Coventry Health Centre Parking Eye LBC

teggy

Hi all

My wife parked at the City of Coventry Health Centre but as she was late and had no change she did not pay for her parking. She received PCN’s from Parking Eye but these were ignored by her. Then she received a LBCCA which I saw. I sent a reply stating that the LBCCA was not compliant with the PAPDC. Parking Eye have sent a letter back stating that it is compliant, with details of the signage and pictures of my wifes car going in and out of the car park.

I am now unsure how to reply to this. I can see that they have not complied with all the obligations of the PAPDC. Do I keep referring them to this? Is it too late to request a POPLA?

Umkomaas

Far too late for POPLA. You could continue with ping-pong correspondence about anything missing, but if what is missing is of little or no consequence to a potential defence, then why string it out. It won't stop PE from issuing proceedings.

Is your wife the vehicle's registered keeper?

teggy

I was hoping that with a bit of ping-pong they might give up! Does that not happen anymore?

There is nothing in their reply regarding contractual breach. I thought this would be a good part of a defense. As this is not included is it worth a reply mentioning this?

Yes, my wife is the registered keeper

Umkomaas

PE don't give up easily. A bit of ping-pong will not deter them.

PE have 'contractual breach' pretty much sewn up after winning on that basis at The Supreme Court against Barry Beavis. What does the original NtK say about the actual 'infringement' and why they are pursuing it?

If you've got your head fully around contract law to be able to articulate that in a defence (please note correct spelling) then show us where you believe the 'holes' are in PE's case. You are aware that any court case will need to be defended by your wife, including attendance in person, although you could act as her 'Lay Representative' - Google it, and check out McKenzie Friend while you're at it to understand the different layers of assistance that can be provided.

teggy

I didn't realise the 'Beavis' case meant that 'contractual breach' was not longer usable.
There is a part of the NtK titled 'Parking Charge Information' and the last paragraph is 'By either not purchasing the appropriate parking time or by remaining at the car park for longer than permitted, in accordance with the terms and conditions set out in the signage, the Parking Charge is now payable to ParkingEye Ltd (as the creditor).

My wife won't want to go to court. That's why I was hoping they would be put off by a few letters!

Quentin

Realistically if she won't do court and cannot be persuaded to, then she has little alternative but pay the claim

teggy

Yes, I could see that paying up was the way that this was going.
Are they open to offers at this point or will they only take the full amount? I may make an offer and see what they reply to that

Thank you for all your helpful replies

Umkomaas

Just check the NtK is PoFA compliant. Does it have a Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 warning on the reverse side of the Notice which include the words 'If after 29 days .....'?

If it doesn't this might be a somewhat different ball game. But if not, Quentin's advice is an option to consider. At the moment I guess PE are asking for £100? If they issue a formal court claim, they need to pay £25 filing fee (so that will be added), plus their standard £50 charge for 'Legal Costs', taking the total to £175.

If the case actually goes to court, there's a further £25 filing fee, and if it is lost, that's a total of £200.

You could try to negotiate, they've settled before for around £50/£60.

You just need to be aware of and weigh up all the issues here.

teggy

Yes, the NtK does include 'If after 29 days...'

It's still at the £70 charge so not as high as it could be!

Umkomaas

teggy wrote: »

Yes, the NtK does include 'If after 29 days...'

It's still at the £70 charge so not as high as it could be!

So looks like they've got Keeper Liability sewn up.

Even though it's £70, all the other 'add-ons' I've listed will still be at those levels.

KeithP

Court might not be too terrifying.

Have a look at this video:

www.youtube.com/watch?v=n93eoaxhzpU