Parking Eye Fine

KeithP

Remember...

...you have until 4pm on Tuesday 7th May 2019 to file your Defence.

Have you found the NEWBIES thread?

Have you found the second post in the NEWBIES thread?

Surely you can read the second post of the NEWBIES thread.

Can you not look through that post for the word bargepole?
There are at least two example Defences there by bargepole. Choose one and adapt it to your circumstances.

Le_Kirk

Which one of these did you not see by following this link and scrolling down: -

Here are some cases won or in progress:

Here is a defence I suggested for a case where a RingGo app carried forward a default VRN for the wrong car, so that the driver was not at fault and the inaccuracy came from the PPC's app:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/74836178#Comment_74836178

Here is a defence from 2017, a Gladstones farce about the failure of a Pay by Phone app:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5659621

A defence by bargepole, showing that a defence about unclear signs should be written concisely:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showpost.php?p=74674865&postcount=24

and even more concisely here, about poorly marked lines and unclear signs about where to park:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/74833078#Comment_74833078

A 2018 defence re VCS and a 'THIS IS NOT A PARKING CHARGE' which they then call a parking charge later:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/74816302#Comment_74816302

A 2018 defence where ParkingEye use ANPR alongside a Pay & Display machine, then try to morph the £4 tariff into £100 damages (which is nothing like how the Beavis case was pleaded):

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/74850073#Comment_74850073

sweetgem

ok so have come up with this and this is really what I can digest and understand without overwhelming myself
please let me know of its ok so il email it off have struggled but kind of got there


IN THE COUNTY COURT




CLAIM No: Removed

BETWEEN:


ParkingEye Ltd (Claimant)

-and-

(Defendant)



DEFENCE




Background

1. The Defendant is the registered keeper of the Vehicle xxxx The claim relates to an alleged Parking Charge Notice arising from a driver’s alleged breach of contract when parking at the Holiday Inn Maidenhead Windsor on xx/08/2018 based on images by the claimants ANPR camera at the entrance and exit to the site. This is merely an image of the vehicle in transit, entering and leaving the car park in question and is not evidence of the registered keeper ‘not purchasing the appropriate parking time’ or of the driver not being a patron of the Holiday Inn Hotel.

2. The Driver of the vehicle was in fact a Patron 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. Furthermore the driver had no intention of using the Hotel as free Parking for 1 hour and 16 minutes as the said Hotel is nowhere near any home, work, social or recreational vicinity relating to the driver.

3. The operator has not shown that the individual who it is pursuing is in fact the driver who may have been potentially liable for the charge.

4. The Defendant denies that the claimant is entitled to relief in the sum claimed or at all and accordingly, it is denied that the Defendant breached any of the Claimant's purported contractual terms, whether express, implied, or by conduct.

5. The facts of the matter are that a compliant Notice to Keeper was never served so no Keeper Liability can apply.


6. The Notice to Keeper was delivered outside of the relevant period under Schedule 4 sub paragraph 9(4)(5)
POFA Schedule 4 sub-paragraph 9 (4) and (5) states the following:
(4)The notice must be given by—
(a)handing it to the keeper, or leaving it at a current address for service for the keeper, within the relevant period; or
(b)sending it by post to a current address for service for the keeper so that it is delivered to that address within the relevant period.
(5)The relevant period for the purposes of sub-paragraph (4) is the period of 14 days beginning with the day after that on which the notice to driver was given.

7. Therefore the Claimants failed to deliver the compliant Notice to Keeper in a timely manner and by a method which would guarantee and provide evidence of delivery. Furthermore the Defendant has explicitly communicated to the Claimant that there are 3 Roads of the same name within a 6 mile radius within the area. Thus it is the failure of the Claimant to deliver its correspondence using a tracked method of postal delivery.

8. The Parking Charge Notice was stated by the claimant to be issued on 18th August 2018. The first correspondence and notification of this alleged offence was received by the keeper on the 24th September 2018 and this is outside the 14 days following the initial notice.

9. The claimant has not made any reasonable effort to clear this matter in an amicable way and have refused to offer a late code to allow an appeal to the Parking on Private Land Appeal’s Service after the Defendant had made several requests for this to be offered. Furthermore it is not out of character for the Claimant to offer such a late code for appeal as they have done so in past cases.

10. The Claimant is put to strict proof that it has sufficient proprietary interest in the land or that it has the necessary authorisation from the landowner to issue parking charge notices, and to pursue payment by means of litigation against patrons of the Hotel or that there are specific terms in its contract to bring an action on its own behalf. As a third party agent, the Claimant may not pursue any charge, unless specifically authorised by the principal. The Defendant has the reasonable belief that the Claimant does not have the authority to issue charges on this land in their own name, and that they have no right to bring any action regarding this claim.

11. The Defendant has the reasonable belief that the Claimant has not incurred £75 costs to pursue an alleged £100 debt. The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, in Schedule 4, Para 4(5) states that the maximum sum that may be recovered from the keeper is the charge stated on the Notice to Keeper, in this case £60. However as previously stated the original Notice to keeper was not received by the Defendant and subsequently the Claimant issued correspondence dated 24th September 2018 pursuing £100.

12. Under the GDPR, the Claimant is also put to strict proof regarding the reason for such excessive and intrusive data collection via ANPR surveillance cameras. In addition silently collecting VRN data and to write (weeks later) to registered keepers at their own homes - whether they were driving or not - is excessive, untimely and intrusive to registered keeper data subjects.

13. Further and in the alternative, it is denied 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 as you would have to be able to see the signs in the first instance. The Defendant claims that adequate clear and bold signage is not apparent and easily missed when entering the car park. Furthermore based on another visit to check the signage it appears woefully inadequate and extremely confusing, misleading and hidden. Furthermore there are no clear signs that were ‘bound to be seen’ between where the Defendant allegedly parked their car and the entrance to the hotel.


14. In summary, the Claimant's particulars disclose no legal basis for the sum claimed, and the Court is invited to dismiss the claim in its entirety.

I believe the facts contained in this Defence are true.







Name

Signature

Date

sweetgem

by the way in the bit where it says int he county court do I need to put a name of the county court?

sweetgem

by the way I have no way of signing it, is it ok to just print my name on it. Please say its ok

sweetgem

so is the defence ok?

Redx

no , you do not put the name of your county court , telling the CCBC comes later on at the DQ stage in a few weeks time

the defence HAS TO BE SIGNED , printing is not good enough

you can either print it , signa and date it , then scan back to pdf

OR

add a digital signature to your finished defence by signing a piece of paper and scanning or take a picture of it and add it to your final pdf defence

google digital signature to see how

it is crucial that the defence is signed and dated, so take note

KeithP

sweetgem wrote: »

by the way I have no way of signing it, is it ok to just print my name on it. Please say its ok

Please re-read post #50 above.

It tells you exactly how to file your Defence - by 4pm tomorrow.

Coupon-mad

sweetgem wrote: »

by the way I have no way of signing it, is it ok to just print my name on it. Please say its ok

No.

This is really simple to sign by hand and email as KeithP told you in post #50.

But can I ask please, as this is IMPORTANT, when you got this:

Then on the 17th December I received a generic letter in the post along with all the notices they have allegedly sent me and rejected my appeal.

Did it include a first PCN that WAS posted in time, before the 14 days?

I am concerned you are using a point about the POFA when PE rarely sue in cases where they've not complied with their NTK. Did their December pile of letters include the missing PCN from August?

I reckon there was an August PCN in the bundle they sent you, am I wrong?

And, is the allegation that you failed to input your VRN in a keypad in the Hotel?

If so, why didn't you use/adapt the similar ParkingEye defence example from the NEWBIES thread about the hidden keypad at the Odeon?

sweetgem

Coupon-mad wrote: »

No.

This is really simple to sign by hand and email as KeithP told you in post #50.

But can I ask please, as this is IMPORTANT, when you got this:

Did it include a first PCN that WAS posted in time, before the 14 days?

I am concerned you are using a point about the POFA when PE rarely sue in cases where they've not complied with their NTK. Did their December pile of letters include the missing PCN from August?

I reckon there was an August PCN in the bundle they sent you, am I wrong?

And, is the allegation that you failed to input your VRN in a keypad in the Hotel?

If so, why didn't you use/adapt the similar ParkingEye defence example from the NEWBIES thread about the hidden keypad at the Odeon?

Nothing was received in August and then I received just a letter saying that I owed them £100. And yes I believe they sent a copy of the August NTK which I did not originally receive in the pile of letters they sent in December[/B]


there was no keypad in the hotel. Walked passed reception and nobody notified the driver to state they needed to let them know they were parked or if any car parking charges were in place. But because they were running late for meeting did not see the signs just parked and rushed in to meet a consultant who had set up the meeting in the bar area. unfortunately she no longer works for the company