Keeper vs Parking Eye CC Claim Stage (MK Central Holiday Inn)

The_Deep

A complaint to your MP may cause them a bit more expence.

This is an entirely unregulated industry which is scamming the public with inflated claims for minor breaches of alleged contracts for alleged parking offences, aided and abetted by a handful of low-rent solicitors. Is has been suggested by an MP that some of these companies may have connections to organised crime.

Parking Eye, CPM, Smart, (especially Smart}, and others have already been named and shamed in the House of Commons as have Gladstones Solicitors, and BW Legal, (these two law firms take hundreds of these cases to court each week), hospital car parks and residential complex tickets have been especially mentioned. They lose most of them, and have been reported to the regulatory authority by an M.P. for unprofessional conduct

The problem become so widespread that MPs agreed to enact a Bill to regulate these scammers. It has cleared Parliament and hopefully, this will become law shortly.

WiltshireD

Ok, understood. It's just that the court changed, from Northampton to one in London, so maybe I had to resubmit the defence?

What of this would be any good for me to include?

(d) a copy of Schedule 4 of the POFA - there is a link to it in post #1 above. The Judge will NOT have this to hand & is unlikely to be familiar with it. This is only applicable if you are defending as keeper.
(e) a copy of Henry Greenslade's wording from the POPLA Annual Report 2015 'Understanding Keeper Liability' if defending as keeper.
(g) the case transcripts that support your argument (get them from the Parking Prankster's case law page), e.g. if arguing prohibitive 'forbidding parking' signs which offer no contract a driver can accept, you need PCM v Bull; if arguing that this is a residential space where the tenant/leaseholder has already been granted (impliedly or explicitly) the right to park or unload you need Jopson v Home Guard (a persuasive Appeal case heard by a Senior Circuit Judge) and PACE v Mr N, etc.
(h) the IPC or BPA Code of practice, where it supports your case (e.g. the grace periods section 13 of the CoP in a BPA few minutes' 'overstay' claim).

As I will not recall being the driver, my witness statement will be kept simple:

In the County Court at XXXXX
Claim No. XXXXXXXX
Between
ParkingEye Ltd (Claimant)
and
WiltshireD (Defendant)

---

Witness Statement

---

1. I am WiltshireD, of [Address], [Postcode], the Defendant in this matter. I will say as follows:

2. I am the Registered Keeper of vehicle [Registration], but do not recall being the driver at the time of the alleged violation.

3. Parking Eye's communications complied with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, and thus in the absence of an appeal, resulted in this claim.

4. I deny that any breach of contract occurred, regardless of who was the driver at the time, for reasons explained in my defence.

5. I have attached, with my statement, further photographic evidence to support the arguments outlined in my defence.

6. I invite the Court to dismiss this claim in its entirety, and to award my costs of attendance at the hearing, such as are allowable pursuant to CPR 27.14.

Statement of Truth

I believe that the facts stated in this Witness Statement are true.

Signature
Date

Coupon-mad

The court never changed. The CCBC was the admin centre, that's all, that issued the claim automatically using MCOL.

It's always then allocated locally to the Defendant if they are an individual.

You write as if you haven't read bargepole's post about what happens when? Please revisit what bargepole tells you in the link I give in the NEWBIES thread, about what to expect and what to do when.

Why would you put this? It supports their side!

Parking Eye's communications complied with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, and thus in the absence of an appeal, resulted in this claim.

That witness statement is telling the Judge nothing that will win you the case. It's far too short, you've said nothing about signage or why the driver could not be considered to have accepted a contract/or contravened a term.

WiltshireD

I gather I don't a need PoFA copy, as this isn't a PoFA relevant case (they complied, so my only quibble would be over their right to claim legal expenses) - but the Popla CoP would be useful to include as my defence mentions it, plus the transcripts of cases mentioned in the defence (how much do I need to copy?).

Here goes with the WS:

In the County Court at XXXXX
Claim No. XXXXXXXX
Between
ParkingEye Ltd (Claimant)
and
WiltshireD (Defendant)

---

Witness Statement

---

1. I am WiltshireD, of [Address], [Postcode], the Defendant in this matter. I will say as follows:

2. I am the Registered Keeper of vehicle [Registration], but do not recall being the driver at the time of the alleged violation.

3. The allegation appears to be based on images by ParkingEye's ANPR camera at the entrance and exit to the car park. This is merely an image of the vehicle in transit, entering and leaving the car park in question and is not evidence of a registered keeper 'not purchasing the appropriate parking time' or of the driver not being a patron of the MK Central Holiday Inn.

4. Given the time and nature of the alleged violation (which present no rational motive for a violation), I do believe Parking Eye's data collection to be excessive and intrusive and in violation of the GDPR and relevant regulations.

5. I also deny that any breach of contract occurred, regardless of who was the driver at the time, for reasons explained in my defence and outlined here. The absence of any rational motive for violating a contract (a free to use and physically conjoined council car park) is evidence that in any event, none were likely to have been considered or formed.

6. I do not agree that the claimant's signage sets out the terms in a sufficiently clear manner which would be capable of binding any reasonable person reading them. The signage at the site in question is inadequate when compared to the signage in Beavis' case, and poorly lit - considering the context of the claim (between circa 4 and 5am). Further, Parking Eye have not thusfar evidenced what signage was present at the entrance to the car park on the day in question, which is relevant as I have evidenced that said signage has been altered over time. Given the proximity of the private car park to a conjoined council car park, signage would have to clearly and legibly advertise (throughout the day) that a driver had entered a privately managed facility. Payment furtniture is extremely hard to identify from any available photographic evidence - as it would be to any reasonable driver.

7. I have not been given evidence of an adequate chain of contracts from the owner of the site (If not Holiday Inn), thru Holiday Inn, thru Parking Eye. This would be required to demonstrate their sufficient proprietary interest in the land, or authorisation to manage it.

8. I believe that the Claimant should be aware that their claim is an unrecoverable penalty, distinguished from that in the Beavis case, in that there is clearly no legitimate interest or commercial justification for levying it in these circumstances. In addition to this, there was no defined free period (as in Beavis), was in fact a defined parking charge (£2) and thus, a £100 "parking charge" is a disproportionate, curiously arbitrary and unenforceable claim for damages.

9. I believe that the legal fees claimed for are incredible given the size and nature of the claimant's operation, and represent a bald-faced attempt at double recovery.

10. I invite the Court to dismiss this claim in its entirety, and to award my costs of attendance at the hearing, such as are allowable pursuant to CPR 27.14.

Statement of Truth

I believe that the facts stated in this Witness Statement are true.

Signature
Date

Coupon-mad

That's better.

Use the BPA CoP section about enforcement in hours of darkness, and if you can get dark photos in a similar light to append as evidence to show the signs and machine are hidden and unlit, that will be compelling.

Le_Kirk

which is relevant as I have evidenced that said signage has been altered over time

Should be: -

which is relevant as I have evidence[STRIKE]d[/STRIKE] that said signage has been altered over time

Payment furtniture is

Should be: -

Payment furniture is

thru Holiday Inn, thru Parking Eye.

Should be: -

through Holiday Inn, through Parking Eye.

WiltshireD

Thanks. I think the transcripts written into my defence are enough re. the relevant cases, so will compile my bundle with the WS, CoP transcript, collected photographs - I may be able to do a nighttime pilgrimage to the hotel in MK and collect some photos and video evidence, although not sure how to send a video - I have lost access to MCOL.

Umkomaas

I have lost access to MCOL.

You're dealing with your local court now you're at WS stage, MCOL should no longer be on your radar.

although not sure how to send a video

Load it on to a memory stick and enclose that with the physical WS to the court, informing alongside that you will bring your laptop/tablet (with the video pre-loaded) to show at the hearing.

You need to let the claimant's solicitors have a copy embedded within the electronic bundle you are sending them. I'm no supatekkie, so you'll need to do your own research - but I'm sure something like tinypic, imgur, or Dropbox might host videos?

WiltshireD

I ended up taking two night time videos of the car park, where there was very little lighting, inactive lampposts and small print signs located 2 feet above a 6ft tall man's head. One was a drive through, the other was a walk through.

I put the link to Google drive in my paper bundle sent to the court and claimant.

Coupon-mad

OK and take your laptop with you and have immediate access to the video ready the minute you walk into the room. No faffing around expecting the Judge to wait while you log in, then find the video!

And no talking to the rep who will want a 'little chat' beforehand, because their job at that stage is to get you to fold and settle the matter. No thanks...!