ParkingEye Claim Form Received

Coupon-mad

Yep that's fine, email it to:

enforcement@parkingeye.co.uk

Then show us your draft defence and we will assist more.

HTH

Tennessee_Tuxedo

Thanks again, I emailed PE this morning so will await their response.


I'll make a start on drafting the defence towards the end of this week.


Thanks for all your help!

Tennessee_Tuxedo

Hi everyone,

I've put together a draft defence and would be grateful for any feedback.

One thing I wasn't sure on, as GDPR is now in force but the claim occured whilst DPA was in force, does anyone know which I should be referencing?

I was also planning on including the sections on ANPR unlawful conduct/data use that Coupon Mad wrote in another thread but it made my defence too long to submit it as a reply, so I'll add it in later.


Failure to comply with the previously applicable Practice Direction !!!8211; 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)

1. The Claimant has not complied with the pre-court protocol (as outlined in the new Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims, 1 October 2017) and as an example as to why this prevents a full defence being filed at this time, a parking charge can be for trespass, breach of contract, or a contractual charge. Each of these actions are treated differently in law and require a different defence. By failing to adequately explain on what grounds action is being sought the Claimant has prevented a full defence from being produced.
2. No Letter before Claim has been received by the Defendant, the first notification of any action by the Claimant was the receipt of a County Court Claim Form by the Defendant.
3. A copy of the contract under which the alleged breach has occurred has not been supplied by the Claimant, as the wording of such a contract will be a key element in this matter a full defence cannot be completed until a copy of the contract is provided.
4. The claim form particulars were extremely sparse and divulged no cause of action nor sufficient detail. The Defendant has been provided with no detail of the claim, why the charge arose or what the alleged contract was.
5. The claim form did not provide any evidence of the alleged breach, nor any photographs or images which prove the alleged !!!8216;overstay!!!8217;, despite the Claimant indicating that such images had been captured by their ANPR system.
6. The Letter Before Claim and documents supporting the claim should have been produced, pursuant to paragraph 6 of the Practice Direction; Pre-Action Conduct and failure to do so constitutes a deliberate attempt to prevent the claim being defended, or to understand the claim, pursuant to paragraph 12 of the Practice Direction. This contradicts the guidance outlined in the new Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims (2017), the aims of which are:
   • Early engagement and communication between the parties, including early exchange of sufficient information about the matter to help clarify whether there are any issues in dispute.
   • Enable the parties to resolve the matter without the need to start court proceedings, including agreeing a reasonable repayment plan or considering using an Alternative Dispute Resolution Procedure.
   • Encourage Parties to act in a reasonable and proportionate manner in all dealings with one another (for example avoiding running up costs which do not bear a reasonable relationship to the sums in issue) and
   • Support the efficient management of proceedings that cannot be avoide
7. The Defendant submits that he was not afforded any method to appeal, nor any information about complaints procedures, to the landowner. This omission prevented the Defendant from being able to appeal to the Retailer and/or Landowner and also prevented the Defendant from being able to lodge an appeal with POPLA. If these options had been made available, the Defendant would have undertaken them.
8. On DATE and DATE the Defendant contacted ParkingEye to attempt establish details of the claim and requested the following:
   • An explanation of the cause of action.
   • Confirmation of whether ParkingEye intended to pursue the Defendant as driver or keeper.
   • Confirmation that ParkingEye were relying on the provisions of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012.
   • What the details of the claim are (where it is claimed the car was parked, for how long, how the monies being claimed arose and have been calculated, what contractual breach (if any) is being claimed).
   • A copy of the contract with the landowner under which ParkingEye assert authority to bring the claim.
   • A copy of any alleged contract with the driver.
   • A plan showing where any signs were displayed.
   • Details of the signs displayed (size of sign, size of font, height at which displayed).
   • Details of whether ParkingEye added anything on to the original charge and if so, what the additional charge(s) represents and how it has been calculated.

To date the Claimant has failed to respond to these requests for information.

The Defendant therefore asks the Court to strike out the claim as disclosing no cause of action and having no reasonable prospect of success.

Failure to meet the Notice to Keeper obligations of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012

1. The Claimant indicated on their County Court Claim form that they intend to rely on the provisions of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 to transfer liability for the !!!8216;Parking Charge Notice!!!8217; to the registered keeper of vehicle [XX}.
2. A copy of the Parking Charge Notice and evidence that this was correctly served has been requested from ParkingEye on DATE and DATE, however to date the Claimant has not responded to this request.
3. In order to rely on the provisions of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, a Parking Charge Notice must arrive by day 14 after the alleged offence. However, no such notice was provided by ParkingEye, the first notification the Defendant received was the County Claim form, dated [XX], almost five months after the alleged breach.
4. The Claimant is therefore unable to hold the Defendant liable under the strict liability keeper provisions
5. The Claimant did not comply with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 and give the registered keeper the opportunity, at any point, to identify the driver.
6. A Notice to Keeper can be served by ordinary post and the Protection of Freedoms Act requires that for the Notice, to be valid, must be delivered no later than 14 days after the vehicle was parked. No notice was left on the windscreen and no notice to keeper was sent within the 14 days required to comply with Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, the first indication of the alleged incident that the Defendant received was the County Court Claim form, dated [XX] . This would exclude the registered keeper being liable for any charges.
7. Schedule 4 also states that the only sum a keeper can be pursued for (if Schedule 4 is fully complied with, which it was not, and if there was a 'relevant obligation' and relevant contract' fairly and adequately communicated, which there was not) is the sum on the Notice to Keeper. The Claimant cannot add further sums when neither the signs nor the Notice to Keeper mention them. The additional costs, which the defendant contests have not been incurred, are none of its concern.

Data Protection Act and British Parking Association Code of Practice breach

1. The Claimant uses an ANPR camera system to process data but has failed to provide evidence that they comply with the Information Commissioner's 'Data Protection Code of Practice for Surveillance Cameras and Personal Information' (the ICO Code). This is both a specific Data Protection and BPA Code of Practice breach.
2. On DATE and DATE, the Defendant contacted ParkingEye to request the following:
   1. A copy of ParkingEye!!!8217;s Privacy Impact Assessment for the use of ANPR equipment at the I]XX[/I car park
   2. Copies of assessments ParkingEye made, in consultation with it!!!8217;s clients at the [XX] car park, to establish that ANPR being used 24/7 is the least data-intrusive method of enforcement.
      
      To date ParkingEye have failed to respond to these requests.
   
   
3. The ICO Code applies to all ANPR systems, and states that the private sector is required to follow it, in order to meet its legal obligations as a data processor. Members of the BPA are required to comply fully with the Data Protection Act (DPA) and all ICO rules and guidelines, as a pre-requisite of being able to use the DVLA KADOE system and in order to enforce parking charges on private land.
4. The Claimant's failures to comply include, but are not limited to the following, and the Claimant is put to strict proof otherwise on all counts:
5. Lack of an initial privacy impact assessment, and
6. Lack of an evaluation of proportionality and necessity, considering concepts that would impact upon fairness under the first data protection principle, and
7. Failure to regularly evaluate whether it was necessary and proportionate to continue using ANPR at this site, as opposed to a less privacy-intrusive method of parking enforcement (such as 'light touch' enforcement only at busy times, or manning the car park with a warden in order to consider the needs of genuine patrons), and
8. Failure to prominently inform a driver in large lettering on clear signage, of the purpose of the ANPR system and how the data captured on both would be used, and
9. Lack of the 'Privacy Notice' required to deliver mandatory information about an individual's right of subject access, under the DPA. At no point has the Defendant been advised how to apply for, and what a data subject's rights are, to obtain all images and data held via a Subject Access Request from the Claimant.
10. The Claimant has therefore failed to meet its legal obligations and has breached principle 1 (at least) of the DPA, as well as the BPA Code of Practice.

Unclear terms - no agreement to pay a penalty for overstaying the free parking period

1. On [XX], the Defendant was a customer of I]XX][/I], based at the [[I]XX][/I]. The Defendant has a transaction on a bank statement which shows a purchase to the value of £XXX.XX was made in the store and therefore had a legitimate reason for their vehicle to be parked in the [XX[I[/I] car park.
2. This case can be distinguished from ParkingEye v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67 (the Beavis case) which was dependent upon an undenied contract, formed by unusually prominent signage forming a clear offer and which turned on unique facts regarding the location and the interests of the landowner. Strict compliance with the BPA Code of Practice (CoP) was paramount and Mr Beavis was the driver who saw the signs and entered into a contract to pay £85 after exceeding a licence to park free. As far as can be ascertained, based upon the vague particulars of claim and lack of evidence and photographs, and without having been furnished with the alleged signage contract, none of this applies in this material case.
3. In the absence of any proof of adequate signage that contractually bound the Defendant then there can have been no contract and the Claimant has no case.
4. The Claimant is put to strict proof that at the time of the alleged event they had both advertisement consent and the permission from the site owner to display the signs.
5. In the absence of strict proof, the Defendant submits that the Claimant was committing an offence by displaying their signs and therefore no contract could have been entered into between the driver and the Claimant.
6. Inadequate signs incapable of binding the driver, this distinguishes this case from the Beavis case:
   1. Sporadic and illegible (charge not prominent nor large lettering) site/entrance signage - breach of the POFA 2012 Schedule 4 and the BPA Code of Practice and no contract formed to pay any clearly stated sum
   2. It is believed the signage was not lit and any terms were not transparent or legible; this is an unfair contract, not agreed by the driver and contrary to the Consumer Rights Act 2015 in requiring an inflated sum as compensation from by an authorised party using the premises as intended
   3. No promise was made by the driver that could constitute consideration because there was no offer known nor accepted. No consideration flowed from the Claimant
   4. The signs are believed to have no mention of any debt collection additional charge, which cannot form part of any alleged contract.
   5. The signs are believed to have no mention of any debt collection additional charge, which cannot form part of any alleged contract.
7. BPA Code of Practice breaches, this distinguishes this case from the Beavis case:
   1. The signs were not compliant in terms of the font size, lighting or positioning
   2. The sum pursued exceeds £100
   3. There is/was no compliant landowner contract

No locus standi

1. In order to issue and to pursue unpaid charges via litigation, the Claimant is required to have the written authority of the landowner, on whose behalf they are acting as an agent.
2. ParkingEye has taken no steps to provide evidence that such authority has been supplied by the Claimant or their legal representatives, and the Claimant is put to strict proof to provide this evidence.

Unconscionable and unrecoverable inflation of the 'parking charge'

1. In addition to the original parking charge, for which liability is denied, the Claimants have artificially inflated the value of the Claim by adding purported Solicitor's Costs of £50, which the Defendant submits have not actually been incurred by the Claimant.
2. Whilst £50 may be recoverable in an instance where a claimant has used a legal firm to prepare a claim, ParkingEye Ltd have not expended any such sum in this case. This Claimant has a Legal Team with salaried in-house Solicitors and it files hundreds of similar 'cut & paste' claims per month, not incurring any legal cost per case. I put the Claimant to strict proof to the contrary because the in-house Solicitors cannot possibly be believed to be paid in the millions per annum for their services.
3. The added 'legal' cost is in fact an artificially invented figure, which represents a cynical attempt to circumvent the Small Claims costs rules and achieve double recovery. In Beavis, only the parking charge itself (£85) was pursued and the sum was scrutinised by the Supreme Court and held to already include a significant sum in profit; being a pre-set sum dressed up as a fee or charge agreed in contract. This was already significantly over and above the very minimal costs of operating an automated ticketing regime, and it was held that the claim could not have been pleaded as damages, and would have failed.
4. Similarly, in Somerfield a £75 parking charge was not held to be a penalty but a sum mentioned in the harassing letters of double that amount, almost certainly would be.

The Defendant denies the claim in its entirety voiding any liability to the Claimant for all amounts claimed due to the aforementioned reasons. The Court is invited to dismiss the Claim, and to allow such Defendant's costs as are permissible under Civil Procedure Rule 27.14.

I confirm that the facts in this defence are true to the best of my knowledge and belief.

Coupon-mad

GDPR doesn't really have a place in a defence, IMHO. Data Protection generally, and the ICO rules, do, where it's ANPR. But not 'GDPR' per se.

I was also planning on including the sections on ANPR unlawful conduct/data use that Coupon Mad wrote in another thread but it made my defence too long to submit it as a reply, so I'll add it in later.

Do you mean too long for a reply here? You could have added two replies and split it.

When it comes to submitting the signed/date defence it can be any length as it will be a PDF attachment to an email to the CCBCAQ Justice email.

Having said that, the above defence is VERY long and repetitive (TOO LONG) and I'd say half the stuff about the pre-action protocol and half the stuff about signage and half the stuff about the POFA can be cut out. Because it's just repetition!

Also, if you are going to put things like this, then there is no point hiding behind 'no keeper liability' because this places you there in the car park with the vehicle which is half way to assuming you were the driver anyway:

On [XX], the Defendant was a customer of [XX], based at the [XX]. The Defendant has a transaction on a bank statement which shows a purchase to the value of £XXX.XX was made in the store and therefore had a legitimate reason for their vehicle to be parked in the [XX] car park.

So decide now, in court are you going to be ''the keeper who received no letters so cannot be held liable under the POFA? Or the driver, who tells the story of what happened? Or even the keeper/passenger, who can do both but must be honest as to your stance.

Tennessee_Tuxedo

Thanks Coupon Mad, I meant too long to submit here, I didn't think of splitting into two replies. Although as you say, it could definitely benefit from being shorterned.


The keeper/driver part was where I got myself confused if I'm honest! My preference is towards the 'keeper who received no letters' as the lack of information before receiving the County Court Claim is why the situation has got to this point.


With this in mind should I focus the defence on the failure of PE to supply the correct documents/notifications and remove the paragraphs on unclear terms, locus standi and unreasonable charges (i.e the final three sections)?

Tennessee_Tuxedo

I've had another go at drafting the defence and have removed any duplication/repetition. Hopefully this is an improvement on my first attempt but, again, would welcome any feedback.

Background

The Defendant is the registered keeper of vehicle !!!8211; [XX]. The Defendant denies liability for the claim on the following grounds

Failure to comply with the previously applicable Practice Direction !!!8211; 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)

1. The claim form failed to disclose a cause of action, provide sufficient detail of the claim, provide evidence of the alleged breach, or a copy of the contract under which it is alleged the breach occurred. By failing to adequately explain on what grounds action is being sought the Claimant has prevented a full defence from being produced.
2. No compliant Letter before Claim has been received by the Defendant.
3. The Defendant was not afforded any method to appeal, nor provided with any information about complaints procedures to the retailer/landowner. This omission prevented the Defendant from being able to appeal to retailer/landowner and also prevented the Defendant from being able to lodge an appeal with POPLA. If these options had been made available, the Defendant would have undertaken them.
4. On DATE and DATE the Defendant contacted the Claimant to attempt to establish details of the claim, however the Claimant has failed to respond to these requests.
5. The Defendant therefore asks the Court to strike out the claim as disclosing no cause of action and having no reasonable prospect of success

Failure to meet the Notice to Keeper obligations of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012

1. To transfer liability for the !!!8216;Parking Charge Notice!!!8217; to the registered keeper a Notice to Keeper must be served by day 14 after the alleged offence. No such notice was served by the Claimant, and the Claimant failed to respond to requests for a copy of the Notice on DATE and DATE.
2. The Claimant did not comply with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 and give the registered keeper the opportunity, at any point, to identify the driver.
3. The Claimant is therefore unable to hold the Defendant liable under the strict liability keeper provision

Unclear terms

1. This case can be distinguished from ParkingEye v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67 (the Beavis case) which was dependent upon an undenied contract, formed by unusually prominent signage forming a clear offer and which turned on unique facts regarding the location and the interests of the landowner. Strict compliance with the BPA Code of Practice (CoP) was paramount and Mr Beavis was the driver who saw the signs and entered into a contract to pay £85 after exceeding a licence to park free. As far as can be ascertained, based upon the sparse details of the claim, lack of evidence and without having been furnished with the alleged signage contract, none of this applies in this material case.
2. In the absence of any proof of adequate signage that contractually bound the Defendant then there can have been no contract and the Claimant has no case.
3. The Claimant is put to strict proof that at the time of the alleged event they had both advertisement consent and the permission from the site owner to display the signs. In the absence of such proof, the Defendant submits that the Claimant was committing an offence by displaying their signs and therefore no contract could have been entered into

No locus standi

1. In order to issue and to pursue unpaid charges via litigation, the Claimant is required to have the written authority of the landowner, on whose behalf they are acting as an agent. The Claimant has taken no steps to provide evidence that such authority has been supplied and the Claimant is put to strict proof to provide this evidence.

Data Protection Act and British Parking Association Code of Practice breach

1. The Claimant uses an ANPR camera systems to process data but has failed to provide evidence that they comply with the Information Commissioner's 'Data Protection Code of Practice for Surveillance Cameras and Personal Information' (the ICO Code) despite this being requested by the Defendant on DATE and DATE. This is both a specific Data Protection and BPA Code of Practice breach
2. The ICO Code applies to all ANPR systems, and states that the private sector is required to follow it, in order to meet its legal obligations as a data processor. Members of the BPA are required to comply fully with the Data Protection Act (DPA) and all ICO rules and guidelines, as a pre-requisite of being able to use the DVLA KADOE system and in order to enforce parking charges on private land.
3. The Claimant's failures to comply include, but are not limited to the following, and the Claimant is put to strict proof otherwise on all counts:
   
   
   
   1. Lack of an initial privacy impact assessment, and
   2. Lack of an evaluation of proportionality and necessity, considering concepts that would impact upon fairness under the first data protection principle, and
   3. Failure to regularly evaluate whether it was necessary and proportionate to continue using ANPR at this site, as opposed to a less privacy-intrusive method of parking enforcement (such as 'light touch' enforcement only at busy times, or manning the car park with a warden in order to consider the needs of genuine patrons), and
   4. Failure to prominently inform a driver in large lettering on clear signage, of the purpose of the ANPR system and how the data captured on both would be used, and
   5. Lack of the 'Privacy Notice' required to deliver mandatory information about an individual's right of subject access, under the DPA. At no point has the Defendant been advised how to apply for, and what a data subject's rights are, to obtain all images and data held via a Subject Access Request from the Claimant.
4. The Claimant has therefore failed to meet its legal obligations and has breached principle 1 (at least) of the DPA, as well as the BPA Code of Practice.

Unconscionable and unrecoverable inflation of the 'parking charge'

1. In addition to the original parking charge, for which liability is denied, the Claimants have artificially inflated the value of the Claim by adding purported Solicitor's Costs of £50, which the Defendant submits have not actually been incurred by the Claimant.
2. Whilst £50 may be recoverable in an instance where a claimant has used a legal firm to prepare a claim, ParkingEye Ltd have not expended any such sum in this case and the added charge appears to be an attempt at double recovery, circumventing the Small Claims costs rules.

The Defendant denies the claim in its entirety voiding any liability to the claimant for all amounts claimed due to the aforementioned reasons. The Court is invited to dismiss the Claim, and to allow such Defendant's costs as are permissible under Civil Procedure Rule 27.14.

I confirm that the facts in this defence are true to the best of my knowledge and belief.

Coupon-mad

Looks better to me. I would remove this:

The Claimant is put to strict proof that at the time of the alleged event they had both advertisement consent and the permission from the site owner to display the signs. In the absence of such proof, the Defendant submits that the Claimant was committing an offence by displaying their signs and therefore no contract could have been entered into

And we assume you have the usual case-identifying headings above the word DEFENCE at the top.

I would also renumber ALL paragraphs in a straight run, not repeating numbering.

Tennessee_Tuxedo

You assume correct, I have all the case identifying headings etc, I hadn't copied them into my reply for the forum. I've also got each paragraph numbered sequentially but couldn't get the formatting to work when I copied my draft defence to the forum...probably just me being dim!


I'll remove the pargraph you suggest. In addition eould it be worth including the following to add some weight to the DPA paragraph, or would it just be overkill?

• Unlawful conduct/data use and breach of the Consumer Rights Act 2015
  1. In a similar instance of DPA failure by excessive and inappropriate use of ANPR cameras - confirmed on this Claimant's Trade Body (BPA) website in a 2013 article urging its members to comply - Hertfordshire Constabulary was issued with an enforcement notice. The force were ordered to stop processing people's information via ANPR until they could comply. The Information Commissioner ruled that the collection of the information was specifically illegal; breaching principle one of the DPA.
  2. The Court's attention will be drawn to the case of Andre Agassi v S Robinson (HM Inspector of Taxes). Whilst not wholly aligned to the issues in this case, it is on all fours with the above point, because of the principle it extols that no one should profit from their unlawful conduct. Paragraph 20 of the Transcript of that case states: ''It is common ground that, whatever costs may be recoverable by a litigant in respect of professional services such as those provided by Tenon to the appellant, they cannot include the cost of any activities which are unlawful''. Paragraph 28 continues - ''...cannot on any view recover the cost of activities performed by Tenon which it was not lawful for them to perform.''
  3. Further, in RTA (Business Consultants) Limited v Bracewell [2015] EWHC 630 (QB) (12 March 2015), at paragraph 34 the Judge discusses the relevance of the public law principle going back well over 200 years, that no man should profit from his crime; it is submitted that this is particularly relevant in this action. The Judge cited Lord Mansfield CJ to explain that: ''The principle of public policy is this; ex dolo malo non oritur actio. No Court will lend its aid to a man who founds his cause of action upon an immoral or an illegal act. If [...] the cause of action appears to arise ex turpi causa, or the transgression of a positive law of this country, there the Court says he has no right to be assisted. It is upon that ground the Court goes; not for the sake of the defendant, but because they will not lend their aid to such a plaintiff.''
  4. Even if there was a purported contract between the Claimant and the Defendant, it was illegal at its formation because it was incapable of being created without an illegal act (due to non-compliance with the ICO requirements at the outset, before enforcement started using ANPR systems at this site).
  5. Where a contract is illegal when formed, neither party will acquire rights under that contract, regardless of whether or not there was an intention to break the law; the contract will be void and treated as if it had never been entered into. As such, the asserted contract cannot be enforced.
  6. To add weight, the Defendant also cites from ParkingEye Ltd v Somerfield Stores Ltd [2012] EWCA Civ 1338. Whilst the facts of that case differ, due to the arguments between the two commercial parties, the Judge's comments at paragraph 29 of the Transcript of Somerfield are of importance, where he discussed ParkingEye's misleading letters to consumers, whereby they had committed the tort of deceit. : ''At common law, historically, a distinction has been drawn between cases where the guilty party intended from the time of entering the contract unlawfully and cases where the intention to perform unlawfully was only made subsequently''. Laws LJ, in Somerfield, concluded that ParkingEye did not set out to deceive consumers before they signed the contract with Somerfield, so the contract was upheld in that case.
  7. Differently in this case, it is asserted that the Claimant did deliberately or negligently break the DPA. Being a BPA member with access to a wealth of ICO and DVLA-led data compliance information, relevant articles, compliance events and specific parking & DPA related legal advice for members, and given that this Claimant has its own in-house Legal Team and solicitors, it cannot justify nor plead ignorance to excuse their conduct in failing to meet their legal obligations both before enforcement and by way of regular evaluations to avoid just this sort of data abuse.
  8. At paragraphs 65-74 of the Somerfield transcript, Laws LJ set out three factors which need to be considered in a defence of illegality. The Defendant submits that the key issues in this action are that:
     1. the commission of an illegal wrong being present at the time of entering the contract means that the Claimant will not be able to enforce the contract.
     2. the illegality is central to the contract and is not merely a minor aspect, thus it should not be held to be too remote so as to render the contract enforceable.
     3. the nature of the illegality: in this case it was a breach of legal obligations regarding data, and not merely a civil tort as in Somerfield. The gravity of the illegality is therefore far greater.
  9. The Defendant avers that a breach of the DPA and failure to comply with ICO rules regarding data captured by ANPR, also transgresses the tests of fairness and transparency of consumer contracts, as set out in the Consumer Rights Act 2015 (enacted after the final hearing in Beavis and not considered in that case).
  10. The excessive, inappropriate and unjustified use of ANPR by this claimant is both unfair and lacking in transparency for an average consumer and as such, this claim must fail.

The_Deep

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.

Tennessee_Tuxedo

Hi all,


Thanks for your help so far, I'm planning to post the defence today or tomorrow, so just wanted to check whether there was any final feedback or amendments that people would suggest?


One thing I wanted to check, does anyone know what the timeframe is likely to be for receiving and returning the Directions Questionnaire? Myself and my parents are on holiday from 16 June to 23 June so just wanted to check that this wouldn't cause any issues.