ParkingEye (St Helens College) - County Court Claim Form

kresnas

Apologies in advance, because I have probably left this too long for this to be easily sorted out.


Here is the timeline of events so far;


On the 27/05/16, my car was parked in the car park for a little over half an hour whilst I was in the college paying course fees (have proof).


Original PCN - (Dated 03/06/16):
hxxp://imgur.com/W7RAECe - front
hxxp://imgur.com/eYvrqF0 - back

POPLA - (Dated 27/07/16):
hxxp://imgur.com/JDEArAB - page 1
hxxp://imgur.com/b1Jn3hp - page 2
hxxp://imgur.com/q5pUOiE - page 3

LBCCC - (Dated 15/09/16):
hxxp://imgur.com/PddXYuZ - front
hxxp://imgur.com/SGUW3M5 - back

N1SDT - (Dated 24/10/16):
hxxp://imgur.com/olelPNH

Acknowledgement of Service - (Submitted 02/11/16) I least I think it is:
hxxp://imgur.com/o3WrmCo

Photographs of the signs in the car park:
hxxp://imgur.com/bn2Xmyh
hxxp://imgur.com/e6WKCJR


Plus I have found out from a FOI request made to St Helens Metropolitan Borough Council 'that the Council has not dealt with any applications relating to CCTV cameras or advertisements on the car park'


Now I am unsure precisely what to do next with this (other than pay it), so if anyone can help me I would be extremely grateful.

System

Did you appeal to POPLA and what did they say?

Did you reply to the LBCC and what did you say?

fisherjim

In addition to the above what did the college say when you complained to them?

These should have formed a big part of your POPLA appeal just look at the first one assume that is the entrance:

http://imgur.com/bn2Xmyh
http://imgur.com/e6WKCJR

kresnas

Firstly I need to admit two things;

1. I have not started writing a defence for submission to the court and
2. That I think the submission date for me to file a defence has now elapsed, i.e. 26/11/16

In reply to the questions asked by IamEmanresu & fisherjim;

IamEmanresu wrote: »

Did you appeal to POPLA and what did they say?

Did you reply to the LBCC and what did you say?

I asked for and received a POPLA number from ParkingEye, but due to events at the time I did not use it to appeal the PCN.

Similarly, for the same reasons as above I didn't reply to the LBCCC.

fisherjim wrote: »

In addition to the above what did the college say when you complained to them?

These should have formed a big part of your POPLA appeal just look at the first one assume that is the entrance:

hxxp://imgur.com/bn2Xmyh
hxxp://imgur.com/e6WKCJR

When I complained to the college they said that no-one (i.e. either the principal or the principalship) could cancel the ticket

The images are of:

1. 'bn2Xmyh' - one of the two entrances into the car park (which incidentally has now been replaced).
2. 'e6WKCJR' - one of the signs that are displayed in and around the car park.

Information that might be useful, a FOI request made to St Helens College about the contract that they have with ParkingEye - hxxps://zzz.whatdotheyknow.com/request/parkingeye_contract_town_centre


Sorry if any of the answers I have given (plus the time it has taken for me to answer) means that I don't deserve any more help with this and should just pay up.

If that is the case, could you tell me what the procedure is to pay it, please.

Quentin

You have left this too long.


If PE are on the ball they will already have a judgement by default against you.


Your only hope is that they took their eye off the ball, and haven't asked for judgement yet.


If you get your defence in before they do request judgement then you will be OK (as in they cannot then get a judgement by default)


So get it in now!!


Otherwise if you do receive a judgement by default, instructions on how to pay it will be included on the court document

Coupon-mad

Try submitting a VERY urgent defence. Wednesday without fail, before 4pm, NOT later. DO NOTHING ELSE, PRIORITISE THIS.

Just copy from another one from this year which mentions signs, as stated by fisherjim:

These should have formed a big part of your POPLA appeal just look at the first one assume that is the entrance:

http://imgur.com/bn2Xmyh
http://imgur.com/e6WKCJR

For speed, you can write a few lines about the signs and the fact that you were authorised to be there as far as you were aware from your contract with the College, due to being there validly paying course fees. Add that there was no contract with ParkingEye due to the signs being extremely damaged, such that no terms were readable and they were unauthorised in law, in any case.

Adapt this defence (about no advertising consent, as you can see it caused PE to discontinue). DO NOT spend ages on it, just do it:

http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2016/08/parkingeye-discontinue-two-cases.html

I agree with the others, as Quentin said:

So get it in now!!

Otherwise if you do receive a judgement by default, instructions on how to pay it will be included on the court document

kresnas

This is the defence I submitted to the Court, if I have put in anything that's wrong or that's completely stupid, please tell me.


Statement of Defence

It is admitted that Defendant is the registered keeper of the vehicle in question.
However the Claimant has no cause of action against the Defendant on the following grounds:-

1. This case can be distinguished from ParkingEye v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67 (the Beavis case) which was dependent upon an undenied contract, formed by unusually prominent signage forming a clear offer and which turned on unique facts regarding the location and the interests of the landowner.

2. The Defendant was believed from a contract with the College, to have valid authorisation to be there whilst in the process of paying course fees.

3. The Defendant denies that signage on and around the site was clear, visible or was lawful,
a) The entrance signs have been extremely damaged to the point of making the terms on them unreadable.
b) The Claimant does not appear to have gained advertising consent for the signs or planning permission for ANPR cameras on the site, not just a signed statement to the court as not having these is a criminal offence.
c) They do not meet the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice or the Independent Parking Committee (IPC) Code of Practice. The claimant is a member of the BPA, whose requirements they did not follow.

Therefore no contract has been formed with driver to pay the £100 charge. The Defendant refers the court to Excel Parking Services Ltd v Cutts that the content relied on by the Claimant could not be read by a driver entering the car park.

4. It is denied that the Claimant has authority to bring this claim. The proper Claimant is the landowner. Strict proof is required that there is a chain of contracts leading from the landowner to ParkingEye Ltd.

a) ParkingEye Ltd is not the lawful occupier of the land and has provided no evidence as to who is the lawful occupier, including no contact address for complaints to the lawful occupier.

b) No contract with the lawful occupier of the land has been produced by the claimant, or a chain of contracts showing authorisation stemming from the lawful occupier of the land. I have the reasonable belief that they do not have the authority to issue charges on this land in their own name and that they have no locus standi to bring this case.

c) ParkingEye v Sharma (3QT62646 Brentford County Court) examined the contract and dismissed the claim for the reason that the Claimant had no ownership of, or proprietary interest in, the land; it followed that the Claimant, acting as an agent, had no locus standi to bring court proceedings in its own name. ParkingEye v Gardam (3QT60598) similarly examined the contract and found the Sharma judgement persuasive.

d) The Defendant also refers the court to ParkingEye v Somerfield (2012) (EWCA Civ 1338 case A3/2011/0909) that examined ParkingEye contracts. This stated that any debt was due to Somerfield and that ParkingEye did not have the authority to issue proceedings. It follows therefore that if a debt exists, it is owed to the landowner, not the Claimant.

e) I believe the driver may well be eligible for cancellation and you have omitted clear information about the process for complaints including a geographical address of the landowner, as per POFA 2012 Schedule 4, section 9.

5. No sum payable to this Claimant was accepted nor even known about by the driver; as they were not given a fair opportunity to discover the onerous terms by which they would later be bound.

6. The amount is a penalty, and the penalty rule is still engaged, so can be clearly distinguished from ParkingEye v Beavis which the Judges held was 'entirely different' from most ordinary economic contract disputes for the following reasons:-

a) The Claimant has no commercial justification
b) The Claimant did not follow the IPC or BPA Code of Practice
c) The Claimant is not the landowner and suffers no loss whatsoever as a result of a vehicle parking at the location in question
d) The amount claimed is a charge and evidently disproportionate to any loss suffered by the Claimant and is therefore unconscionable.

7. The Protection of Freedoms Act does not permit the Claimant to recover a sum greater than the parking charge on the day before a Notice to Keeper was issued. The Claimant cannot recover additional charges. The Defendant also has the reasonable belief that the Claimant has not incurred the stated additional costs and it is put to strict proof that they have actually been incurred. Even if they have been incurred, the Claimant has described them as "Legal representative’s costs". These cannot be recovered in the Small Claims Court.

8. If the driver on the date of the event was considered to be a trespasser if not allowed to park there, then only the landowner can pursue a case under the tort of trespass, not this Claimant, and as the Supreme Court in the Beavis case confirmed, such a matter would be limited to the landowner themselves claiming for a nominal sum.

10. The Claimant has brought a claim that discloses no cause of action. The Defendant has the reasonable belief that the Claimant is abusing the court process by using the threat of action to alarm the Defendant into making a payment that is not owed.

Therefore I ask the court to respectfully strike out this claim with immediate effect.

I believe that the facts stated in this Statement of defence, --/--/2016 are true.

Quentin

You look to have confirmed the defendant was the driver in 2

salmosalaris

it is often best to defend as the driver

Half_way

It's not too late to complain to the college, although you will need to use the right terms and words to do so.
As principal the college can cancel, or scupper parking eyes court case. You just need to use the right words to generate the right response

Coupon-mad

salmosalaris wrote: »

it is often best to defend as the driver

True, but he also tried to use the POFA. But at least a defence is in!