LBCCC options (ParkingEye, Leeds Aire Street)

superchargednut

My apologies, I've seen this now.

superchargednut

I have emailed PE with my offer so now must turn my attention to acknowledging their LBCCC.

Below is an example of a response, however I am aware it is from 2013 and therefore could potentially be obsolete now.

Apologies if you feel I am asking obvious questions but I find the amount of information on the forum rather overwhelming.

Thanks for your continued help.

ParkingEye Ltd
Legal Department

Address

Date

For the personal attention of [Text removed by MSE Forum Team] (Supervising Solicitor)

Dear [Text removed by MSE Forum Team]

ParkingEye Ltd v [Name]
Proposed Legal Proceedings


Thank you for your letter of [insert date].

First, the alleged debt is disputed and any court proceedings will be vigorously defended.

Secondly, despite the wholly inaccurate statement that the letter is 'fully compliant with the Practice Direction' it is in fact woefully defective and appears to be a deliberate attempt to mislead the recipient.

Please therefore provide a Letter Before Claim which complies with the requirements of Annex A Para 2 of the Practice Direction on Pre-action Conduct:

URL

I confirm that I shall then seek advice and submit a formal Response within 30 days of receipt, as required by the Practice Direction.

Please ensure that someone does actually read and respond to this letter, providing the specific information relating to the county court claim that your client intends to make against myself as the defendant to the proposed legal proceedings. Please DO NOT send a generic FAQ letter in reply as to do so does not meet the requirements of the Practice Direction and will take this matter no further forward.

Please note, a refusal to comply with the Practice Direction will result in an immediate referral to the Solicitors Regulation Authority for breach of the Principles contained in the SRA Handbook version 8, published on 1st October 2013.

I trust this will not be necessary, and look forward to receiving a fully compliant letter before claim in due course.

Yours faithfully

PRINT NAME (sign with a squiggle.)

DollyDee_2

Elysander wrote: »

In answer to OP's point 1, I have included a link below from Leeds City Council's website which gives details of a recent application Parking Eye made regarding retrospective planning permission (August 2016) for signage etc at Aire Street. From reading the application document dated 8th August 2016, it would appear that the landowner is Bellavale Ltd 32 Gallowgate Newcastle Upon Tyne.

Parking Eye always include a poor scan of the 'contract' at POPLA stage which is with a company called Elite Parking who presumably lease the site from Bellavale. PE have repeatedly lost cases at POPLA as assessors aren't able to read the 'contract'

.
https://publicaccess.leeds.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?previousCaseType=Property&previousKeyVal=LCEDNYJB05B00&activeTab=summary&previousCaseUprn=000072695902&previousCaseNumber=LCEDNKJB05B00&keyVal=OBDW36JBIVW00

Don't know if this is important or not but Bellavale Ltd changed their name to ES City Square Ltd on 21st July 2016. Pretty sure it's the correct company as there was a Charge on land "7 Wellington Street, Leeds, LS1".

https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/NI609066/filing-history

Some of the "People" are the same as the company quoted by Elysander
http://www.checkcompany.co.uk/company/NI609066/BELLAVALE-LIMITED

ETA: Just thought, I didn't actually download any of the planning application documents so I may be wrong.

superchargednut

I got the following reply from them:

Unfortunately you have contacted the wrong company, we are a building contractor based in Central London with no sites north of London.

Kind Regards,

Mr Davies
Accounts Assistant | City Sq.

The_Deep

Coupon-mad wrote: »

Head the subject line 'Without prejudice, save as to costs - offer and response re PCN ref xxxxxx/xxxxxx'

Unnecessary imo, read this

http://www.tresscox.com.au/page/our-news/newsflash/the-use-or-misuse-of-the-term-without-prejudice-in-correspondence/

superchargednut

Good afternoon folks,

I received a response from ParkingEye. Firstly, they rejected my offer of £45 and insist the total sim of £100 remains due.

Their response indicates that they are 'confident we have provided you with sufficient information' and are awaiting my formal response to the LBCCC.

Could you advise on next steps, I am nearing the point where I pay to make it go away but would of course prefer not to do that.

Carthesis

Bargepole thread: https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5546325

PePiPoo thread "covering all bases" defence: http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=98775

All lifted from the **NEWBIES** thread under "Letter Before Claim"

Elysander

superchargednut wrote: »

Good afternoon folks,

I received a response from ParkingEye. Firstly, they rejected my offer of £45 and insist the total sim of £100 remains due.

Their response indicates that they are 'confident we have provided you with sufficient information' and are awaiting my formal response to the LBCCC.

Could you advise on next steps, I am nearing the point where I pay to make it go away but would of course prefer not to do that.

Bellavale Ltd are listed as the landowners on Parking Eye's retrospective application for advertising consent to Leeds council, though the company's name was changed to ES City Square Ltd in July of this year (thanks to DollyDee for the name change info) The planning application gave an address for Bellavale as 32 Gallowgate Newcastle Upon Tyne. There are two companies listed at this address who have the same directors as ES City Square. These two companies are:

ES Gateshead Ltd
ES North Street Ltd

You could try directory enquiries for a phone number for either of these two companies, then call them to find out who you need to make contact with.

Coupon-mad

superchargednut wrote: »

Good afternoon folks,

I received a response from ParkingEye. Firstly, they rejected my offer of £45 and insist the total sim of £100 remains due.

Their response indicates that they are 'confident we have provided you with sufficient information' and are awaiting my formal response to the LBCCC.

Could you advise on next steps, I am nearing the point where I pay to make it go away but would of course prefer not to do that.

Well you said this:

Basically, last November I entered a car park and stayed for 17 minutes. It was tea time and dark, and I got out to go and pay but for whatever reason I couldn't (incorrect change, whatever). I got back into the car, attempted to find a way to pay, couldn't, so left.

So it sounds defendable to me. Not the same as the Beavis case.

It was pitch black with faulty machines so you did your best to make payment then gave up within a reasonable few minutes of effort. Also we know the Aire Street machines cause people problems all the time, look at marganne's thread, for example.

Don't blame yourself, this is a fault of their dodgy machine so stick with that defence if they should issue court papers (may as well defend, it's not a huge risk and worst case scenario if you lose would be to pay about £150 instead of £100, no CCJ, no solicitor's costs, nowt bad).

Here is a defence (you are not at this stage yet!) written by bargepole for a specific issue of a faulty machine (Claimant was not Parking Eye so this cannot be copied verbatim but shows you the argument to make about making every effort to comply with the instructions:

https://www.dropbox.com/s/dykc9qeqd271y7p/PCG_Defence1.docx?dl=0

This was the case in question:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5340304

but although the defence was specific to a faulty P&D machines (like you had) it differs because that was an IPC firm and the person stayed - your case is better for you because you left, did not accept a contract. Did not park.

I would respond formally to the LBCCC and use bargepole's point #5 from that example defence, put that into your letter, show us how it looks (obviously you'll need to add an introduction and an ending for the letter).

The Parking Prankster might have other evidence of Aire Street machine issues.

You should also mention in your letter the claim number, date and Judge's name from the Appeal court case of Jopson as posted yesterday in this forum, stating these words (deliberately chosen) please use this wording as well, in your letter:

The Senior Circuit Judge in his ruling provides much needed clarity to motorists and the parking industry as a whole and confirms the common sense view - and now a persuasive opinion - that parking charges can only relate to actual 'parking', where a contract has been agreed. A faulty machine causing motorists to struggle and then give up and leave without being able to pay and decide to stay, is not something that can fairly give rise to a parking charge of £100 and indeed it would be unconscionable. The driver left after making every effort to use your faulty Aire Street machines.

Leaving the car park without accepting the contract is exactly what the BPA advises motorists to do in their 'Know Your Parking Rights' webpage, as ParkingEye are well aware. The machine caused the issue. This situation was tested at Port Talbot Court on 19-10-2016 in case C1GF37H7: Link Parking v Mr N as blogged here:

http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2016/10/link-parking-youve-been-gladstoned.html

In a hearing which lasted around 30 minutes, Mr N explained that he attempted to pay but the machines were not working. The Claimant's legal representative argued he should therefore have left the car park. The judge ruled that 'frustration of contract' applied and that Mr N had attempted to fulfil his contractual obligations but could not because of the broken machine. The claim was dismissed.