Parking Eye Court Claim Help

freespirit14

Hey everyone..
Looking for some advice.
I received a pcn in Oct 2017. Parking eye had taken over the carpark and now you are required to input your reg into a machine to get 4 hours free parking. The driver did not see the sign on the way in and in the pub did not see any signs about parking. They assumed it was still the same as it had always been until I received the letter. I guess I should have researched here first but I ignored the parking notice letters and now I have a country court claim for £175.

Do you think there is a case? They didn't see the sign on the way in which is there.. They still have my receipt from eating in the pub.

Quentin

Everyone is politely asked to read up on this in the Newbies FAQ thread near the top of the forum before starting a new thread

Go there now for advice on how to deal with this. #2 covers court claims

Throughout here you are advised never to reveal who was driving

You need to edit your post to remove details of who was driving

The ppcs monitor this forum and can use your posts against you

The_Deep

[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]This is an entirely unregulated industry which is scamming the public with inflated claims for minor breaches of contracts for alleged parking offences. [/FONT]

[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]Parking Eye, Smart and a smaller company have already been named and shamed, as has Gladstones Solicitors, who take hundreds of these cases to court, who have also been reported to the regulatory authority. [/FONT]

[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]The problem has become so rampant that MPs have agreed to enact a Bill to regulate these scammers. Watch the video of the Second Reading in the HofC recently.[/FONT]

[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]http://parliamentlive.tv/event/index/2f0384f2-eba5-4fff-ab07-cf24b6a22918?in=12:49:41[/FONT]

[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]and complain in the most robust terms to your MP. With a fair wind most of these companies may well be put out of business by Christmas.[/FONT]

Coupon-mad

Do you think I have any case to defend myself?

Yes. Tell us when you've done the AOS (easy step by step guide in the NEWBIES thread). And then show us your draft defence that has to follow, you will not be prompted.

Go and get some damning photo or video evidence from the passenger seat. You need to show your case re the signs being not lit/clear or prominent, because PE will have a site map, photos, the lot.

freespirit14

Thanks. I have done the AOS but i'm not sure where to start with drafting the defence. I have had a read through the NEWBIES thread and read the examples... Is there a draft to follow that I am missing.. Should my angle be that the driver didn't see the signs? Thanks in advance!!

Quentin

There are lots of "drafts" of defences in the faq and the links there but no set template!


Adapt to your circs (more than just signs!) and post here for comments

freespirit14

Ok thank you!! I will get onto it now!

freespirit14

Am I too late to request these things:


a) A request to explain if ParkingEye Ltd are making a claim as an agent of the landowner or making the claim as occupier in their own right.
b) A request to provide copies of the signs on which ParkingEye Ltd rely and confirm the signs were in situ on the date of the event. Also to provide the date the signs were installed.
c) A request to confirm that the signs were at the entrance to the site on the date in question. Also to confirm that the signs meet the British Parking Association's Code of Practice Appendix B (Entrance signs) or the Independent Parking Committee!!!8217;s Schedule 1.
d) A request for confirmation the landowner contract includes an !!!8216;exemption clause!!!8217; (or similar) in the User Manual, whereby a customer could have got the charge cancelled by the retailer and a copy of such wording in the User Manual.
e) A copy of where on the signs outside or in-store, a customer is told about their right to get a PCN cancelled or to request extra time if delayed when purchasing goods.

Also..
The particulars of claim state that the parking charge is for parking without a valid paid ticket however the carpark is a free car park for customers for 4 hours. Drivers are required to input their reg into a machine inside the establishments. Should I mention this or is it irrelevant?

freespirit14

---

In the County Court
Claim Number: ******************
Between
PARKING EYE CAR PARK SOL¬UTIONS

DEFENCE STATEMENT

Preliminary
1. The claimant failed to include a copy of their written contract as per Practice Direction 16 7.3(1) and Practice Direction 7C 1.4(3A). No indication is given as to the Claimants contractual authority to operate there as required by the Claimants Trade Association's Code of Practice B1.1 which says;
!!!8220;If you operate parking management activities on land which is not owned by you, you must supply us with written authority from the land owner sufficient to establish you as the !!!8216;Creditor!!!8217; within the meaning of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (where applicable) and in any event to establish you as a person who is able to recover parking charges. There is no prescribed form for such agreement and it need not necessarily be as part of a contract but it must include the express ability for an operator to recover parking charges on the landowner!!!8217;s behalf or provide sufficient right to occupy the land in question so that charges can be recovered by the operator directly. This applies whether or not you intend to use the keeper liability provisions.!!!8221;

2. The Claimants are known to be serial issuers of generic claims similar to this one. HM Courts Service have identified over 1000 similar sparse claims. I believe the term for such behaviour is !!!8216;roboclaims!!!8217; and as such is against the public interest.

Background
4. It is admitted that at the time of the alleged infringement the Defendant was the registered keeper of vehicle registration mark ****** which is the subject of these proceedings.

6. It is denied that the Defendant was the driver of the vehicle. The Claimant is put to strict proof.
6.1. The Claimant has provided no evidence that the Defendant was the driver. The Defendant avers that the Claimant is therefore limited to pursuing the keeper in these proceedings under the provisions set out by statute in the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 ("POFA")
6.2. Before seeking to rely on the keeper liability provisions of Schedule 4 POFA the Claimant must demonstrate that:
6.2.1. There was a !!!8216;relevant obligation!!!8217; either by way of a breach of contract, trespass or other tort; and
6.2.2. That it has followed the required deadlines and wording as described in the Act to transfer liability from the driver to the registered keeper.
It is not admitted that the Claimant has complied with the relevant statutory requirements.

6.3. To the extent that the Claimant may seek to allege that any such presumption exist, the Defendant expressly denies that there is any presumption in law (whether in statute or otherwise) that the keeper is the driver. Further, the Defendant denies that the vehicle keeper is obliged to name the driver to a private parking firm. Had this been the intention of parliament, they would have made such requirements part of POFA, which makes no such provision. In the alternative, an amendment could have been made to s.172 of the Road Traffic Act 1988. The 1988 Act continues to oblige the identification of drivers only in strictly limited circumstances, where a criminal offence has been committed. Those provisions do not apply to this matter.

3. 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.

8. Parking Eye Ltd are not 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 rights to bring action regarding this claim.
8.1. The Claimant is not the landowner and is merely an agent acting on behalf of the landowner and has failed to demonstrate their legal standing to form a contract.
8.2. The claimant is not the landowner and suffers no loss whatsoever as a result of a vehicle parking at the location in question
8.3 The Claimant is put to proof that it has sufficient interest in the land or that there are specific terms in its contract to bring an action on its own behalf. As a third party agent, the Claimant may not pursue any charge

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 judgment 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.

4. 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.

9. The Claimant has at no time provided an explanation how the !!!8216;parking charge!!!8217; has been calculated, the conduct that gave rise to it or how the amount has escalated to £175. This appears to be an added cost with apparently no qualification and an attempt at double recovery, which the POFA Schedule 4 specifically disallows.
9.1. The Protection of Freedom Act Para 4(5) states that the maximum sum that may be recovered from the keeper is the charge stated on the Notice to Keeper.
9.2. The driver did not enter into any 'agreement on the charge', no consideration flowed between the parties and no contract was established.
9.2.1. The Defendant denies that the driver would have agreed to pay the original demand of £60 to agree to the alleged contract had the terms and conditions of the contract been properly displayed and accessible.

Failure to set out clear parking terms
10. The Defendant relies upon ParkingEye Ltd v Barry Beavis (2015) UKSC 67 insofar as the Court were willing to impose a penalty in the context of a site of commercial value and where the signage regarding the penalties imposed for any breach of parking terms were clear - both upon entry to the site and throughout.
10.1. The Defendant avers that the parking signage in this matter was, without prejudice to his/her primary defence above, woefully inadequate at the time of the material events.
10.1.1. At the time of the material events the signage was deficient in number, distribution, wording and lighting to reasonably convey a contractual obligation;
10.1.2. The signage did not comply with the requirements of the Code of Practice of the Independent Parking Committee!!!8217;s ("IPC") Accredited Operators Scheme, an organisation to which the Claimant was a signatory; and
10.3. Parkingeye Ltd had only recently placed their signage on the wall creating new terms and conditions for motorists. The IPC Code of Practice states that;

!!!8220;Where there is any change to any pre-existing terms and conditions that would not be immediately apparent to a person visiting the site and which materially affects the motorist you should place additional (temporary) signage at the entrance making it clear that new terms and conditions/charges apply, such that regular visitors who may be familiar with the old terms do not inadvertently incur parking charges. This signage should be in addition to the signage ordinarily required and left in place for an appropriate period.!!!8221;.

No figure for additional charges was 'agreed'.
11.1. The Defendant also disputes that the Claimant has incurred £50 solicitor costs.
11.2. The Defendant has the reasonable belief that the Claimant has not incurred £50 costs to pursue an alleged £100 debt.
11.3. Not withstanding the Defendant's belief, the costs are in any case not recoverable.
11.4. The Claimant described the charge of £50.00 "legal representative!!!8217;s costs" not "contractual costs". CPR 27.14 does not permit these to be recovered in the Small Claims Court.

Wholly unreasonable and vexatious claim
12. It is submitted that the conduct of the Claimant in pursuing this claim is wholly unreasonable and vexatious. As such, the Defendant is keeping careful note of all wasted time/costs in dealing with this matter and should the case continue to trial (or in the event of the Claimant filing a Notice of Discontinuance) the Defendant will seek further costs, pursuant to Civil Procedure Rule 27.14(2)(g).

13. The Defendant respectfully suggests that parking companies using the small claims track as a form of aggressive, automated monetary demands against motorists, alleging 'debts' for parking on free customer parking areas is not something the Courts should be seen to support.

15. The Defendant denies the claim in its entirety, voiding any liability to the Claimant for all amounts due to the aforementioned reasons. The Defendant asks that the court gives consideration to exercise its discretion to order the case to be struck out under CPR Rule 3.4, for want of a detailed cause of action and/or for the claim having no realistic prospects of success.

16. If the court is not minded to make such an order, then when Directions are given, the Defendant asks that there is an order for sequential service of witness evidence (rather than exchange) because it is expected that the Claimant will use its witness statement to provide the sort of detail which should have been disclosed much earlier, and the Defendant should have the opportunity to consider it, prior to serving evidence and witness statements in support of this defence.

I confirm that the above facts and statements are true to the best of my knowledge and recollection.

Name - Signed - Date

freespirit14

Any help please?