Parkingeye fine - Aire Street Leeds

Silvercloud18

Yeh says if you wish to contact parking eye have 30days from the letter date (27/06!) using the enclosed reply form. And includes a financial statement for me to fill.

Can't see anything about a PAP what is this?

I'd upload a pic but I forgot how and prob standard anyway!

Coupon-mad

Pre-action protocol. That IS a proper LBC but you will soon know not to 'fill in forms' when you read all the zillions of other threads, all at the same stage or beyond.

Please don't think we have time to go in depth about a fairly generic response when this is done to death already, and PE will file a claim anyway so you may as well start reading PE claim threads and the NEWBIES thread post #2 (all about pre-court and court stages).

The only difference with PE is you can email a reply asking for all evidence/photos:

enforcement@parkingeye.co.uk

no need for a letter.

Silvercloud18

Great thanks. thought it was a pretty standard one.


Ok so will draft an email and pop it up just to check im on the correct lines on this one. I assumed theyd go all the way anyway so guess I may as well start reading the draft defences too.

Silvercloud18

Have had a read through the sticky and took points from a couple of the recommended. Is it best I keep it simple and not go over board knowing full well theyre likely to take it to court stage any how? Do I mention here how ridiculous this will look in court with my friend and her winning case as evidence or hold that and keep it to this template style?


This is what I have put together.....


Dear Sirs,

In response to your Letter Before Claim. This letter contains insufficient detail of the claim and, includes no information specific to this case which would be relied upon should this go to court.

You should know that on 01 October 2017 a new protocol is applicable to debt claims. Since proceedings have not yet been issued, the new protocol clearly applies and must be complied with.

Your letter lacks specificity and breaches both the requirements of the previously applicable Practice Direction - Pre-Action Conduct (paragraphs 6(a) and 6(c)) and the new Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims (paragraphs 3.1(a)-(d), 5.1 and 5.2. Please treat this letter as a formal request for all of the documents / information that the protocol now requires you to provide. You must not issue proceedings without complying with that protocol. I reserve the right to draw any failure to comply to the attention of the court and to ask the court to stay the claim and order you to comply, and when costs come to be considered.

I require your client to comply with its obligations by sending me the following information/documents:

1. an explanation of the cause of action
2. whether you are pursuing me as driver or keeper
3. whether you are relying on the provisions of Schedule 4 of POFA 2012
4. what the details of the claim are (where it is claimed the car was parked in the car park, for how long, how the monies being claimed arose and have been calculated, what contractual breach (if any) is being claimed)
5. a copy of the contract with the landowner under which they assert authority to bring the claim
6. a copy of any alleged contract with the driver
7. a plan showing where any signs were displayed
8. evidence of the signs displayed (size of sign, size of font, height at which displayed)
9. If you have added anything on to the original charge, what that represents and how it has been calculated.

Until you have complied with your obligations and provided this information, I am unable to respond properly to the alleged claim and to consider my position in relation to it, and it is entirely premature for you to issue proceedings. Should your client do so, then I will seek an immediate stay pursuant to paragraph 15(b) of the Practice Direction and an order that this information is provided.

Coupon-mad

Hmmm...I would not use that template. Just to remind us of your defence:

The fine was issues on the grounds of not paying parking for a 15 minute stay.

The car was driven in to Aire street car park, looked for a space on the front, tried to drive round but met by a big mound of rubble, reversed round to the back, the car park was ridiculously packed with cars all over the place so trying to navigate round was almost impossible, read the terms on back wall which you needed to get out the car to do and as it was dark light up with a phone. Terms weren't agreed as wasn't clear at 4.30pm whether to pay a day rate till 6.30pm or day and night rate. Left the car park for alternative parking. Totalling 15 mins in the grounds.

I would email PE:

enforcement@parkingeye.co.uk

and state:


Dear ParkingEye,

re PCN xxxxxx/xxxxxx - Letter Before Claim response re Aire Street

I am contacting you in response to your Letter Before Claim. You have not included the data I need at this pre-court communication stage, to make an informed decision regarding my defence.

Please supply the following three pieces of information:

1. How long is the grace period at this site, as set out in the landowner contract? I realise a redacted version of the contract was provided at POPLA stage but it failed to show the grace period allowed. I believe it is 15 or 20 minutes at this site, and if you fail to show otherwise at this stage, and I then defend and duly win at a hearing on the basis of a lack of a fair grace period, I will seek costs on the indemnity basis due to ParkingEye's unreasonableness in withholding vital data that is within the company's direct knowledge.

I am not asking you to quote from the BPA Code of Practice, nor am I asking you to regurgitate the template 'evidence pack' where you vaguely stated that all locations have 'at least ten minutes grace' but didn't elaborate. I am asking specifically, what is the agreed grace period at this site, in your landowner contract?

2. Since you are using ANPR 24/7 at this car park, you had a legal duty under the Data Protection Act (at the time) and the Information Commissioner's Code of Practice for Surveillance Cameras, to carry out regular evaluations in order to reasonably justify continuing with such a data-intrusive regime, and to consider the vital aspect of proportionality, in line with the data protection principles.

Given that Aire Street is a notorious cash-cow of a site for ParkingEye, with a multitude of people caught out in exactly the same way as me, at night, the number of complaints and lost POPLA appeals from similarly scammed people must run into at least the hundreds each year.

Those complaints and your 'PCNs issued per site' figures must show that drivers are falling victim in their droves at this site (compared to others) and to any reasonable company should have had serious concerns that the system is not working (except for ParkingEye's profit, but that will not reasonably justify your excessive surveillance here, year in year out).

You may recall from my appeal that I am personally aware of another person trapped in the same way at Aire Street, for a couple of minutes longer than me but that victim won at POPLA. The fact I lost at POPLA is neither here nor there, in terms of justifying your conduct to the ICO.

I require to see your regular Surveillance Camera data processing impact and evaluation reports for this site, for the period ParkingEye has been at the location. If you fail to produce these (or try to tell me I cannot have them, under excuse of the DPA) I warn you now that my next step will be a formal complaint to the ICO and you will be forced to show your information to them.

3. The car was never parked; I am sure it will be common ground that driving carefully round a very busy but pot-holed car park in the dark, then finally managing to light up an ambiguous sign on my phone, then leaving within minutes, is not parking. I believe you are attempting to charge me for a 15 minute 'total stay' but driving round and taking a few minutes to read a sign, reject the ambiguous terms and leave to park elsewhere, is never a 'parking event'. The car park was, to all intents and purposes, full when I arrived so I was unable to park in a bay and unable to read the signs in the dark. Therefore, kindly explain how you consider that any consideration flowed, and what did ParkingEye offer to me, that had any value?

I will have no hesitation in robustly defending any court claim, but in view of the information I require from you I expect that the charge and enforcement will be placed 'on hold' to give me an opportunity to read and consider your response first, and to raise any other queries and to lodge my ICO complaint. Take note that this complaint will go ahead regardless of your response, because people need to be protected from the outrageous scam (Hansard 2.2.18) of the 'honey-trap' predatory regime you have set up at Aire Street.

yours faithfully,

Silvercloud18

Oh wow that's is so helpful thank you! I guess I was on the wrong lines! I will get this drafted ASAP. T:A

Have just seen they say on the back of the forms there is a section saying "further information" here it says in brief (sure it's standard) that the letter is fully compliant with pre action protocol for debt claims, reply forms should be returned to (address), that we can use ADR, the letter is set out to guidelines set by BPA, the amount is not punitive and set on the basis of strong commercial justification for charges of this nature, proportionate to their loss and been calculated using company records and accounts, the charge is calculated in conjunction with the land holder and has been prescribed by the BPA.

It also states in this section that as court proceeding have not yet begun and no defence filed it is impossible to say what documents will be replied on!

Thought it best to advise they seem to have this check list to counter act all the points in my first draft so probably best I asked for the help!!

biscuit27

Hi, I have read all of your posts and others and was trying to compare my situation to decide if it was worth fighting - any advice much appreciated?

I am a UK citizen but live in the USA, on a recent trip back to the UK I parked in Aire Street to catch up with a friend. We arrived back to the car within our paid time frame but continued to chat in the car (total extra in car park 53 minutes) oblivious to the ANPR - I didn't even know what this was until receiving my PCN. I saw signs saying 24 hr CCTV & 24 hr Security patrolled and as I was in my car I assumed we were OK - how naive.

I was also in a rental car so they are invoicing me for an 'admin' payment too. I submitted an appeal to PE which was rejected instantly and I have emailed the rental car co too. I now have another week of the 'reduced charge' and am undecided to fight further, pay and forget about it or ignore but am wary of moving back to the UK in the future and this lingering around somewhere?

I still have fingers crossed for you Silvercloud18, I was annoyed to read POPLA rejected your appeal.
Good luck!

Silvercloud18

Thank you biscuit. I am going to fight all the way. I suggest you do to and open your own thread where people will help you.

Aire street is a horrible little money maker!!

thehoneybee

can I just ask if any of you have had your PCN cancelled by POPLA ? I had mine cancelled reently as POPLA were not happy with the contract between Elite Parking and ParkingEye, if you need any more information I can supply you with the details of my appeal.

KeithP

thehoneybee wrote: »

can I just ask if any of you have had your PCN cancelled by POPLA ? I had mine cancelled reently as POPLA were not happy with the contract between Elite Parking and ParkingEye, if you need any more information I can supply you with the details of my appeal.

Then why don't you post your appeal details on your existing thread for others to find at their leisure?