Parking Eye Court Case Defense

qat

Hi, Parking Eye are taking me to court, for an over stay in Ilford Retail Park by approx 20 mins. I did not go through the popla process as I only received the letter before the court case from parking eye, I did write and asked them for copies of the original letters so I can respond, however they have now issued a court claim. I have acknowleged the claim, and put in a skeletal defence. They have responded with a 70 plus page document setting their case. Not having any legal background I feel somewhat swamped by the amount of information they have sent. They have refused mediation and recently have also returned form n180 refusing mediation. I am hoping someone with a bit more knowledge and understanding can help formulate a Defence. I can share the information they have sent, some of the contractual elements are redacted and I can redact my details.

Many thanks in advance.

Umkomaas

I am hoping someone with a bit more knowledge and understanding can help formulate a Defence.

You’ve already done it,

I have acknowleged the claim, and put in a skeletal defence.

You can’t add any more, not without stumping up £255 to do so.

Show us what you’ve already put in the ‘skeletal defence’ (no such term in the small claims court, by the way).

qat

Thank you for the prompt reply;

This is what I put forward

A letter was received from the Claimant dated the 26th April 2017, demanding payment. The Defendant wrote to Claimant on the 2nd May 2017, requesting original copies of the PCN so that the matter could be dealt with
The Claimant did not provide copies of this information. TheClaimant is therefore asked to produce evidence such as a certificate of postage and proof of delivery to show that they have complied with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. As it appears, unless proven otherwise Claimant has failed to comply with the requirements of Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. If the Notice to Keeper was not received within the 14 day time limit set by Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 Schedule 4 paragraphs 9(4) and (5), the notice is invalid and the parking company have no right to bring a claim against the Registered Keeper (see paragraph 4, especially 4(2)).
The Defendant is prepared to provide an Affidavit, with a sworn statement of not having received correspondence from the claimant prior to 26th April 2017.
Full particulars of the Allegation
The Defendant further requests that full particulars of the alleged breach are disclosed, including but not limited to;
i) Full Particulars of the Parking Charges
ii) Who the party was that contracted with the Claimant.
iii) The full legal identity of the landowner
iv) A full copy of the contract with the landholder that demonstrated that the Claimant had their authority.
v) If the charges were based on damages for breach of contract and if so to provide justification of this sum
vi) If the charge was based on a contractually agreed sum for the provision of parking and If so to provide a valid VAT invoice for this 'service'.
vii) To provide a copy of the signs that Parking Eye can evidence were on site and which contended formed a contract with the driver on that occasion, as well as all photographs taken of the vehicle in question.
Withholding any relevant information requested by the Defendant is against the SRA code as well as contrary to the ‘overriding objective’ in the pre action protocol.
The Defendant believes the claim to be invalid and invites the court to striking it out.
If the matter proceeds the Defendant asks that the court orders Further and Better Particulars of Claim and asks leave to amend the Skeletal Defence.
Statement of Truth

Coupon-mad

The Defendant is prepared to provide an Affidavit, with a sworn statement of not having received correspondence from the claimant prior to 26th April 2017.

But they will simply produce a copy of the postal PCN and will state it was posted, and then use the leverage of the Beavis case to convince the Judge that this charge is recoverable. They are not required to prove postage.

Tell us more about the location and what you think the allegation is, as this is vital to know. You might be on a hiding to nothing if your case is similar to Beavis.

A significant overstay at a free retail park - say, 30 mins or more - and you have less chance, due to the Beavis case, than say 12 minutes alleged 'overstay' at some cash cow place like Tower Rd Newquay, or than some old twaddle about not paying within 11 minutes in the dark at the mess that is the car park at Aire Street Leeds.

qat

I think it is very unfair they had pushed this to court, before giving me a reasonable opportunity to respond. Especially as I did not receive the original PCNs. Firstly, I don't recall seeing the signs, perhaps this is an oversight on my part. I plan to go there tomorrow to see how I could have not noticed the signs for charges. it was in the evening and the car park is pooly lit. I have since learnt the car park is free for 2 hours and there is a charge of 1.60 after that time.

I do recall my elderly father of 85 feeling poorly and I had to wait sometime until he was able to catch his breath and move. I spoke to the customer service retailer Lidl recently to explain the situation, but they claim that they have no relationship with PE and that I should speak with Car Park Owner, which according to the information I received from PE in their response to my defense is a Pension Trust. Not sure how to get intouch with them.

I believe had the matter gone to Popla they would have been understanding in the matter.

PE have refused mediation, which I would have given me an opportunity to put my points across. I also understand I am no longer elegible for Popla. I do believe this is unfair and Popla should take into account a late appeal, as I understand it, my only option is to go to court. As I understand it at worst I am 175 down. However, I feel somewhat ill prepared with all the jargon and court cases PE have thrown in their defence response.

The_Deep

They have responded with a 70 plus page document setting their case.

What, for a 20 minute overstay in a shopping centre car park? Surely a judge might think this out of proportion in a SCC.


It looks like a pretty good effort for TMOTCO to me. With any luck, the judge will think so too.

qat

Document contains response to my defense, plus copy of signages, lots of different cases, contract between PE and landowner. A bit overwhelming for a lay person, but I guess that's the game they play.

The_Deep

Indeed, a SCC is a place where the everyman can settle disputes without having to pay through the nose for legal representation, Where the homeowner can sue the plumber for a botched job, and the plumber can sue the homeowner for non payment.

The court was never untended as a place where a Plc could sue a shopper for a few pence for a car parking charge, where that person should be expected to quote Supreme Court decisions.

Some on this furum seem to think that without every legal loophole being explored, with every judicial rule in the book slavishly adhered too, without every "t" crossed, and every "i" dotted, you are sunk.

I would prefer to place my faith in the common sense of the judges.

qat

Thank you Deep... never been to court before and I've read very mixd outcomes... lets hope it plays out well

Coupon-mad

I have since learnt the car park is free for 2 hours and there is a charge of 1.60 after that time.

Interesting. Not like the Beavis case then, and exactly the sort of business model that the 'wise' Judges at the Court of Appeal (prior to the final Supreme Court level) decided was unworkable for a retail car park and that's partly how they concocted some 'reasoning' for their decision. The Judges cosily justified to themselves why PE fining people £85 instead of a small sum, was the only answer...because they reckoned PE couldn't charge a small tariff.

Errrmmm....well here, they do.

It is good because this distinguishes your case from Beavis, but you have to show how. You DO NOT need a lay rep, so no-one should suggest one, before anyone pops up to do so (and don't reply to any pm offering 'advice' or help, from any poster with less than 1000 posts).

I do recall my elderly father of 85 feeling poorly and I had to wait sometime until he was able to catch his breath and move.

Why isn't that in your defence? EQUALITY ACT 2010!!!

Dad is elderly, infirm and with a respiratory condition (or other longterm condition) that means he has the right to a reasonable adjustment of time. What conditions does Dad have, if you don't mind me asking, for your defence...

Have you ever told PE this? Any response from them about this issue with your Dad needing to rest? Do PE know?

qat

Father is suffering from heart failure, respitory failure and chronic arthritus. just was trying to get him out of the house on the day as he spends most of his time trapped at home. In the information PE sent Blue badge holders still have to pay after 2 hours. So I was not sure if they would consider his circumstances. Do you think it is still worth calling PE and discussing a settlement and putting my circumstances across, even though they have refused mediation ?

I thought the defense was purely technical elements and case law, is this something I can bring up in the court? (learning the hard way).

I realy wished I'd come to this forum first.