We'd like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum... Read More »
IMPORTANT: Please make sure your posts do not contain any personally identifiable information (both your own and that of others). When uploading images, please take care that you have redacted all personal information including number plates, reference numbers and QR codes (which may reveal vehicle information when scanned).
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
ParkingEye - Letter Before County Court Claim - Pride Park Derby
SMASH3R
Posts: 18 Forumite
Wife has received a standard PCN from ParkingEye for "remaining in the car part for longer than the stay authorised or without authorisation, in accordance with the terms and conditions of the signage".
Event occured on 19/07/2016.
Received a PCN a couple of weeks later, dated 27/07/2016.
Letter has the POFA 2012 wording.
Background
She went to a restaurant with a friend. Total parking time was approximately 3 hours 20 minutes, but the sign (which no one saw) states 2 hours. When she was in the restaurant, which was very quite because it was a Tuesday afternoon, she asked the staff present if they were okay to stay after the meal was finished, have a few drinks and browse the internet for an hour or so (on laptop and phone). The staff said this was completely fine, and that there was no rush because the restaurant was quiet.
After receiving the PCN, wife wrote an actual (very brief) letter was sent to ParkingEye, stating that the registered keeper had legitimate business with the restaurant, and the credit card receipt was also provided to ParkingEye (scan of receipt kept for her records).
Around 26/08/2016 an appeal rejection letter was received (dated 15/08/2016), stating that the appeal was rejected because the evidence did "not meet the discretionary criteria set by the landowner in this case".
Appeal rejection letter states the following:
Dear Sir / Madam,
Thank you for your correspondence in relation to the Parking Charge incurred on 19 July 2016, at Pride Park Retail Park, Derby car park.
You have provided evidence of purchase. However, please be advised that this did not meet the discretionary criteria set by the landowner in this case. We are therefore writing to advise you that your recent appeal has been unsuccessful and that you have now reached the end of our internal appeals procedure. This is because you have not provided sufficient evidence to show that you did not break the terms and conditions on the signage.
However, as a gesture of goodwill, we have extended the discount period for a further 14 days from the date of this correspondence.
Please be advised:
· There is an independent appeals service (POPLA) which is available to motorists who have had an appeal rejected by a British Parking Association Approved Operator. Contact information and further information can be found enclosed. See also popla.co.uk
· If you appeal to POPLA and your appeal is unsuccessful you will not be able to pay the discounted amount in settlement of the Parking Charge, you will be liable to pay the full amount.
· By law we are also required to inform you that Ombudsman Services (ombudsrnan-servicesxjg) provides an alternative dispute resolution service that would be competent to deal with your appeal. However, we have not chosen to participate in their alternative dispute resolution service. As such should you wish to appeal then you must do so to POPLA, as explained above.
On the remaining pages, the letter then goes on to describe the process for the POPLA appeal.
My other half didn't follow this up, and instead of going down the appeals process with POPLA (a POPLA code was provided), she elected to phone the restaurant and spoke to the Assistant Manager, who said she would call ParkingEye and get the charge cancelled.
On 26/09/2016 a Letter Before County Court Claim was received (dated 22/09/2016), stating the following:
=======================================================
We write regarding the above referenced Parking Charge Notice, which concerned a breach of the terms and conditions on the 19 July 2016 at Pride Park Retail Park, Derby. Please note that this charge was therefore levied for breach of contract. ParkingEye recently rejected your appeal and you were given the opportunity to further appeal this Parking Charge through POPLA - the independent appeals service for parking on private land - within 28 days.
This 28 day period has now passed and you have not appealed to POPLA or paid the Parking Charge in full. As such, we must inform you that unless payment of £100.00 is made within the next 14 days, further action will be taken and this is likely to lead to court proceedings, which will incur further costs. These costs will include, but are not limited to £50.00 solicitor’s costs and £25.00 court claim issue fee.
ParkingEye would further draw your attention to the recent Supreme Court decision detailed at paragraph 5 overleaf. The appeal concerned the value of ParkingEye’s Parking Charges and the Judgment, granted in ParkingEye’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 ParkingEye (details above and below), you must do so within 14 days of the date of this Letter Before Claim.
Further Information
1. Please be aware that this Letter Before County Court Claim is fully compliant with the Practice Direction on Pre-Action Conduct. We must draw to your attention to this Practice Direction (justicegov.uk/courts/procedure-rules/civil/rules/pdpre-actionconduct) 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 we are unable to use the Parking On Private Land Appeals (POPLA) Service as Alternative Dispute Resolution at this stage. This is because POPLA will only accept an appeal from the motorist within 28 days of their appeal (‘representations’) being rejected by the operator. You have not made representations to POPLA in the timescale required. You have been made aware of these timescales in our correspondence:
“If you want to appeal, you must do so within 28 days of the date of the Operators notice of rejection.
Indeed POPLA further states on their website that:
'
We must receive your appeal within 28 days from the date of the operator’s notice of rejection. The date the operator sent the rejection to you will be on the appeal form.'
Should this letter be ignored, and legal action taken, further costs will be incurred. However, ParkingEye will remain open to Alternate 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 Letter Before County Court Claim is in line with guidelines set out by the British Parking Association (BPA). ParkingEye 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 yet been filed, it is impossible for ParkingEye 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 ParkingEye’s authorisation to operate on site and any signage plan or images of signage from the site in question. These could also include, but are not limited to; the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 and the BPA Code of Practice.
5. The Supreme Court handed down Judgment on 4th November 2015 in the matter of ParkingEye and Mr Barry Beavis. The majority decision reached by the Supreme Court panel dismisses Mr Beavis’ appeal on both grounds. The Supreme Court found that the Parking Charge issued by ParkingEye 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 Judgment delivers much needed clarity to motorists, landowners and the Parking Industry and is binding upon all lower courts and any Independent Appeals Service. A full copy of the Judgment can be found here: supremecourt/cases/docs/uksc-2013-0280-judgment.pdf
=======================================================
My wife then contacted the restaurant again on 27/09/2016, spoke to the Deputy Manager (we don't have the name), who confirmed that the charge would be cancelled.
At this point, I have been 'allowed' to step in. My wife thinks that this will be thrown out of court and she can blag it infront of the Judge, or that it is simply an empty threat from ParkingEye. Having successfully achieved a cancelletion of a PCN myself this week from ParkingEye, I would prefer not to risk it and take a much more robust approach, as follows in the next post.
Event occured on 19/07/2016.
Received a PCN a couple of weeks later, dated 27/07/2016.
Letter has the POFA 2012 wording.
Background
She went to a restaurant with a friend. Total parking time was approximately 3 hours 20 minutes, but the sign (which no one saw) states 2 hours. When she was in the restaurant, which was very quite because it was a Tuesday afternoon, she asked the staff present if they were okay to stay after the meal was finished, have a few drinks and browse the internet for an hour or so (on laptop and phone). The staff said this was completely fine, and that there was no rush because the restaurant was quiet.
After receiving the PCN, wife wrote an actual (very brief) letter was sent to ParkingEye, stating that the registered keeper had legitimate business with the restaurant, and the credit card receipt was also provided to ParkingEye (scan of receipt kept for her records).
Around 26/08/2016 an appeal rejection letter was received (dated 15/08/2016), stating that the appeal was rejected because the evidence did "not meet the discretionary criteria set by the landowner in this case".
Appeal rejection letter states the following:
Dear Sir / Madam,
Thank you for your correspondence in relation to the Parking Charge incurred on 19 July 2016, at Pride Park Retail Park, Derby car park.
You have provided evidence of purchase. However, please be advised that this did not meet the discretionary criteria set by the landowner in this case. We are therefore writing to advise you that your recent appeal has been unsuccessful and that you have now reached the end of our internal appeals procedure. This is because you have not provided sufficient evidence to show that you did not break the terms and conditions on the signage.
However, as a gesture of goodwill, we have extended the discount period for a further 14 days from the date of this correspondence.
Please be advised:
· There is an independent appeals service (POPLA) which is available to motorists who have had an appeal rejected by a British Parking Association Approved Operator. Contact information and further information can be found enclosed. See also popla.co.uk
· If you appeal to POPLA and your appeal is unsuccessful you will not be able to pay the discounted amount in settlement of the Parking Charge, you will be liable to pay the full amount.
· By law we are also required to inform you that Ombudsman Services (ombudsrnan-servicesxjg) provides an alternative dispute resolution service that would be competent to deal with your appeal. However, we have not chosen to participate in their alternative dispute resolution service. As such should you wish to appeal then you must do so to POPLA, as explained above.
On the remaining pages, the letter then goes on to describe the process for the POPLA appeal.
My other half didn't follow this up, and instead of going down the appeals process with POPLA (a POPLA code was provided), she elected to phone the restaurant and spoke to the Assistant Manager, who said she would call ParkingEye and get the charge cancelled.
On 26/09/2016 a Letter Before County Court Claim was received (dated 22/09/2016), stating the following:
=======================================================
We write regarding the above referenced Parking Charge Notice, which concerned a breach of the terms and conditions on the 19 July 2016 at Pride Park Retail Park, Derby. Please note that this charge was therefore levied for breach of contract. ParkingEye recently rejected your appeal and you were given the opportunity to further appeal this Parking Charge through POPLA - the independent appeals service for parking on private land - within 28 days.
This 28 day period has now passed and you have not appealed to POPLA or paid the Parking Charge in full. As such, we must inform you that unless payment of £100.00 is made within the next 14 days, further action will be taken and this is likely to lead to court proceedings, which will incur further costs. These costs will include, but are not limited to £50.00 solicitor’s costs and £25.00 court claim issue fee.
ParkingEye would further draw your attention to the recent Supreme Court decision detailed at paragraph 5 overleaf. The appeal concerned the value of ParkingEye’s Parking Charges and the Judgment, granted in ParkingEye’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 ParkingEye (details above and below), you must do so within 14 days of the date of this Letter Before Claim.
Further Information
1. Please be aware that this Letter Before County Court Claim is fully compliant with the Practice Direction on Pre-Action Conduct. We must draw to your attention to this Practice Direction (justicegov.uk/courts/procedure-rules/civil/rules/pdpre-actionconduct) 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 we are unable to use the Parking On Private Land Appeals (POPLA) Service as Alternative Dispute Resolution at this stage. This is because POPLA will only accept an appeal from the motorist within 28 days of their appeal (‘representations’) being rejected by the operator. You have not made representations to POPLA in the timescale required. You have been made aware of these timescales in our correspondence:
“If you want to appeal, you must do so within 28 days of the date of the Operators notice of rejection.
Indeed POPLA further states on their website that:
'
We must receive your appeal within 28 days from the date of the operator’s notice of rejection. The date the operator sent the rejection to you will be on the appeal form.'
Should this letter be ignored, and legal action taken, further costs will be incurred. However, ParkingEye will remain open to Alternate 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 Letter Before County Court Claim is in line with guidelines set out by the British Parking Association (BPA). ParkingEye 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 yet been filed, it is impossible for ParkingEye 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 ParkingEye’s authorisation to operate on site and any signage plan or images of signage from the site in question. These could also include, but are not limited to; the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 and the BPA Code of Practice.
5. The Supreme Court handed down Judgment on 4th November 2015 in the matter of ParkingEye and Mr Barry Beavis. The majority decision reached by the Supreme Court panel dismisses Mr Beavis’ appeal on both grounds. The Supreme Court found that the Parking Charge issued by ParkingEye 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 Judgment delivers much needed clarity to motorists, landowners and the Parking Industry and is binding upon all lower courts and any Independent Appeals Service. A full copy of the Judgment can be found here: supremecourt/cases/docs/uksc-2013-0280-judgment.pdf
=======================================================
My wife then contacted the restaurant again on 27/09/2016, spoke to the Deputy Manager (we don't have the name), who confirmed that the charge would be cancelled.
At this point, I have been 'allowed' to step in. My wife thinks that this will be thrown out of court and she can blag it infront of the Judge, or that it is simply an empty threat from ParkingEye. Having successfully achieved a cancelletion of a PCN myself this week from ParkingEye, I would prefer not to risk it and take a much more robust approach, as follows in the next post.
0
Comments
-
In order to try and hold this back to allow some sensible communication to occur, I have lodged the following appeal on the ParkingEye website as registered keeper, and sent to [EMAIL="enforcement@parkingeye.co.uk"]enforcement@parkingeye.co.uk[/EMAIL] and [EMAIL="parking@parkingeye.co.uk"]parking@parkingeye.co.uk[/EMAIL].
Dear ParkingEye Enforcement Team,
Re: ParkingEye reference xxxxx/xxxxx
ParkingEye Ltd v Registered Keeper
Proposed Legal Proceedings
I originally received a letter from ParkingEye requestinga payment of £60 within 14 days. This was for an alleged violation ofparking terms in the Restaurant car park in Pride Park on 19/07/2016.
Firstly
The alleged debt is disputed and any courtproceedings will be vigorously defended.
Concerning thismatter, I wrote a letter to ParkingEye shortly after the issue of the initialParking Charge Notice, also providing the receipt from restaurant showing that I had legitimate business with the restaurant. Inresponse to this letter, ParkingEye wrote back to me, advising that I didn’tmeet the ‘discretionary criteria’ set by the landowner, and therefore my‘appeal’ had been rejected.
Concerning thismatter, I then immediately contacted Restaurant by telephone on 27/08/2016 at 10am (I spoke to the Assistant Manager - name provided) and after confirming the details ofmy attendance at the restaurant for lunch with friends, Asst Manager stated that theywould instruct ParkingEye to cancel the charge.
To my surprise, Isubsequently received a Letter Before County Court Claim dated 22/09/2016 (received 26/09/2016), and therefore on 27/09/2016 at 6pm I spoke by telephone to the Deputy Manager at Frankie& Benny’s, and after again confirming the details of my attendance at therestaurant for lunch with friends, they stated that they would also instructParkingEye to cancel the charge.
Given that I have written to ParkingEye and made these calls to resolve thesituation, I am appalled and horrified by the receipt of the Letter BeforeCounty Court Claim (dated 22/09/2016). I do not believe thatyou have allowed sufficient time to resolve this, and prior to issuing a LetterBefore County Court Claim, you could have contacted Restaurant tocheck on the situation, or contacted me again, rather than immediately and atthe earliest opportunity, resorting to unnecessarily heavy-handed court action.I have not been ignoring ParkingEye, and have been trying to easily resolvethis issue to the benefit of both ParkingEye and myself without the need forcostly legal proceedings.
I had legitimate business with Restaurant (i.e. lunch), and none ofthe people in attendance (including myself) saw any parking notice signs nordid any of us have the (very unclear and unexpected) parking terms drawn to ourattention in the restaurant in any way at any time.
Secondly
I want you to cancel the Parking Charge Notice due to my legitimate businesswith Restaurant, and furthermore I insist that you put anyenforcement action (including County Court Claim) immediately on hold.
I would like you toconfirm to me by email by Friday 07/10/2016 that:
(1) the Parking Charge is cancelled, and
(2) the case is on hold for at least a further 28 days to allow Restaurant to step in and assist as promised.
I can confirm from my conversations with themanagement staff that Restaurant are fully supportive of thecancellation of this Parking Charge, and therefore I will be working quicklywith the staff at Restaurant to ensure this is communicated toParkingEye, in writing, at the earliest opportunity. I will also ensure thatcopies of this communication are provided to me for my records.
Having read the Practice Direction on Pre-Action Conduct as referred to in yourLetter Before County Court Claim, it is my belief that the overriding objectiveof pre-action prior to Court is so that disputes can be settled out of Court,and for disclosure and sharing of the facts so that all parties understand the positionof each other. In my opinion, the Pre-Action Conduct requires that Court actionshould always be a last resort, only exercised if we have both exhaustedreasonable efforts to resolve the issue between ourselves. We certainly do notneed to waste the Court’s time with this issue at this point when I am willingand actually still in communication with you on this issue with a view tofinding resolution.
In this case, I cannot understand why ParkingEye wishes to proceed directly toCourt to attempt to resolve this issue, particularly when RestaurantDeputy Manager has confirmed that they are authorising cancellation of thecharge.
Thirdly
I acknowledge your Letter Before County Court Claim. Again, as a result ofreading of the Practice Direction to which you have referred in your letterdated 22/09/2016, despite the wholly inaccurate statementthat the letter is 'fully compliant with the Practice Direction', it is in factwoefully defective and appears to be a deliberate attempt to mislead me intounnecessarily paying an alleged and untrue debt.
Therefore, IN THE EVENT THAT ParkingEye is unwilling to put this issue on holduntil it can be resolved in a sensible manner by all three interested parties(ParkingEye, Restaurant and myself), can you please provide a LetterBefore Claim which fully complies with the requirements of the PracticeDirection on Pre-Action Conduct. Please ensure that someone does actually readand respond to this letter, and if ParkingEye are to still continue with Courtaction, to provide the specific information relating to the county court claimthat your client intends to make against, myself as the defendant to theproposed legal proceedings.
0 -
I have subsequently phoned the Restaurant, and the Assistant Manager has again confirmed that they will be cancelling the parking charge. I emailed in all appropriate details to the Restaurant, and requested that they copy me in with correspondence as follows:
Dear Assistant Manager,
This afternoon, you spoke to my partner, regarding the cancellation of a ParkingEye fine. He promised to provide you with some brief details to allow you to cancel the charge with ParkingEye in writing (email), using the cancellation form that ParkingEye provide to their customers (i.e. to you, the restaurant).
Date of event: xxxxxx
ParkingEye reference number: xxxxxx
Car registration number: xxxxxxxx
Parking was between 1pm and 4pm. Total parking time was approximately 3 hours. When we were in therestaurant, which was I am presuming quite as it was a Tuesday afternoon, weasked the staff present if we were okay to stay after the meal was finished,have a few drinks and browse the internet (on our laptop and phone). The staff said this was completely fine, andthat there was no rush.
ParkingEye have sent both attendees a parking charge notice. One has been cancelled upon providing a receipt (£15 for half of the meal cost); the other PCN (my parking charge notice) despite also providing my receipt for £15, has failed on appeal for “not meeting discretionary criteria”. I don’t know what this means. The total spend in the restaurant was £30 (on card), plus cash tip.
I called you on 27/08/2016 at 10am, and you agreed to call ParkingEye and cancel the charge. I have absolutely no reason to believe you have not done this.
Upon receipt of the failure of the appeal letter, I called Restaurant and spoke to the duty manager (didn’t get his name) on 27/09/2016 at 6pm. Again, I have no reason to believe a call was not made to ParkingEye.
However, despite what I expect are all parties best efforts,ParkingEye have now started the ball rolling with Court proceedings, and have issued a Letter Before County Court Claim.
Therefore, could I please request that you help with this issue, and email ParkingEye (and copy me in), confirming that Restaurant is happy to waive the charge for a genuine customer with legitimate business with you restaurant. As stated above, I believe this is typically done on a standard form provided by ParkingEye, and by emailing it to [EMAIL="parking@parkingeye.co.uk"]parking@parkingeye.co.uk[/EMAIL]
Following this email, the Deputy Manager called my wife, apologising that this issue has got this far, and confirmed that he has personally contacted ParkingEye, and that the PCN should be cancelled and confirmation should be in the post from PE within 7 days.
Based on previous advice, I wanted to get this in writing, so I called the Restaurant back and spoke to the Deputy Manager. I reitterated my request for the cancellation to be put in writing (emailed) to [EMAIL="parking@parkingeye.co.uk"]parking@parkingeye.co.uk[/EMAIL], using the parking charge cancellation form that ParkingEye supplied to restaurants in Pride Park. I explained that I wanted this as evidence should ParkingEye follow through with their threat of court action. He confirmed that he had made the telephone call to cancel the charge, but that the Restaurant (chain) would not put anything in writing to ParkingEye (via email or otherwise), and they would therefore certainly not copy me in, because the Restaurant (chain) does not provide any input or written evidence because they "do not assist in Court proceedings".
This doesn't seem like fair play. They acknowledge the legitimate custom, and that the claim should be cancelled, but are apparently refusing to help provide evidence should their parking contractor want to start legal proceedings against people. Quite possibly in the instance when even the Restaurant verbalise that this shouldn't happen.
So,
What is the advice on this for how to proceed now?
Many thanks! :beer:0 -
The UK government says that ADR should be available for up to one year after the parking company has stated that they have rejected the initial appeal.
The Alternative Dispute Resolution for Consumer Disputes (Competent Authorities and Information) Regulations 2015
Schedule 3
Grounds to refuse to deal with a dispute
13.!!The body may only refuse to deal with a domestic dispute or a cross-border dispute which it is competent to deal with on one of the following grounds—
(a)
prior to submitting the complaint to the body, the consumer has not attempted to contact the trader concerned in order to discuss the consumer’s complaint and sought, as a first step, to resolve the matter directly with the trader;
(b)
the dispute is frivolous or vexatious;
(c)
the dispute is being, or has been previously, considered by another ADR entity or by a court;
(d)
the value of the claim falls below or above the monetary thresholds set by the body;
(e)
the consumer has not submitted the complaint to the body within the time period specified by the body, provided that such time period is not less than 12 months from the date upon which the trader has given notice to the consumer that the trader is unable to resolve the complaint with the consumer;
(f)
dealing with such a type of dispute would seriously impair the effective operation of the body.
You have complied with paragraphs (a) and (e), and the other paragraphs don't apply, so there is no reason why this cannot be dealt with by PoPLA. Tell parking lie to give you a PoPLA code, and complain to the BPA and DVLA that they have refused to follow the above Government Regulations.
Write to the restaurant manager and ask him for dates when he will not be able to attend court as a witness, because you will be calling him/her if parking lie do not cancel this. Alternatively he/she can put the request to parking lie in writing with a copy to you.
Unfortunately you should also start preparing for court, but get those letters of complaint out pronto.I married my cousin. I had to...I don't have a sister.
All my screwdrivers are cordless."You're Safety Is My Primary Concern Dear" - Laks0 -
Sorry Fruitcake, I'm not following here. What letters of complaint are you referring to?
Regarding the process heading to Court, I will follow along the lines of recommendations by zzzLazyDaisy here https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/4705657.
When I get the standard FAQ back about the LBCCC claim, I will submit a reply, outlining just where they fail pre-action before Court. This will include a request for an unredacted copy of contract, and a copy of the explanation for the hidden 'discretionary criteria' whatever that is. I might have a chance with the angle that PE doesn't have the authority of the landowner to operate on this premisis. See recent thread here:
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5451106
I will also be asking PE to explain the loss suffered, given that the restaurant and carpark were quiet, we were given verbal permission from the restaurant staff, and the fact that we actually paid for business. I will also be asking for a POPLA code, in the interests of not taking this to Court and wasting the Court's time.
I am not sure if a witness can be compelled to give evidence in a small claims issue.
Also, how do PE justify one customer having the charge waived on appeal, and the other being pursued, when both were in the carpark and restaurant for the same time and paid the same amounts?0 -
And is this a 'prepare for court' because you think we don't have a good chance of winning in Court, or simply because PE will likely take it 'all the way'.0
-
I suspect PE will now cancel this but it seems pathetic of the restaurant not to email parking@parkingeye.co.uk and copy you in!PRIVATE 'PCN'? DON'T PAY BUT DON'T IGNORE IT (except N.Ireland).
CLICK at the top or bottom of any page where it says:
Home»Motoring»Parking Tickets Fines & Parking - read the NEWBIES THREAD0 -
Letters of complaint to the DVLA and BPA that parking lie have not followed the UK Government's ADR regulations by not allowing you to appeal within the twelve months stipulated by the Directive.
Parking lie will probably go to court because that's what they do.
There is a link in Post 1 of the NEWBIES thread by Bargepole that gives a step by step guide to the court process.
You can also buy a cheap guide to court from the Parking-Prankster's blog site.
Since the Beavis case it is difficult to win on "no loss incurred".
Parking lie don't have to justify picking on one customer and not another. They are scammers.I married my cousin. I had to...I don't have a sister.All my screwdrivers are cordless."You're Safety Is My Primary Concern Dear" - Laks0 -
Write to the restaurant manager and ask him for dates when he will not be able to attend court as a witness, because you will be calling him/her if parking lie do not cancel this. Alternatively he/she can put the request to parking lie in writing with a copy to you.
I'm not sure if there is merit in this? Am I correct in guessing that no one can be compelled to give evidence at County (small claims) Court? Therefore would this just be a scare tactic from me to the restaurant?
What I am looking from here is to find the swiftest way to cancel this WITHOUT the need for all the effort to go to Court. I am fully prepared to do this, but as the Practice Direction says for Pre-Action that parties should really make the effort to resolve this prior to it even getting to Court. I therefore also need to use this time to extract everything I need from ParkingEye to produce a robust defence should this be needed in Court. Advice on this is very welcome. Thank you.0 -
You have "estoppel" - a second [later] contract with the restaurant that cancels the first one that parkingeye say they have. There was a promise of more parking in return for more custom at the restaurant so the newer contract was formed. The PE one cancelled.
It's a slam dunk win for you if you can get the restaurant to provide you with some sort of statement you were there longer on their invitation.
PE will argue only they can have contracts which is nonsense. Just be firm and polite with PE and let them see what you have from the restaurant.This is a system account and does not represent a real person. To contact the Forum Team email forumteam@moneysavingexpert.com0 -
PE, for whatever else we call them for, are good at cancelling charges once instructed by their principal. It does take them around 7-10 days to write to you confirming the cancellation.
You could check its current status by visiting the PE website and go as if to pay the PCN by entering the required details (obviously don't press the 'Pay Now' button). It will show if it has already been cancelled.
In terms of getting something 'in writing' from the restaurant, why don't you email the person who agreed the cancellation, thank them for intervening, put in a brief synopsis of your understanding of what you discussed and agreed and ask if they could quickly confirm by email return that they share that understanding.
I'm sure a 'Yes, that is as we agreed' quick reply will be more amenable to them than them having to compose a from-scratch separate letter outlining what was discussed and agreed. These places don't pay minimum wage for no reason!
Please note, we are not a legal advice forum. I personally don't get involved in critiquing court case Defences/Witness Statements, so unable to help on that front. Please don't ask. .
I provide only my personal opinion, it is not a legal opinion, it is simply a personal one. I am not a lawyer.
Give a man a fish, and you feed him for a day; show him how to catch fish, and you feed him for a lifetime.Private Parking Firms - Killing the High Street0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 351.3K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.2K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 453.7K Spending & Discounts
- 244.2K Work, Benefits & Business
- 599.4K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177.1K Life & Family
- 257.7K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.2K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.6K Read-Only Boards