Parking eye court case

Varnaman

I would be grateful if anyone could assist me in my court case v Parking Eye next week.

I used the skeleton argument from The Parking Prankster .

http://www.parking-prankster.com/sample-defence.html


I am the RK but not the driver who overstayed in a retail park in Maidstone using ANPR, the court case is next week, the driver involved is NOT English but the main user of the car.

BMPA suggested If the driver's first language is not English you can run the defence of there being no contract as it takes understanding to agree terms. A language barrier could stop a contract being form so that there was no breach of contract and nothing payable by you as Keeper.

Has anyone successfully run this defence?

All Help Gratefully received!

Thanks

bargepole

Varnaman wrote: »

I used the skeleton argument from The Parking Prankster .
http://www.parking-prankster.com/sample-defence.html

Oh dear. That was written over 2 years ago, before the ruling in Beavis from the Supreme Court.

Main points:

i. The Unfair Terms in Consumer Contract Regulations 1999 applies
ii. The signage does not offer a contract with the motorist
iii. The Consumer Contracts (Information, Cancellation and Additional Charges) Regulations 2013 applies
iv. The Claimant has no standing to bring a case
v. The charge is not a genuine pre-estimate of loss and is therefore an unenforceable penalty

i. Not applicable, as ruled by 6 to 1 by the UKSC Judges
ii. If the signage is clear and prominent, yes it does.
iii. This argument has been rejected by almost all Judges
iv. If their landowner contract authorises them to pursue debts via court, they do have standing.
v. This was the whole point of the Beavis case. They don't have to prove any loss, the charges are enforceable if there is a legitimate interest in deterrence of breaching the terms.

Quentin

If your hearing is next week it's too late for adding to the defence you already submitted

Read up on Court process in the Newbies FAQ thread near the top of the forum (#2)

Varnaman

Many thanks for your reply,

On the basis of what you have said, Would the fact the Driver is not English and did not understand any idea of contract stand up in court?

Umkomaas

Varnaman wrote: »

Many thanks for your reply,

On the basis of what you have said, Would the fact the Driver is not English and did not understand any idea of contract stand up in court?

Is the driver being pursued, or the keeper? If it's the latter, you've got little or no chance with the argument. If it's the former, well it's one line of defence. Never previously seen this used previously.

Quentin

Varnaman wrote: »

Many thanks for your reply,

On the basis of what you have said, Would the fact the Driver is not English and did not understand any idea of contract stand up in court?

You are being pursued as the keeper!!

So this defence is irrelevant!!

The_Deep

I cannot see how such an argument would hold. If it did, then surely speed limits would not apply, no entry signs, no smoking signs, etc., etc., etc.

This is an entirely unregulated industry which is scamming the public with inflated claims for minor breaches of contracts for alleged parking offences, aided and abetted by a handful of low-rent solicitors.

Parking Eye, CPM, Smart, and another company have already been named and shamed, as has Gladstones Solicitors, and BW Legal, (these two law firms take hundreds of these cases to court each year). They lose most of them, and have been reported to the regulatory authority by an M.P. for unprofessional conduct

Hospital car parks and residential complex tickets have been especially mentioned.

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.

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

and complain in the most robust terms to your MP. With a fair wind they will be out of business by Christmas.

Varnaman

So on that basis should I settle before I go to court?

Varnaman

Parking Eye responded on the last date allowed by the court, the 27th March, so when I received their correspondence there were no longer 14 days to reply with my defence.

I have just been to the site with the "Site Overview" supplied by PE, I have noticed that since the pictures were taken in August 2015 there are Two signs missing? Is this relevant for any defence?

nosferatu1001

You have ALREADY SENT IN YOUR DEFENCE

What you have to do now is send ion your WITNESS STATEMENT. A statement of facts
If you can show in your WS that the site plan is wrong, then it helps with a suggestion of inadequate signage.

Coupon-mad

Varnaman wrote: »

Parking Eye responded on the last date allowed by the court, the 27th March, so when I received their correspondence there were no longer 14 days to reply with my defence.

I have just been to the site with the "Site Overview" supplied by PE, I have noticed that since the pictures were taken in August 2015 there are Two signs missing? Is this relevant for any defence?

GET THE WS AND EVIDENCE IN NOW, ANYWAY.

WHY DID YOU WAIT? YOU HAD THE SAME DEADLINE THEY DID!

THEY MET IT.

YOU DIDN'T, BUT THAT DOESN'T MEAN YOU CAN'T BE BOTHERED AND CAN LEAVE IT COMPLETELY!

Re the signs, yes - with that outdated defence, signage is your only hope, IMHO.

We assume when you went to the site you took photos to file with your WS as evidence on Monday morning, in person, at the court?

And make sure you email your signed WS and evidence to PE as well:

enforcement@parkingeye.co.uk

...with the Claim Number in the subject line and 'WITNESS STATEMENT/EVIDENCE'

Good luck, you will need it now.