We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.
This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
IMPORTANT: Please make sure your posts do not contain any personally identifiable information (both your own and that of others). When uploading images, please take care that you have redacted all personal information including number plates, reference numbers and QR codes (which may reveal vehicle information when scanned).
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
barnet hospital - parkingeye court action
Comments
-
Shal4, are you ever going to do your own research?
Yes, some big words are used there. Have you got a dictionary?
Do you have access to Google?
yes... i have everything. all these queries r a result of my research. it is better not to reply if it will not help the other person. last thing i need to do right now is to get into argument or explain my stand.0 -
We need to see you show us a defence to comment on, like everyone else does.
Copy one. Adapt it, show us.
Lots of PE defences here clearly distinguish the defended case from Beavis, no-one is asking you to write it from scratch.
Why not send a SAR to PE by email anyway, takes 2 minutes. You are assuming they captured the car just once in and once out. A dangerous assumption.PRIVATE 'PCN'? DON'T PAY BUT DON'T IGNORE IT (except N.Ireland).
CLICK at the top or bottom of any page where it says:
Home»Motoring»Parking Tickets Fines & Parking - read the NEWBIES THREAD0 -
Coupon-mad wrote: »We need to see you show us a defence to comment on, like everyone else does.
Copy one. Adapt it, show us.
Lots of PE defences here clearly distinguish the defended case from Beavis, no-one is asking you to write it from scratch.
Why not send a SAR to PE by email anyway, takes 2 minutes. You are assuming they captured the car just once in and once out. A dangerous assumption.
i have my final draft ready and will share now.
i will write SAS to parking eye. thanks a lot coupon-mad.0 -
final defence for review:
Background:
Defendant took his 13 year old son to Barnet Hospital for Phototherapy appointment with the nurse. Defendant entered car park and saw that many other cars were waiting to get a vacant parking bay to park car. Defendant too waited in the car park hoping to eventually find a vacant parking bay to park car and visit the hospital dermatology nurse. Defendant desperately waited inside the car along with his son but when in 46 minutes no parking bay became available, then rushed out of the car park to avoid losing the hospital appointment slot. Defendant then found a parking bay in a street and ran with his son to visit hospital nurse. Defendant did not leave car or get any parking bay to park so there was no contract formed to pay to land owner of car park or claimant.
Defence:
1. signage does not talk about grace period so waiting or grace period does not form part of contract with driver
2. signage does not mention any contract for waiting so waiting does not form terms and conditions or contract.
3. parking charge - as mentioned in signage is for parking and since no parking took place for lack of space, no contract formed or got violated so this charge is unlawful
4. PE has violated consumer contract regulations: consumer-contract-regulations-2013
In this case, a parking charge for breach of the terms and conditions (i.e. the charges of £100) would be.
The signage at this location fails to create any contractual liability due to the failure to comply with the provisions of the Consumer Contracts (Information, Cancellation and Additional Charges) Regulations 2013. The purported contract created by the signage is a distance contract; as defined in section 5 of the Regulations, and is therefore subject to the mandatory requirements set out in section 13, relating to the statutory information which must be provided by the trader.
The Regulations state, at 13(1)(a), that the information listed in Schedule 2 must be given or made available to the consumer in a clear and comprehensible manner. The Claimant!!!8217;s notice fails to comply with various clauses of Schedule 2, as follows:
2(c) Requirement to provide a geographical address. The Claimant!!!8217;s address is given as a PO Box number.
2(k) Requirement to provide a complaint handling policy. This is not described on the signage.
2(o) Requirement to provide information about the right to cancel, or to state that there is no right to cancel. This is not stated on the signage.
2(r) Requirement to provide information about Codes of Conduct. This does not appear on the signage.
2(x) Requirement for access to an Alternative Dispute Resolution mechanism. Not indicated by the signage.]
5. Claimant has failed to provide any evidence that Defendant parked in the parking area. The APNR images showing the time car entered and exited car park do not prove if i parked so this parking penalty is unlawful.
6. The signage has very small letters and cannot be read unless driver comes out of the car. Without getting opportunity to park the car, it is not possible to read the signage so no contact can be formed until car was parked and since in this case car was not parked, no contract was formed.
7. 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;
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 Creditor; 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'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.
Due to these significant breaches of the Regulations, it is submitted that Defendant cannot be held contractually liable, according to the wording of the Regulations at 13 (1) Before the consumer is bound by a distance contract, the trader must ...
8. Defendant is yet to have knowledge of all documents provided to the court in support of the application, despite sending an email request to the claimant's website contact form in first week of June.
9. In the pre court stage the Claimant refused to provide defendant with the necessary information requested in order for defence by Defendant against the alleged debt.
They did not send following to defendant:
9a. evidence that the occupants of car left the car.
9b. the car was parked in the Private Eye Car Park
9c. there was any vacant parking bay during the time of alleged use of car park.
10. no parking space was provided by claimant and no service was used by defendant so no contract applies in this case.
11. The Claimant has at no time provided an explanation how the parking charge has been calculated, the conduct that gave rise to it or how the amount has escalated from £60 to £100. This appears to be an added cost with apparently no qualification and an attempt at double recovery, which the POFA Schedule 4 specifically disallows.
11.1. 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.
11.2. The driver did not enter into any 'agreement on the charge', no consideration flowed between the parties and no contract was established.
11.2.1. 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.
Accordingly, it is denied that the Claimant has authority to bring this claim. The proper Claimant (if any debt exists, which is denied) would be the landowner. Strict proof is required that there is a chain of contracts leading from the landowner to Parking Eye and no proof has been provided.
12. below case was exactly as mine, with same Claimant and defendant had only waited in car park, and judge rejected the claim.
court case transcript #CS018
http://www.parking-prankster.com/case-law.html
13. Claimant has failed to provide following details in the claim:
a) Full particulars of the parking charges
b) Who the party was that contracted with Claimant
c) The full legal identity of the landowner
d) A full copy of the contract with the landholder that demonstrated that Claimant had their authority.
e) If the charges were based on damages for breach of contract and if so to provide justification of this sum.
The Defendant asks that the court orders Further and Better Particulars of Claim and asks leave to amend the Defence.
14. the claimant is not trading responsibly and has clearly failed to secure its parking area by allowing every car to enter its premises - irrespective of whether any parking bay is vacant or not. Claimant should be forced to put barriers in its parking are and allow a car inside only if there is a vacant parking bay. the parking contract is frustrated as soon as claimant allows a car inside when no parking bay is available.
15. I suggest that parking companies using the small claims track as a form of aggressive, automated debt collection is not something the courts should be seen to support.
16. This case can be easily distinguished from ParkingEye v Beavis which the Judges held was 'entirely different' from most ordinary economic contract disputes.
Charges cannot exist merely to punish drivers. This claimant has failed to show any comparable 'legitimate interest' to save their charge from Lord Dunedin's four tests for a penalty, which the Supreme Court Judges found was still adequate in less complex cases, such as this allegation.
17. It is denied that there was any 'relevant obligation' or 'relevant contract' relating to any single parking event.
18. It is denied that the signs used by this claimant can have created a fair or transparent contract with a driver in any event. The signs were insufficient in terms of their distribution, wording and lighting hence incapable of binding the driver, which distinguishes this case from the Beavis case:
a) Sporadic and illegible (charge not prominent nor large lettering) site/entrance signage - breach of the BPA Code of Practice and no contract formed to pay any clearly stated sum.
b) The signs are believed to have no mention of any debt collection additional charge, which cannot form part of any alleged contract.
c) 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 Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999.
d) No promise was made by the driver that could constitute consideration because there was no offer made nor accepted. No consideration flowed from the Claimant.
e) Absent the elements of a contract, there can be no breach of contract.
19. The defendant denies the claim in its entirety voiding any liability to the claimant for all amounts claimed due to the aforementioned reasons.
It is submitted that the conduct of the Claimant is wholly unreasonable and vexatious.
As such, I am keeping a note of my wasted time/costs in dealing with this matter.
20. I request the court strike out this claim for the reasons stated above, and for similar reasons cited by District Judge Hayes County Court on 17
th March 2014 Case No: 3JD08399 where a similar claim by the Claimant failed, as the Defendent was not parked (she only waited in car park like Defendent in this case) and therefore Claimant could not prove that any parking took place.
http://www.parking-prankster.com/case-law.html
Statement of Truth: I confirm that the contents of this statement are true to the best of my knowledge and belief.
Signature and Date0 -
thanks for your advice. i did email mr mustard but he told me he only works on council parking tickets and not of private companies.0
-
Evening all.
This site is full of some brilliant advise by some very knowledgeable people who are willing to help which is great!
Quick question, we have a Barnet Hospital PCN I guess we stupidly assumed as a Sunday didn't need to pay. The wife had her Appt, I didn't get out car but was parked in a space.
1) if I ignore the Parking Eye notice can they pursue the registered keeper?
2) If I didn't get out the car, turn engine off etc is this still 'Parked'??
Thankyou.0 -
1. Yes
2. Yes
3. Read the NEWBIES FAQ sticky, post #1, then start your own thread if you need further help.Please note, we are not a legal advice forum. I personally don't get involved in critiquing court case Defences/Witness Statements, so unable to help on that front. Please don't ask. .
I provide only my personal opinion, it is not a legal opinion, it is simply a personal one. I am not a lawyer.
Give a man a fish, and you feed him for a day; show him how to catch fish, and you feed him for a lifetime.Private Parking Firms - Killing the High Street0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply

Categories
- All Categories
- 352K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.5K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 454.2K Spending & Discounts
- 245K Work, Benefits & Business
- 600.6K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177.4K Life & Family
- 258.8K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.2K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.6K Read-Only Boards