Parking Eye Fine

sweetgem

As previously stated I don't have any photos as the hotel is nowhere near my home and I have not been in the vicinity to take pictures.

PE have included as follows in their witness statement.

Exhibit 1 - summary of of the circumstances of the parking event

Exhibit 2 - PE authorisation to manage the car park at Holiday Inn by the landholder. copy of relevant contract
( its a basic supply agreement for car park management for the holiday Inn. there is no landowner agreement and the agreement was made on the 31/01/2017- for 36 months.
there then is a copy of the fine print which is unreadable even with my glasses on with the terms and conditions.

Exhibit 3 - copy of signage , A plan of the car park and images of the signs at holiday inn and can confirm that the signage was in place on site on the date of parking event. - stating the terms and conditions clearly set out on signage, which is displayed at the entrance to and throughput the car park and a parking contract is formed between the claimant and motorists utilising the car park upon entry

( they have enclosed a signage plan which has no date on it and where the signs are to be allocated. There is a key that states the signage, type, allocation and size and signs that are 600mmx 800mm to be installed.
Another key which has colour coding states the installation locations which correspond with the colour coding on the map.

Then they have sent me large pictures of the signs and the tariffs - it does not state which hotel sites these signs relate too. And then a big sign in black and white that says Holiday in (and place) PLEASE VALIDATE CAR PARKING before leaving. But its just a copy of a sign its not hanging anywhere in a photograph.
Then there are signs of Tariff payable at machine etc and other signs that are scattered around the car park but dated from June 2018 t0 beginning August 2018. Most are like 2 metres high and you cant even read the small print. The pictures they have sent me are not very clear some are quite blurry. But nowhere in the pictures can you tell if it is the Holiday Inn that I was parked in. as there are no signs depicting where the pictures were taken.

Exhibit 4 - Registered keeper details obtained from DVLA first parking charge notice sent on ?? August 2018. also informing registered keeper of the provision of schedule 4 of the protection of freedoms act 2012. notice stated amount due, how it could be appealed or paid. provide driver details within 28 days or registered keeper becomes liable for parking charge. ( but PE didn't receive a response from me because I didn't get anything from them.

Exhibit 5- sent me another reminder and they didn't hear from me. (again I didn't receive)

Exhibit 6 - 2? September sent the Defendant a keeper liability Letter. pursuant to schedule 4 of the protection of Freedoms Act 2012 now defendant now responsible foe the full outstanding amount. (this is the first time I heard from them)

Exhibit 7 - ? October claimant sent defendant a LBCC informing legal action would shortly be taken to recover the outstanding Parking Charge.

Exhibit 8 - I wrote to them on 3? October - copy of correspondence from me.

Exhibit 9 - Letter from PE on ?? December 2018 in response to my letter
of end of October. ( it took them nearly 6 weeks to respond back)

Exhibit 10 - I wrote to them again 2? December 2018 and copy of my email attached by PE.

Exhibit 11- They say they responded to my email on ?7 Jan 2019- Providing me with information on hoe to appeal to POPLA. They say I never replied to them.
( FYI - I do not recall getting this email - but months later as I was looking through the PE correspondence I came across it. Somehow it was a generic message from PE with an attachment and I did not see the attachment, hand on my heart and i just filed it away thinking it was another bog standard response from them like oh sorry you are still liable for the fine. If I had gathered at the time and been in a good frame of mind i would have appealed if it had not been innocently overlooked)

Exhibit 12 - PE issued further correspondence to the defendant 0n ?? March- they took another 7 weeks to write to me.

They then tell the court to please note that PE upholds 60% appeals made. And they operate an effective appeal service for their clients and motorists alike.
and As i didn't appeal or pay they were left with no option but to take legal action.


They then said the claimant entered into court proceedings against the defendant on 1st April and as the claim form is issued electronically they were unable to sign the claim form with a signature.

Exhibit 13- Between march and April 2019 PE Exchanged email correspondence in regards to the claim and they refer to the chain of emails marked Exhibit 13.

Then I defended the claim.

Exhibit 14 -They state I said in my defence I was a patron on the site on the date of the parking event. I never actually said I was the driver. ( I stated in my defence - The Driver of the vehicle was in fact a visitor of the hotel attending a meeting
that had been pre-arranged in the bar area and email evidence of this meeting
has been offered to the claimant)

They state that I have not provided any proof in support of this assertion and in the absence of any such proof they have no reasonable way of knowing whether I was a patron on site and they have no proof of me registering as a patron as directed by the clear and ample signage on site. they enclose an extract if all motorists that registered as patrons of the hotel at the time of the parking event. they removed part of the reg details because of confidentiality. ( I am sure i sent them proof unless i didn't because it had my name on it and would have made them aware in fact i was the driver although it was offered to them )

They then confirm that i said signage was not clear and that their signs conform to BPA regulations.

And their signs are of the same level in the car park as if they were signs when driving on a public road.. Hmm when do signs on public roads have terms and conditions.

and when driving in their car park we as drivers are expected to note the signs within the car park and to familiarise themselves with these.

Exhibit 15- The defendant submits that the staff on site did not inform him ( I am not a him) a few times they have referred to me as a HE and i am not a HE or Him i am a she . did not inform me of the terms and conditions of parking . PE wish to stress that the contract is formed between the claimant and the motorist via the ample signage on site. not the responsibility of staff on site to inform motorists of the terms and conditions of parking on site. The onus is on the motorist to familiarise themselves with the ample signage.

the defendant failed to make a tariff payment or register as a visitor thereby breaching terms and conditions of parking on this site..
In regards to the terminals on site i refer to the images of these in situ
which clearly show that these are located at the reception of the hotel and are clearly visible to visitors.

(it shows 3 terminals on a reception desk, in a reception area dated 16/03/2017- there is no sign of where this place is and if in fact it is the Holiday in at where I was parked. The picture of
the terminal is blurry and you cant even see if it says holiday INN. All i can make out is 3 options , Overnight guest, visitor and something else?
It doesn't even state on the terminal that its for signing in for parking.
My alleged parking didn't happen until August 2018 so these pictures as outdated. There are also no signs in the reception desk picture
reminding visitors of parking restrictions.
And when I parked I certainly did not see these terminals staring out at me as they do in this outdated picture form a year and half before i got a PCN also they have payment machines in their pictures which i never even knew they had .

Exhibit 16 - I said they did not serve the notice to keeper within 14 days and with compliance with the protection of freedom act 2012 and then they state the schedule 4 of POFA 2012. and they said they complied with s.9(6) and can be proved that it was sent to the address held for the keeper of the vehicle . PE have no interest in not sending these letters but the defendant has a significant interest in statting that they did not receive it. ( well my point is nothing was sent by signed for post which would prove i received the letters and also like i stated before there are 3 roads of the same name as mine in a 6 mile radius ad it has been common for letters not to be received unless they are signed for)

Further PE state that the onus is placed on the defendant to prove that this was not delivered as in the alternative receipt could simply be denied. which would render the legislation obsolete. they then attached a schedule 4 of the POFA 2012.

They then state I was denied the opportunity to appeal to POPLA AND THEY SAID they contacted me in 2019.


They then state claimants compliance to ICO ( which i don't understand)
PE state they use ANPR. which prevents abuse of unwanted parking on private land blah blah.
Parking without the requisite payment being made or motorists parking for longer than permitted we aver that all these can be classed as legitimate aims.

and their privacy information can be clearly outlined on the signage located throughout the site. And their signage conveys in a reasonable consistent and transparent manner that ANPR cameras are in use. Access to personal and secure data at Parking eye is restricted and only accessible by members of staff who have signed an access agreement confirming they will only use data for its intended use in relation to their employment. Physical and logical access to data is restricted and processed securely.

all their ANPR equipment is monitored and kept in good working order and automated monitoring and alerting ensure potential issues are highlighted and dealt with quickly along with data management to ensure affected data does not result in a parking charge being issued. And cameras are high quality blah blah.

Exhibit 17 - In regards to the further submissions made by the defendant Parking eye refer to a document that sets out the legal basis of the parking charge market named Legal basis of parkingeyes parking charges and then relates to Parking eye versus Beavis.Plus other stuff which I cant even focus on.

Exhibit 18- the claimant wishes to bring the case of Parking Eye V beavis to the attention of the court. the claimant considers this to be particularly persuasive case law on many legal arguments raised by motorists in these types of proceedings. PE then go onto refer to the judgement in exhibit 18. (this goes over my head )


Exhibit 20 - Enclose a document that details the accuracy of the claimant's ANPR cameras marked Exhibit 20. Stating that their checking process is 20 stages to ensure parking charges are issued correctly.

OMG
Can I use any of the information they have sent me in their witness statement in my witness statement.

Coupon-mad

OMG
Can I use any of the information they have sent me in their witness statement in my witness statement.

Yes, everyone does.

Forget your point about signed for post and not getting the NTK if it went to an old address due to you not updating your V5C, forget all that. PPCs have no reason to ever used signed for post, and they don't.

This (below) about the hidden keypad is the main point to make in the WS, that the mechanism by which a person can exempt themselves using an unexpected terminal in a corner in the hotel somewhere, fails Lord Denning's red hand rule (Google it and use it) and it fails the CRA 2015 Schedule 2, paras 6, 10, 14 and 18 (print out a copy of Sch2 and read and highlight those points):

In regards to the terminals on site i refer to the images of these in situ, which clearly show that these are located at the reception of the hotel and are clearly visible to visitors.
(it shows 3 terminals on a reception desk, in a reception area dated 16/03/2017- there is no sign of where this place is and if in fact it is the Holiday in at where I was parked. The picture of
the terminal is blurry and you cant even see if it says holiday INN. All i can make out is 3 options , Overnight guest, visitor and something else?
It doesn't even state on the terminal that its for signing in for parking.

sweetgem

The NTK did not go to an old address the point I wanted to make which is valid is that just because they sent it does not mean in this case I received it as believe it the same named road bar the postcode exists in 3 places in the same area within a 6 mile radius and if they had done their research they would have made sure that proof of delivery occurred. Surely this is a valid point but Coupon mad you are more of an expert. So should I leave it out or put it in ?

sweetgem

What about my lack of photographic evidence.
Is it worth going to the hotel and taking pictures however it is a trek.

sweetgem

Also shall I now say I was the driver ?

Redx

It's been mentioned numerous times that only proof of posting is required , not proof of delivery, it is deemed to be delivered 2 days later

I believe there's is a legal point about this but CM is correct , even if she did not post the details

You cannot force people to sign for delivery , but you can obtain proof of posting

Stick to beating the claimant , not the whole legal system. Because if a learned judge decides to give you the lowdown on this , then they aren't dealing with the real issues of your case

You must decide if this case is a keeper based case and hiding behind POFA. , Or a driver based defence where you are also a witness of the events

Coupon-mad

If you were the driver then say you were the driver, in your WS, yes.

Attach the CRA 2015 Schedule 2 and highlight the 4 paras I told you to, as well as Lord Denning's red hand rule (Google it and use it).

Is it worth going to the hotel and taking pictures however it is a trek.

Yes, it probably is, but MAINLY your issue is the lack of prominence and transparency of the keypad, and I reckon at Christmas the hotel has covered the sign & keypad up and you can take some good photos! IMHO the car park signs are not the issue.

The NTK did not go to an old address the point I wanted to make which is valid is that just because they sent it does not mean in this case I received it as believe it the same named road bar the postcode exists in 3 places in the same area within a 6 mile radius and if they had done their research they would have made sure that proof of delivery occurred. Surely this is a valid point but Coupon mad you are more of an expert. So should I leave it out or put it in ?

Leave it out, or mention it as an aside. They DO NOT have to send any NTK signed for, and no PPC ever does, and saying stuff like that simply makes it easy for their rep to answer and take the Judge off on a tangent that makes them look reasonable.

This case is ALL about the hidden keypad, and the breach of the CRA paras 6, 10, 14 and 18 and the failure to meet Lord Denning's red hand rule, due to positively hiding the mechanism inside the hotel, such that guests are duped.

sweetgem

Just a last point do I need to send all my correspondence that I have had between them

sweetgem

Thank you ladies and gentleman you have been awesome as usual
:T:):T

Coupon-mad

sweetgem wrote: »

Just a last point do I need to send all my correspondence that I have had between them

No, that would be pointless. Your case is about the hidden keypad and the consumer law and case law that it breaches by not being prominent.

You need to show us your draft WS.