used all relevant Alternative Dispute Resolution available at this stage. This case has already been assessed on its merits by an independent assessor at the Parking on Private Land Appeals Service and they found in ParkingEye's favour. This decision will be replied upon in court along with any relevant documentation in Point 4.

Should this letter be ignored, and legal action taken, further costs will be incurred. However, PE will remain open to Alternative Dispute Resolution, and suggests that this takes place directly between the two parties on a without prejudice basis. Please put this in writing to the address listed on the front of this letter and ensure such correspondence is clearly marked 'without prejudice'.

3. The loss claimed in this LBCCC is in line with guidelines set out by the British Parking Association (BPA). PE have also ensured that their parking charge amount is not punitive and set on the basis of a strong commercial justification for charges of this nature. The charge is proportionate to our loss, and has been calculated using our company records and accounts, which are publicly available. The parking charge amounts are calculated in conjunction with the landholder, and have been approved and prescribed by the BPA.

4. As court proceedings have not yet begun, and as no defence has not yet been filed, it is impossible for PE to state exactly the documents that will be relied upon. The essential documents will be; all Parking Charge notices that have been sent. any defence submitted by you, any reply to defence submitted by us, any document proving PE's authorisation to operate on site and any signage plan or images of signage from the site in question. These could include, but are not limited to; the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 and the BPA Code of Practice.

5. The Supreme Court handed down judgement on 4th November 2015 in the matter of PE and Mr Barry Beavis. The majority decision reached by the SC panel dismissed Mr Beavis' appeal on both grounds. The SC found that the parking charge issed by PE was neither 'unfair' nor 'penal'. The court also agreed with the analysis previously proffered by both HHJ Moloney and the Court of Appeal, finding that the sum sought of £85 was neither 'extravagant, nor unconscionable'. This judgement delivers much needed clarity to motorists, landowvers and the Parking Industry and is binding upon all lower courts and any Independent Appeals Service. A full copy of the Judgement can be found here...

Your LBCCC would be different from the old example in the (old) fightback LBCCC thread written 2 or 3 years ago by a poster who doesn't contribute here any more on the forum. Things have changed and the Practice Direction was updated since then (Google it).

If this was at a Hospital, was it not possible to get it cancelled with your complaint to PALS or the NHS Trust themselves, pointing out the clear breach of this parking regime which 'incentivises' PCNs (because PE get no money otherwise = clear incentivisation) with the Government policy:

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/nhs-patient-visitor-and-staff-car-parking-principles/nhs-patient-visitor-and-staff-car-parking-principles

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/hospitals-still-allowing-private-parking-firms-to-prey-on-visitors-with-penalty-fines-10047797.html

Try again with a complaint headed up 'FORMAL COMPLAINT' and explaining the circs to the NHS trust again (even if you have already). This is a stage very close to you being sued and PE are not going to cancel it now unless the Trust tell them to.

Albeit it is not a big deal and can't affect your credit rating (as long as you keep to court deadlines) and is 'only' a dispute over £70 and they can't add £50 'legal costs' because PE have an in-house paid solicitor. This has been pointed out before:

http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2013/06/how-much-do-parkingeye-pay-rachel-ledson.html

http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2015/08/parkingeye-bogus-50-solicitor-costs.html

I'm wondering why they are spouting the Beavis case on the one hand (which turned on completely different facts and signs and commercial interests than found at a Hospital car park) and yet saying they are seeking 'loss'??

3. The loss claimed in this LBCCC is in line with guidelines set out by the British Parking Association (BPA). PE have also ensured that their parking charge amount is not punitive and set on the basis of a strong commercial justification for charges of this nature. The charge is proportionate to our loss, and has been calculated using our company records and accounts, which are publicly available. The parking charge amounts are calculated in conjunction with the landholder, and have been approved and prescribed by the BPA.

That's not what they argued in the Beavis case.

What were the circumstances - staff member, or Hospital visitor (patient)? Overstay alleged in the Drop off bays or non-payment of a P&D fee, or no permit in a staff area, or what?

HTH

pattyb1986

Thank you for your help.

I was on a course at the hospital. The course organiser specifically said where we couldn't park and told us to email PE informing them we would be parking at the hospital. I contacted PE by email and on the day of the course parked in an area which wasn't on the list of prohibited areas. PE replied to my email but only after it had started and after I had parked and they authorised me using the car park but informed me not to use the area I had parked in, but it was obviously too late. Lo and behold I get a ticket through the post...

I shall complain to the trust.