Taken to Small Claims Court by ParkingEye

Alex_Knight

Hi Coupon-mad, many thanks. New version below..


In The County Court Business Centre

Claim No. XXXXXX

Claimant ParkingEye Ltd

Defendant XXX

Defence

I am XXXX, the defendant in this matter of alleged parking infringement at Lee Valley Hockey & Tennis Centre and I assert that the claimant has no cause for action for the following reasons.

1. Proceedings are issued in connection with a parking event on 15.8.2017 date at Lee Valley Hockey & Tennis Centre. The defendant, whilst not a regular visitor to the sports facilities at Lee Valley Hockey & Tennis Centre never visited on the date pleaded in the PoC.

2. It is denied that the vehicle was parked at the material location on the only date stated in the Particulars of Claim (15.8.2017) and the Claimant is put to strict proof.

3. Prior to parking at Lee Valley Hockey & Tennis Centre the defendant had parked at this venue before and the parking was free for users participating in either Hockey or Tennis at the centre.

The claimant states !!!8220;The signage, which is clearly displayed at the entrance and throughout the site, states this is private land, is managed by ParkingEye, and is a paid parking site. However, On the material date, there was no 'keypad' anywhere on view inside the Lee Valley Hockey and Tennis Centre, that none of the Defendant's family saw such a machine at all, nor was it drawn to their attention at Reception. Therefore, the Claimant is put to strict proof about the transparency and prominence of the iPad/keypad that visitors coming to play sport would otherwise simply not see, unless it was a condition of entry past Reception, which it was not.

4. The defence has supplied supporting evidence by the Lee Valley Hockey & Tennis Centre. The Duty Manager has given in writing that,

!!!8220;I can confirm that you are a valued user of our facility. I can also confirm that you were here on that day legitimately assisting with the playing and officiating of our scheduled hockey programme. You had every reason to be here that evening and for an extended period. It is not our intention that our regular users should be fined for parking and I hope that you are successful in your appeal!!!!!!8221;

5. The defendant was on site legitimately and has provided the supporting evidence supplied by the Management at the Lee Valley Hockey & Tennis Centre to the claimant and to the POPLA appeal. There are therefore no grounds for the claim that the defendant parked without purchasing a valid parking ticket.

6. The claimant clearly relies on contract law, but does not do enough to make clear what the terms and conditions of the contract are, making it far too easy for people to unwittingly fall outside the terms of the contract. It is the claimants responsibility to ensure that the terms and conditions are prominently displayed around the site. Lord Dennings Red hand rule and contrary to the requirements of the Consumer Rights Act 2015, and in agreement to the parking charge there was no agreement to pay additional sums, which in any case are unsupported by the Beavis case and unsupported for cases on the small claims track.

I would assert that under the principle of Contra Proferentem [FONT=&quot]and the Consumer Rights Act 2015[/FONT], any ambiguity in the term of a contract must be read in the manner most beneficial to the consumer.

The claimants legal representative XXX XXXX is the claimants in-house solicitor. The charge of £50 for these solicitor fees is not supportable. In 2014 the claimant filed over 30,000 claims which would represent a total of £1,500,000 in solicitor filing costs. It is difficult to see how the claimant can justify this amount: XXX XXX would have to file one claim every 4 minutes every day for an 8 hour working day, without a break. I believe that the claimants filings are almost completely automated and there is no evidence of any wet or otherwise signature on the claim form just a typed name.

9. The defendant believes the terms for such conduct are Robo Claims which is against the public interest and demonstrates a disregard for the dignity of the court and is unfair towards unrepresented consumers. The defendant believes that this is a claim that will proceed without any facts or evidence until the last possible minutes to their significant detriment as an unrepresented defendant. The defendant respectfully suggests that parking companies such as the claimant are using the small claims track as a form of aggressive, automated debt collection and the defendant believes that this is not something that the courts should be seen to support.

10. Non-disclosure of reasonable grounds or particulars for bringing a claim. The claimant is not the lawful owner-occupiers of the land or the landowner and is merely an agent acting on behalf of the landowner and has failed to demonstrate their legal standing to form a contract. The claimant suffers no loss whatsoever as a result of the vehicle in question being parked at the site. The particulars of claim are deficient in establishing whether the claim is brought in trespass. If the driver on the date of the event was considered a trespasser if not allowed to park there free of charge, then only the landowner can pursue a case under the tort of trespass not the claimant. As the Supreme Court in the Beavis V Parking Eye (2015) UK SC 67 case confirmed such a matter would be limited to the landowner themselves for a nominal sum.

11. The defendant denies the claim in its entirety voiding any liability to the claimant for all amounts due to the aforementioned reasons. It is submitted that the conduct of the claimant is wholly unreasonable and vexatious.

I believe that the facts stated in this defence are true.

Coupon-mad

I would just change the quote from the NTK:

The claimant states ''The signage, which is clearly displayed at the entrance and throughout the site, states this is private land, is managed by ParkingEye, and is a paid parking site.'' However,

I would be saying:

The claimant states ''The signage [...] is clearly displayed at the entrance and throughout the site'' and on the back of the PCN they suggest in complicated wording that the driver 'failed' to ''input their VRN''. However,

Alex_Knight

Hi. Many thanks really appreciate your help! Is this good to go please?


In The County Court Business Centre

Claim No. XXXXXX

Claimant ParkingEye Ltd

Defendant XXX

Defence

I am XXXX, the defendant in this matter of alleged parking infringement at Lee Valley Hockey & Tennis Centre and I assert that the claimant has no cause for action for the following reasons.

1. Proceedings are issued in connection with a parking event on 15.8.2017 date at Lee Valley Hockey & Tennis Centre. The defendant, whilst not a regular visitor to the sports facilities at Lee Valley Hockey & Tennis Centre never visited on the date pleaded in the PoC.

2. It is denied that the vehicle was parked at the material location on the only date stated in the Particulars of Claim (15.8.2017) and the Claimant is put to strict proof.

3. Prior to parking at Lee Valley Hockey & Tennis Centre the defendant had parked at this venue before and the parking was free for users participating in either Hockey or Tennis at the centre.

The claimant states “[FONT=&quot]The claimant states ''The signage is clearly displayed at the entrance and throughout the site'' and on the back of the PCN they suggest in complicated wording that the driver 'failed' to ''input their VRN''. However, [/FONT]On the material date, there was no 'keypad' anywhere on view inside the Lee Valley Hockey and Tennis Centre, that none of the Defendant's family saw such a machine at all, nor was it drawn to their attention at Reception. Therefore, the Claimant is put to strict proof about the transparency and prominence of the iPad/keypad that visitors coming to play sport would otherwise simply not see, unless it was a condition of entry past Reception, which it was not.[FONT=&quot][/FONT]

4. The defence has supplied supporting evidence by the Lee Valley Hockey & Tennis Centre. The Duty Manager has given in writing that,

“I can confirm that you are a valued user of our facility. I can also confirm that you were here on that day legitimately assisting with the playing and officiating of our scheduled hockey programme. You had every reason to be here that evening and for an extended period. It is not our intention that our regular users should be fined for parking and I hope that you are successful in your appeal!!!”

5. The defendant was on site legitimately and has provided the supporting evidence supplied by the Management at the Lee Valley Hockey & Tennis Centre to the claimant and to the POPLA appeal. There are therefore no grounds for the claim that the defendant parked without purchasing a valid parking ticket.

6. The claimant clearly relies on contract law, but does not do enough to make clear what the terms and conditions of the contract are, making it far too easy for people to unwittingly fall outside the terms of the contract. It is the claimants responsibility to ensure that the terms and conditions are prominently displayed around the site. Lord Dennings Red hand rule and contrary to the requirements of the Consumer Rights Act 2015, and in agreement to the parking charge there was no agreement to pay additional sums, which in any case are unsupported by the Beavis case and unsupported for cases on the small claims track.

I would assert that under the principle of Contra Proferentem [FONT=&quot]and the Consumer Rights Act 2015[/FONT], any ambiguity in the term of a contract must be read in the manner most beneficial to the consumer.

The claimants legal representative XXX XXXX is the claimants in-house solicitor. The charge of £50 for these solicitor fees is not supportable. In 2014 the claimant filed over 30,000 claims which would represent a total of £1,500,000 in solicitor filing costs. It is difficult to see how the claimant can justify this amount: XXX XXX would have to file one claim every 4 minutes every day for an 8 hour working day, without a break. I believe that the claimants filings are almost completely automated and there is no evidence of any wet or otherwise signature on the claim form just a typed name.

9. The defendant believes the terms for such conduct are Robo Claims which is against the public interest and demonstrates a disregard for the dignity of the court and is unfair towards unrepresented consumers. The defendant believes that this is a claim that will proceed without any facts or evidence until the last possible minutes to their significant detriment as an unrepresented defendant. The defendant respectfully suggests that parking companies such as the claimant are using the small claims track as a form of aggressive, automated debt collection and the defendant believes that this is not something that the courts should be seen to support.

10. Non-disclosure of reasonable grounds or particulars for bringing a claim. The claimant is not the lawful owner-occupiers of the land or the landowner and is merely an agent acting on behalf of the landowner and has failed to demonstrate their legal standing to form a contract. The claimant suffers no loss whatsoever as a result of the vehicle in question being parked at the site. The particulars of claim are deficient in establishing whether the claim is brought in trespass. If the driver on the date of the event was considered a trespasser if not allowed to park there free of charge, then only the landowner can pursue a case under the tort of trespass not the claimant. As the Supreme Court in the Beavis V Parking Eye (2015) UK SC 67 case confirmed such a matter would be limited to the landowner themselves for a nominal sum.

11. The defendant denies the claim in its entirety voiding any liability to the claimant for all amounts due to the aforementioned reasons. It is submitted that the conduct of the claimant is wholly unreasonable and vexatious.

I believe that the facts stated in this defence are true.

Coupon-mad

You have

The claimant states ''The claimant states

(so good you said it twice?!). It needs to be numbered 3.1.

Just remembered - you should also read the example ParkingEye defence already linked in the NEWBIES thread which is about a hidden iPad at an Odeon Hotel site. Very similar!

I'd like to see something about the two data streams (ANPR and hidden keypad) conflicting, and that example has an end section all about how this breaches the ICO rules for surveillance cameras and is excessive and unfair use of data processing (especially if it was dark outside on arrival too?).

Alex_Knight

Hi. I dont understand what you mean about this bit


"I'd like to see something about the two data streams (ANPR and hidden keypad) conflicting, and that example has an end section all about how this breaches the ICO rules for surveillance cameras and is excessive and unfair use of data processing (especially if it was dark outside on arrival too?)."


It was light but for sure I was able to walk straight through the building and did not have to pass anything like a turnstile or narrowing with well determined signs that would have pulled my attention to a key pad

Coupon-mad

It is arguably excessive to use two different 'data streams' especially if both are not clear and prominent. One 'data processing stream' is the ANPR system images, showing in and out photos, then the other is a hidden iPad that no-one knows is there (if it even was!) and between those data streams, PE use them against consumers.

Rather than using a token system that works, and doesn't involve processing personal data at all so is less intrusive and not 'surveillance' (a number-plate is personal data, the ICO said so).

Read these:

http://www.britishparking.co.uk/News/excessive-use-of-anpr-cameras-for-enforcement

and the ICO CoP referred to in the ParkingEye defence I told you to go and copy from:

https://ico.org.uk/media/for-organisations/documents/1542/cctv-code-of-practice.pdf

''This code also covers the use of camera related surveillance equipment
including: Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR); This code of practice covers a wider area than the POFA code. This is because the DPA is applicable to all organisations that process personal data across the whole of the UK and has the same effect across all sectors.

One of the key differences is that the private sector is required to
follow this code to meet its legal obligations under the DPA. Any
organisation using cameras to process personal data should follow the
recommendations of this code.''

You will find the surveillance camera CoP requires a service provider processing such data to jump through certain hoops, and that's why the ParkingEye Odeon/iPad defence example in the NEWBIES thread lists some omissions. The PPC must evaluate regularly whether a less intrusive data processing system would be possible (and you know it would because the old token system was OK!). There is no way PE do these evaluations, IMHO.

It would take a rare Judge to take an interest I expect, but the ICO CoP is a legal duty, and compliance with ICO rules are also a BPA requirement. So I think it's worth worrying the likes of PE with it and putting them to proof of their justification for such a data intrusive 'big brother' system, which the ICO CoP is meant to curb.

Alex_Knight

Hi all Im really struggling to get the time to understand exacty which parts are applicable to my case and with two jobs and four kids Im also struggling to get the time to do it as well. If I go with my last posted defence do I still stand a chance of winning or do I need to understand and add the new parts of my defence kindly suggested by Coupon Mad?


Many kind thanks

Coupon-mad

Why not just add that the Claimant has failed to adhere to the Information Commissioner's Code of Practice for Surveillance cameras, as their ANPR images are taken, 24/7, even when no signs can be read in the dark and there is no commercial justification for this excessive data processing which does not represent a transparent regime, entraps drivers who are genuine patrons and is therefore punitive and unrecoverable.

Or just copy from the Odeon ParkingEye defence, from the NEWBIES thread, because the stuff about the ICO CoP isn't rocket science and has already been written before in similar cases.

P.S. I too have 4 kids but teenage/older, so I know what it's like as a busy Mum myself!

Alex_Knight

Hi Coupon Mad, I will use the fist paragraph of yours as my last point and go with that


Really, really appreciate all your help and will let you know how it goes


Many kind thanks

alex_knight_2

Hi all. I have received a reply from court and my case is now going down the Small Claims Track.
I have options like Mediation and Settle the case without going to court etc


What do you think I should do please?


Many kind thanks