Parking Eye contract not with Land Owner

Frank_Exchange

Hi All.

Parking eye are taking me to court and I asked for the copy of contract. I found the freehold land owner is the local council not the hotel company who signed the contract with parking eye.

There are several leaseholders but still none are the company who signed the contract.

I assume this means Parking Eye have no claim. Should I tell them now or wait till trial?

Northlakes

One thing you need to look at is not relevant land for POFA 2012. So if the driver hasn't been disclosed POFA 2012 may not apply and only the driver may be liable. Local council land is not relevant land for POFA.
The key test I understand is sufficient interest in the land and does this hotel have It?

[Deleted User]

The hotel must presumably have a leasehold entitlement somewhere to bother sign a contract. Have you found their interest yet?

In any case, assuming that you are correct and parking eye have no contractual right to issue PCNs on the land, I'd tell them now and tell them to discontinue. You can produce all the correspondence to the court later if needed. If they wrongly pursue you an unreasonable costs order could, conceivably, be made by the court against the claimant.

The Claimant ppc cannot magically produce a contract that helps them as the key is the contract in place at the time of the alleged infringement.

Coupon-mad

I agree - I don't see this as a silver bullet except to suggest it might not be 'relevant land' as it is Council land.

The Hotel must have leasehold title that isn't showing up, for some reason. They will have some sort of possessive title in the land to be granted the right to have a Hotel there.

Frank_Exchange

The hotel company was only formed in 2005. There are 2 leaseholds that was registered before 2000. There may be a parent company with a leasehold but not the company that signed the document.

Frank_Exchange

!!!!!! found the leasehold. But the relevant land I assume is good defence. Driver unknown.

Northlakes

If the land could be subject to byelaws by the fact of being owned by a council, railway or port company POFA 2012 should not apply.
Look up recent cases on ports and railway property and you will get the gist.
Have you ignored up till now as POPLA would have seen this off on this point?

Frank_Exchange

I wasnt aware until court summons, ergo had no chance to appeal. Driver unknown. Need to destroy Pofa or attempt to draw out the proceedings so no longer economical for them.

Coupon-mad

You will be unlikely to be able to use POFA v ParkingEye, unless they posted a late/non-POFA PCN.

You will also not time them out, they will proceed and it is never economical, it's about frightening most people into paying up and the trophy wins using a solicitor in court v those who fight.

Have you acknowledged the claim?

Show us your draft defence and some facts you intend to rely on.

Frank_Exchange

Yes acknowledged claim. Gone through mediation. Court date set for next month.

Used template defence.

Main avenues no evidence car stationary. No evidence contract formed. No evidence driver did not comply with free parking rules. Beavis is not binding a) driver not rk b) fine not 85 c) commercial justification on beavis to stop over stayers this case late evenings several car parks around free location free plus on street parking free.

Attempts of breaking pofa a) relevant land b) they say anpr no ticket but no evidence of this c) no evidence details from dvla d) as no ntk received no evidence letter sent complied to pofa

On anpr tech evidence provided is a manual spreadsheet not technical output from systems. Has not included evidence that on day technology working. No evidence of their 18 checks they claim.

My hopes is that the other side has no evidence on the day of all of above so will either have to concede their points not valid or request an adjornment to get evidence.

Coupon-mad

Used template defence.

What template defence, we don't have one?