ParkingEye County Court Claim

DaveJones74

Coupon-mad wrote: »

Which station is this at? Is the car park within the station/railway location?

Defence submitted, again, thanks for all the help.


Car park in question is the poorly identified Parking Eye 'Central Station, Warrington' car park, located within the boundary of the main station car park, which is sited on the former railway club.
Had no response from Northern Rail who own / operate the station, so now trying Network Rail.

DaveJones74

Apologies for this going quiet, but a quick update / question.


We had hoped the issue had gone away, but on the last day a photocopied N180 arrived from PE. N180s have been exchanged, within the appropriate dates, completed in line with Bargepoles guidance.


Yesterday a rather strange email was received - see below:-
"Dear xxxxxxx


We are writing in reference to the Parking Charges and subsequent County Court claim, referenced above.


ParkingEye are yet to receive your defence to this claim, please be aware that under the Civil Procedure Rules, it is your responsibility to serve a copy of the defence on all parties, including ParkingEye as the Claimant.


Please could you send this at your earliest convenience, this can be done by email or post
Yours sincerely


ParkingEye Enforcement Team"

Based on the advice in the Newbies and specifically Bargepoles thread, PE should have received the defence from the Northampton Business Centre. Does the email mean they've lost it? Is it some form of game? Why have they now decided to correspond via email rather than by letter?


My first instinct is to simply ignore the request - is this the correct thing to do? Or should we reply with a copy of the letter of receipt of defence from the court?


Cheers

nosferatu1001

I would respond back, and state that contrary to their assertion, for a claim issued through MCOL the defence lodged with teh CCBC is then served by the CCBC on the claimant. I suggest you refer to the CCBC for details if you have not received a copuy.

DaveJones74

So witness statement due to be with the court early next week, so I'd appreciate a bit of feedback on the below please. Not sure if it's too much detail? More like a skeleton argument than witness statement? As ever, any help greatly appreciated. Thanks


In the matter of
xxxxxxx (Claimant)
v
xxxxxxxx (defendant)
Claim no: xxxxxxxx
Witness statement of Mrs xxxxxxxx, defendant

I am the Defendant in this matter (as owner of the vehicle). I am unrepresented and if I do not set out documents in the way that the Claimant may do, I trust the Court will excuse my inexperience.
In this Witness statement, the facts and matters stated are true and within my own knowledge, except where indicated otherwise.

1. The driver entered the xxxxxx xxxxxx Station Car Park at approximately 09:22 on xx/xx/xx and at approximately 09:21 on xx/xx/xx, both days at the height of rush hour, and at a time when the station was extremely busy; as such it took a not inconsiderable amount of time to find a free space in the congested and crowded car park, and to leave afterwards.


Having found a space and parked appropriately, the driver made all reasonable efforts to make payment for parking using an approved payment channel and by following the signage in the car park.


A. On xx/xx/xx an appropriate amount was entered into the parking machine but no ticket was issued. No attempt was made to use the pay by phone instructions as an appropriate amount had already been entered into the machine. Photographic evidence of the machine in question is attached.


B. On xx/xx/xx the machine was still in operable and as the defendants mobile phone was flat they were unable to use the pay by phone instructions.


C. On xx/xx/xx ParkingEyes photographs show the defendants car entering the car park at 09:22 and leaving the car park at 09:35. This duration of 12 minutes, falls well within any grace period to find a parking space and read the terms and conditions and then any reasonable grace period to leave the car park after parking. These two separate grace periods are as described in Para 13 of the BPA Code of Practice. See also the published Article 'Good car parking practice includes grace periods'* by Kelvin Reynolds, Director of Policy and Public Affairs at the British Parking Association - attached.


D. On xx/xx/xx ParkingEyes photographs show the defendants car entering the car park at 09:21 and leaving the car park at 09:40. This duration of 19 minutes, falls well within any grace period to find a parking space and read the terms and conditions and then any reasonable grace period to leave the car park after parking. These two separate grace periods are as described in Para 13 of the BPA Code of Practice. See also the published Article 'Good car parking practice includes grace periods'* by Kelvin Reynolds, Director of Policy and Public Affairs at the British Parking Association - attached.


Thus it is clear that the driver made every attempt to make appropriate payment using the means advertised by ParkingEye. As proven in case law [Jolley V Carmel LTD (2000) 2-EGLR-154] it is not reasonable in these circumstances for the driver to assume any more obligations for making the payment.
It is also felt unfair that they should be both out of pocket and called to a court of law for failings on the part of the claimant.


It can be seen from the attached sign that the amount paid on xx/xx/xx was for 1 hours parking. As the total time of the parking events on both days is just 31 minutes, then it is not believed the claimant can claim to be out of pocket.


2. The signage at the site in question is woefully inadequate and extremely confusing. The car park itself is located within another car park (see attached sketch). The signs for the ParkingEye area are both unremarkable and therefore misleading. On entering the main site, signs can clearly be seen displaying 30 minutes free parking for users of the station. It is not clear that you are leaving the area for which the 30 minute free parking period is available and entering into another area for which a charge is payable. Photographic evidence for all signage is attached, including those taken form the point of view of the driver, showing it is IMPOSSIBLE to see the change from one car park to the other.


3. An initial appeal, outlining the above circumstances, was made via the claimants on-line appeal process but was refused, without ever actually addressing any of the issues raised. It appears a standard rebuttal was issued (attached), with at no point the specifics of the case being taken into consideration.


4. There followed, over a number of months, a stream of incomplete and believed out of process communication both written and via email. In addition, on further investigation it is believed that the claimant has, on several occasions, failed to comply with due protocol in terms of issuing written correspondence as outlined in the defence issued to the court on xx/xx/xx and it is felt prudent that the claimant provide evidence that all steps have been followed appropriately (and lawfully) or the claim be struck out.


5. The claimant has on more than one occasion failed to comply with the County Court Small Claims process, including sending an email to the defendant asking for their defence as they had not received it (email dated xx/xx/xx - attached) and as stated in the Notice of Allocation to the Small Claims Track (Hearing) letter from District Judge xxxx (dated xx/xx/xx - attached). Not only has this caused stress and confusion to the defendant, it also shows a blatant disregard for the court process and data protection of the defendants previously submitted information.


6. The Direction questionnaire (Small Claims Track) received by the defendant on xx/xx/xx, was simply a pre-completed photocopy, with the claim details entered in a different coloured ink (attached). It is clear to see the form has not been completed specifically for this case and refer to section 6 of the previously submitted defence with regard to 'robo claims', abuse of the judicial system and wasting the courts time.

I believe that the facts stated in this Witness Statement are true.

Signed xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Dated xx/xx/xx

DaveJones74

Just a quick update. After spending all day printing and compiling packs for various people, came home to find a letter saying they we're dropping the claim!

Slightly annoyed that we won't get our day in court to expose these scammers for what they are, but a positive result all the same.

Thanks everyone for all the help provided

KeithP

Dave, you would be wise to check with the court that they have indeed discontinued.

It would be a great shame if the Claimant turned up at court at the appointed hour and the Defendant didn't.

Ring the court on Monday.

Coupon-mad

DaveJones74 wrote: »

Just a quick update. After spending all day printing and compiling packs for various people, came home to find a letter saying they we're dropping the claim!

Slightly annoyed that we won't get our day in court to expose these scammers for what they are, but a positive result all the same.

Thanks everyone for all the help provided

Hooray, that's a win! :T

They had no case and have completely wasted your time (as did the poster 'situation-observer' who I see disappeared from the thread). What on earth were ParkingEye playing at earlier, seemingly they'd lost the defence that comes to them via MCOL?! Odd for ParkingEye and very incompetent.

You should read these links and watch the MPs debate in Parliament, to fire you up:

http://parliamentlive.tv/event/index/2f0384f2-eba5-4fff-ab07-cf24b6a22918?in=12:49:41

https://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2018-02-02b.1149.0

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5787731

Just 4 weeks ago, the private parking industry's little game and 'outrageous scam' (Hansard), has been finally been condemned unanimously by MPs in Parliament in the private parking Code of Practice Bill debate, where (guess who?) PARKINGEYE were named and shamed along with their Trade Body, the BPA.

Why not now fight back? Complain to your MP and the local Trading Standards that PE tried to sue you for days when their machines were out of order, and how many other locals have been ripped off this way? Tell TS what happened and when well defended, they discontinued.

You could also do a complaint to the Information Commissioner (easy to do online, and you can attach evidence) that PE obtained your data - and no doubt that of other drivers - on the days when their P&D machine was out of action, then tried to sue you, then backed down when your defence was robust. But given the failure of their machines, they failed to make an offer that was capable of acceptance and had no right to even obtain any keepers' data from the DVLA for those days, at that location. So they misused your data, that they had no 'reasonable cause' to obtain under excuse of the DVLA KADOE rules, in the first place.