ParkingEye Court Claim defence: please check

draf_2

Ah. Now I'm really embarrassed because I didn't have the paperwork in front of me and just had to have someone in my office send me a photo to double check, and I now realise that it's not a NoA, I've had 2 Transfer of Proceedings. So that's why I don't have any dates yet.

I'm so sorry - I shall be much more careful with my terminology in future.

nosferatu1001

Indeed, as the whole thing is form driven with specific names, the wrong name causes confusion

draf_2

21st December to put my defence in.

I'm going to work on it this week. I am going to be looking for any cases involving grace periods and also case law on when a contract is determined to have been made (even outside parking), because I feel that's at the root of my case. All suggestions very welcome!

(I will of course also be going through their submission)

Thanks again everyone.

Coupon-mad

I think my case will be all about when a contract comes into place - because I would argue that whilst registering for their online payment I have still not yet entered into a contract - it is the equivalent of standing in a queue in a shop waiting to pay for something. Just as if I were in a shop, I could have given up and gone somewhere else (and would not have expected to pay until I had parked properly). I could not go to the conference I was there for until I had completed payment, and they should have records of my registration process on their online system so they will be able to see that it took that long.

Look at and use Thornton v Shoe Lane Parking Ltd [1971] 2 QB 163 provided by the BMPA here:

https://bmpa.zendesk.com/hc/en-us/articles/214228565-Thornton-v-Shoe-Lane-Parking-Ltd-1971-2-QB-163-1971-1-All-ER-686

So the key issues are:

1. The contract does not start until the money goes into the machine. Often parking companies try to claim the contracts starts on entry but this is quickly scotched by reference to the Thornton case.

2. The terms of the contract can be on signs, on the machine itself and on the actual ticket issued, though the latter would be questionable as they were "after the event" of forming the contract. So there is scope to use the conflict between the three sources of terms to check your liability.

Also, as your defence said 'the defendant tried to pay' etc., you will come across as a more honest witness to describe what happened in the first person and be the driver...even though you say it was a non-POFA PCN.

draf_2

Perfect - you're such a star. That's the ideal starting place. Thank you!

draf_2

Seems I won't get my day in court! They have discontinued the action!

Half disappointed as I was almost looking forward to it, and interested in how it would all turn out (was pretty confident in my arguments). But I could do without having to take the time off work and happy not to have to do any more work for it.

Thank you all so much for your support.