Dewsbury Mecca Bingo

0777mxs

Having read all the threads, I logged my appeal with POPLA and ParkingEye - both sadly have been unsuccessful. Below is the latest email received, if anyone can help with a reply, this would be appreciated

Thank you for your correspondence received in relation to the above referenced Parking Charge, which was issued following a parking event that took place on November 2018 at Mecca Bingo Dewsbury car park.

Please note that ParkingEye will not be supplying our contract with the landholder at this stage. This document is commercially sensitive and largely irrelevant, and we take the view that supplying the same now would be disproportionate.

With regard to ParkingEye’s position as Claimant, we would like to bring to the court’s attention HHJ Moloney QC’s finding that ParkingEye was bringing the claim as principle. In other instances, when presented with ParkingEye’s contracts, District Judges have found that ParkingEye is bringing the claim as agent. In both instances, it has been found that ParkingEye has standing to bring the claim.

ParkingEye is authorised to install signage setting out the terms and conditions of parking, issue Parking Charges for a breach of these terms and conditions, and to recover and retain these charges. Please note that ParkingEye is presented as the contracting party on the signage. On the correspondence sent to the Defendant, and on the claim form, ParkingEye is identified as the creditor.
Ultimately, it is the Claimant’s position that ParkingEye can lawfully bring the claim whether we are viewed as principle or as agent.

ParkingEye’s Parking Charges are issued on the basis of a contract with the motorist. Signage at each site sets out the terms and conditions under which a motorist is authorised to park, be that by payment of the appropriate paid parking tariff or by parking within a limited stay period or similar, and that a Parking Charge will be payable if the same are not met.

ParkingEye considers that it is trite law that a contract can be formed in this way and this position is supported by the Courts’ findings in the case of ParkingEye v. Beavis. At first instance, HHJ Moloney states that, “it is well established that a valid contract can be made by offer, in the form of terms and conditions set out on the notice, and acceptance, in the form of one’s car in the space provided. This is not a case like Thornton v Shoe Lane […] any unequivocal act of acceptance will suffice, and the signs clearly state (as anyone would expect nowadays) that parking constitutes acceptance.”

More recently within the Supreme Court Judgment, which was decided in ParkingEye’s favour, Lord Mance states that, “There is common ground between all before the court that the relationship between ParkingEye and Mr Beavis was a contractual relationship, whereby Mr Beavis undertook not to park for more two hours and, upon any breach of that obligation, incurred a liability of £85, reducible, in this case, to £50 if he had paid within 14 days of ParkingEye’s demand.”

He then goes on to state that, “[…] I am satisfied that it is correct in law. The terms of the signs which Mr Beavis must be taken to have accepted by conduct in entering and parking in the car park are to that effect. Mr Beavis thereby expressly agreed to stay for two hours maximum […] and to pay the stipulated sum if he failed so to comply.”

ParkingEye ensures that signage is ample, clear and visible, so that it complies with the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice. ParkingEye wish to ensure that the motorist is bound when they enter and remain at a site, so that all users of the site are obliged to comply with the terms.

Within your correspondence, you have questioned the ANPR equipment used by ParkingEye. ParkingEye’s Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) cameras and software are fully compliant with the British Parking Association Code of Practice. We ensure that the cameras are checked regularly by both automated routines and Technical Support Engineers to ensure that they are in good working order, and that they are producing accurate data.

There is no evidence to suggest that a Parking Charge has been issued incorrectly and ParkingEye goes to great lengths to ensure that all Parking Charges are issued correctly. The data taken from the Automatic Number Plate Recognition cameras is sent to ParkingEye, where it undergoes a checking process of up to 19 stages. This ensures that no errors have been made. There are various other procedures in place to ensure that Parking Charges are issued correctly and there is no reason to believe that an error has occurred in this case.

In respect of the Notice to Keeper issued on 15/11/2018, Schedule 4 of POFA 2012 states:

s.2(a) In the case of the Keeper, an address which is either—
(i) an address at which documents relating to civil proceedings could properly be served on the person concerned under Civil Procedure Rules; or
(ii) the Keeper’s Registered address (if there is one);

(b) “Keeper” means the person by whom the vehicle is kept at the time the vehicle was parked, which in the case of a Registered vehicle is to be presumed, unless the contrary is proved, to be the Registered Keeper;

s.9(4) The notice must be given by—
(a) handing it to the Keeper, or leaving it at a current address for service for the Keeper, within the relevant period; or
(b) sending it by post to a current address for service for the Keeper so that it is delivered to that address within the relevant period.

s.9(6) A notice sent by post is to be presumed, unless the contrary is proved, to have been delivered (and so “given” for the purposes of sub-paragraph (4)) on the second working day after the day on which it is posted; and for this purpose “working day” means any day other than a Saturday, Sunday or a public holiday in England and Wales.”

We can confirm £100 remains outstanding.

ParkingEye is prepared to take legal action if necessary and should court proceedings be issued, further costs will be incurred. These will include, but are not limited to, the court claim issue fee and the solicitor’s
costs.

Yours sincerely, ParkingEye Enforcement Team

tboo

0777mxs wrote: »

Having read all the threads, if anyone can help with a reply, this would be appreciated

I'll help.

Start your own thread please, this thread is nearly a year old.

1 click back.

click on.

0777mxs

Thanks Tboo,
I have tried to start my own thread, however I'm unable and have error message from site. Not very PC literate and unsure how to proceed.
Are you able to help? maybe a private email?

Coupon-mad

You can't email people away off forum.

You cannot be getting an error message unless it's your browser at fault - you will have to try another browser (certainly no using a phone).

0777mxs

I’ve managed to start a new thread, thanks