Business court

Redx

two statements in one


if leaving in , keep separate and make sure that the STATEMENT OF TRUTH in the defence is the last line and stands alone as one statement, like every other one you have seen


put everything right that KeithP pointed out, you only get one shot at this, so that RECEPTION sentence doesnt make sense, wherewas the KeithP alteration does


same with anything else

weatherman89

Redx wrote: »

two statements in one


if leaving in , keeper separate and make sure that the STATEMENT OF TRUTH in the defence is the last line and stands alone as one statement, like every other one you have seen


put everything right that KeithP pointed out, you only get one shot at this, so that RECEPTION sentence doesnt make sense, wherewas the KeithP alteration does same with anything else

IN THE COUNTY COURT

CLAIM No: XXXXXX

BETWEEN:

PARKINGEYE LTD (Claimant)

-and-

REGISTERED KEEPER (Defendant)

1. I am the defendant,

---

2.I deny any liability to the Claimant whatsoever on the following basis:

A) Insufficient signage: In the claimant’s Parking charge notice it is stated that a parking charge is applicable if the motorist fails to enter their full, correct vehicle registration into the terminal in the reception. But the claimant failed to provide appropriate signage as to where the terminal reception is located. The driver was completely unaware of where the terminal in reception is located because of the insufficient signage. The defendant refer to the IPC Code of Practice, Part E, highlighting that entrance signs are necessary.

. Furthermore, The terms on the Claimant's signage are also displayed in a font which is too small to be read from a passing vehicle, and is in such a position that anyone attempting to read the tiny font would be unable to do so easily. It is, therefore, denied that the Claimant's signage is capable of creating a legally binding contract.

C) The Particulars of Claim state that the Defendant; was the registered keeper of the vehicle(s) however the claimant could not ascertain if he was the driver; this assertion indicate that the Claimant has failed to identify a Cause of Action. As such, the Claim fails to comply with Civil Procedure Rule 16.4, or with Civil Practice Direction 16, paras. 7.3 to 7.5. Further, the particulars of the claim do not meet the requirements of Practice Direction 16 7.5 as there is nothing which specifies how the terms were breached.

D). Due to the sparseness of the particulars, it is unclear as to what legal basis the claim is brought, whether for breach of contract, contractual liability, or trespass. However, it is denied that the Defendant, or any driver of the vehicle, entered into any contractual agreement with the Claimant, whether express, implied, or by conduct.

E). It is submitted that the Claimant is merely an agent acting ‘on behalf of’ the landowner who would be the only proper claimant. 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. Strict proof is required of a chain of contracts leading from the landowner to this Claimant, to allow them the right to form contracts and to sue in their name.

F). Even if this is produced, it is submitted that there is no contract offered to drivers not displaying a permit, so alleged 'unauthorised' parking (denied) can only be an event falling under the tort of trespass.

G). As was confirmed in the Beavis case, ParkingEye could not have claimed any sum at all for trespass, whereby only a party in possession of title in the land could claim nominal damages suffered (and there were none in this material case).

H). It is submitted that the conduct of the Claimant in pursuing this claim is wholly unreasonable and vexatious. As such, I am keeping a note of my wasted time/costs in dealing with this matter.

I). In summary, it is the Defendant's position that the claim discloses no cause of action, is without merit, and has no real prospect of success. Accordingly, the Court is invited to strike out the claim of its own initiative, using its case management powers pursuant to CPR 3.4.

J).The Defendant is not liable for the sum claimed, nor any sum at all.

I believe the facts contained in this Defence are true.

Name
Signature
Date


I

Redx

if this is Parking Eye, then why is there a reference to the IPC CoP ???

weatherman89

Redx wrote: »

if this is Parking Eye, then why is there a reference to the IPC CoP ???

I had thought ParkinEye is part of the IPC CoP in addition to BPA...Maybe I should REMOVE the reference out?

Redx

if using that point as a legal argument , it should reference the BPA CoP, not the IPC CoP

Parking Eye are BPA members and have been for a decade and as such they subscribe to the BPA CoP as their "rulebook", NOT the IPC CoP


none of them subscribe to using BOTH of those CoP , its one or the other, depending on membership

weatherman89

Redx wrote: »

if using that point as a legal argument , it should reference the BPA CoP, not the IPC CoP

Parking Eye are BPA members and have been for a decade and as such they subscribe to the BPA CoP as their "rulebook", NOT the IPC CoP


none of them subscribe to using BOTH of those CoP , its one or the other, depending on membership

I HAVE TAKEN THE REFERENCE OUT...

IN THE COUNTY COURT

CLAIM No: XXXXXX

BETWEEN:

PARKINGEYE LTD (Claimant)

-and-

REGISTERED KEEPER (Defendant)

1. I am the defendant,

---

2.I deny any liability to the Claimant whatsoever on the following basis:

A) Insufficient signage: In the claimant’s Parking charge notice it is stated that a parking charge is applicable if the motorist fails to enter their full, correct vehicle registration into the terminal in the reception. But the claimant failed to provide appropriate signage as to where the terminal reception is located. The driver was completely unaware of where the terminal in reception is located because of the insufficient signage.

. Furthermore, The terms on the Claimant's signage are also displayed in a font which is too small to be read from a passing vehicle, and is in such a position that anyone attempting to read the tiny font would be unable to do so easily. It is, therefore, denied that the Claimant's signage is capable of creating a legally binding contract.

C) The Particulars of Claim state that the Defendant; was the registered keeper of the vehicle(s) however the claimant could not ascertain if he was the driver; this assertion indicate that the Claimant has failed to identify a Cause of Action. As such, the Claim fails to comply with Civil Procedure Rule 16.4, or with Civil Practice Direction 16, paras. 7.3 to 7.5. Further, the particulars of the claim do not meet the requirements of Practice Direction 16 7.5 as there is nothing which specifies how the terms were breached.

D). Due to the sparseness of the particulars, it is unclear as to what legal basis the claim is brought, whether for breach of contract, contractual liability, or trespass. However, it is denied that the Defendant, or any driver of the vehicle, entered into any contractual agreement with the Claimant, whether express, implied, or by conduct.

E). It is submitted that the Claimant is merely an agent acting ‘on behalf of’ the landowner who would be the only proper claimant. 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. Strict proof is required of a chain of contracts leading from the landowner to this Claimant, to allow them the right to form contracts and to sue in their name.

F). Even if this is produced, it is submitted that there is no contract offered to drivers not displaying a permit, so alleged 'unauthorised' parking (denied) can only be an event falling under the tort of trespass.

G). As was confirmed in the Beavis case, ParkingEye could not have claimed any sum at all for trespass, whereby only a party in possession of title in the land could claim nominal damages suffered (and there were none in this material case).

H). It is submitted that the conduct of the Claimant in pursuing this claim is wholly unreasonable and vexatious. As such, I am keeping a note of my wasted time/costs in dealing with this matter.

I). In summary, it is the Defendant's position that the claim discloses no cause of action, is without merit, and has no real prospect of success. Accordingly, the Court is invited to strike out the claim of its own initiative, using its case management powers pursuant to CPR 3.4.

J).The Defendant is not liable for the sum claimed, nor any sum at all.

I believe the facts contained in this Defence are true.

Name
Signature
Date


I

weatherman89

IN THE COUNTY COURT

CLAIM No: XXXXXX

BETWEEN:

PARKINGEYE LTD (Claimant)

-and-

REGISTERED KEEPER (Defendant)

1. I am the defendant,

---

2.I deny any liability to the Claimant whatsoever on the following basis:

A) Insufficient signage: In the claimant’s Parking charge notice it is stated that a parking charge is applicable if the motorist fails to enter their full, correct vehicle registration into the terminal in the reception. But the claimant failed to provide appropriate signage as to where the terminal reception is located. The driver was completely unaware of where the terminal in reception is located because of the insufficient signage. The defendant refer to the BPA Code of Practice, Part B, highlighting that entrance signs are necessary.

. Furthermore, The terms on the Claimant's signage are also displayed in a font which is too small to be read from a passing vehicle, and is in such a position that anyone attempting to read the tiny font would be unable to do so easily. It is, therefore, denied that the Claimant's signage is capable of creating a legally binding contract.

C) The Particulars of Claim state that the Defendant; was the registered keeper of the vehicle(s) however the claimant could not ascertain if he was the driver; this assertion indicate that the Claimant has failed to identify a Cause of Action. As such, the Claim fails to comply with Civil Procedure Rule 16.4, or with Civil Practice Direction 16, paras. 7.3 to 7.5. Further, the particulars of the claim do not meet the requirements of Practice Direction 16 7.5 as there is nothing which specifies how the terms were breached.

D). Due to the sparseness of the particulars, it is unclear as to what legal basis the claim is brought, whether for breach of contract, contractual liability, or trespass. However, it is denied that the Defendant, or any driver of the vehicle, entered into any contractual agreement with the Claimant, whether express, implied, or by conduct.

E). It is submitted that the Claimant is merely an agent acting ‘on behalf of’ the landowner who would be the only proper claimant. 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. Strict proof is required of a chain of contracts leading from the landowner to this Claimant, to allow them the right to form contracts and to sue in their name.

F). Even if this is produced, it is submitted that there is no contract offered to drivers not displaying a permit, so alleged 'unauthorised' parking (denied) can only be an event falling under the tort of trespass.

G). As was confirmed in the Beavis case, ParkingEye could not have claimed any sum at all for trespass, whereby only a party in possession of title in the land could claim nominal damages suffered (and there were none in this material case).

H). It is submitted that the conduct of the Claimant in pursuing this claim is wholly unreasonable and vexatious. As such, I am keeping a note of my wasted time/costs in dealing with this matter.

I). In summary, it is the Defendant's position that the claim discloses no cause of action, is without merit, and has no real prospect of success. Accordingly, the Court is invited to strike out the claim of its own initiative, using its case management powers pursuant to CPR 3.4.

J).The Defendant is not liable for the sum claimed, nor any sum at all.

I believe the facts contained in this Defence are true.

Name
Signature
Date


I

KeithP

So what's changed with this last iteration?
Do you want us to re-read the whole thing looking for the differences?

I see that para A) is still grammatically incorrect.

weatherman89

KeithP wrote: »

So what's changed with this last iteration?
Do you want us to re-read the whole thing looking for the differences?

I see that para A) is still grammatically incorrect.

I have made the KeithP alteration.
Please kindly peruse and advise...thank you.

IN THE COUNTY COURT

CLAIM No: XXXXXX

BETWEEN:

PARKINGEYE LTD (Claimant)

-and-

REGISTERED KEEPER (Defendant)

1. I am the defendant,

---

2.I deny any liability to the Claimant whatsoever on the following basis:

A) Insufficient signage: In the claimant’s Parking charge notice it is stated that a parking charge is applicable if the motorist fails to enter their full, correct vehicle registration into the terminal in the reception. But the claimant failed to provide appropriate signage as to where the terminal in the reception is located. The driver was completely unaware of where the terminal in the reception is located because of the insufficient signage. The defendant refers to the BPA Code of Practice, Part B, highlighting that entrance signs are necessary.

. Furthermore, The terms on the Claimant's signage are also displayed in a font which is too small to be read from a passing vehicle, and is in such a position that anyone attempting to read the tiny font would be unable to do so easily. It is, therefore, denied that the Claimant's signage is capable of creating a legally binding contract.

C) The Particulars of Claim state that the Defendant; was the registered keeper of the vehicle(s) however the claimant could not ascertain if he was the driver; this assertion indicate that the Claimant has failed to identify a Cause of Action. As such, the Claim fails to comply with Civil Procedure Rule 16.4, or with Civil Practice Direction 16, paras. 7.3 to 7.5. Further, the particulars of the claim do not meet the requirements of Practice Direction 16 7.5 as there is nothing which specifies how the terms were breached.

D). Due to the sparseness of the particulars, it is unclear as to what legal basis the claim is brought, whether for breach of contract, contractual liability, or trespass. However, it is denied that the Defendant, or any driver of the vehicle, entered into any contractual agreement with the Claimant, whether express, implied, or by conduct.

E). It is submitted that the Claimant is merely an agent acting ‘on behalf of’ the landowner who would be the only proper claimant. 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. Strict proof is required of a chain of contracts leading from the landowner to this Claimant, to allow them the right to form contracts and to sue in their name.

F). Even if this is produced, it is submitted that there is no contract offered to drivers not displaying a permit, so alleged 'unauthorised' parking (denied) can only be an event falling under the tort of trespass.

G). As was confirmed in the Beavis case, ParkingEye could not have claimed any sum at all for trespass, whereby only a party in possession of title in the land could claim nominal damages suffered (and there were none in this material case).

H). It is submitted that the conduct of the Claimant in pursuing this claim is wholly unreasonable and vexatious. As such, I am keeping a note of my wasted time/costs in dealing with this matter.

I). In summary, it is the Defendant's position that the claim discloses no cause of action, is without merit, and has no real prospect of success. Accordingly, the Court is invited to strike out the claim of its own initiative, using its case management powers pursuant to CPR 3.4.

J).The Defendant is not liable for the sum claimed, nor any sum at all.

I believe the facts contained in this Defence are true.

Name
Signature
Date

Coupon-mad

Just reminding us all what the case is about as we don't all use a forum view that displays the first post:

weatherman89 wrote: »

Date of claim- 31/10/18.

Particulars of claim:
Claim for monies outstanding from the defendant, as registered keeper , in relation to 4 parking charges, issued between 20/07/18 and 31/07/18 for parking on private land in breach of the T+C's (the contract). Parkingeye's automated number plate recognition system, monitoring Grindley Hill court, stoke-on-trent ST4 6TA, captured vehicle GT**** entering and leaving the car park, parking without authorisation.

The signage, clearly displayed at the entrance to and throughout the car park, states that this is a private land, is managed by parkingeye Ltd, and authorisation is required to park, along with other T+C's by which those who park on site agree to be bound.

In accordance with the T+C's set out inn the signage, the parking charges became payable. Notice under the POFA 2012 has been given under sch 4 ,making the keeper liable. This claim is ref to parking charges *****,*****,****** etc

i have been asked to pay parking eye £485 by the county business court.

the parking tickets in question are from a hospital accomodation car park which was free but they suddenly changed to charging for parking. I didnt notice the change until i started receiving parking invoices from parking eye.

This is a private hospital accommodation. The driver is one of the doctors at the hospital. Before parking he had discussed with colleagues who live there and was told parking is on first come , first serve basis.

The driver had been parking there along side numerous other colleagues for months without getting any warnings. Then suddenly around mid July charges were sent.

He can't even remember if the notice was there all along or was put up in July.

If no PCNs were issued before July, then you can bet your bottom dollar that the enforcement suddenly started in July, with inadequate warning.

You should include the BPA CoP section on the requirement to have additional signs and warnings before/during the first few weeks of a new restriction where none existed before.

And there is already a ParkingEye example defence in the NEWBIES thread for this situation:

In the claimant’s Parking charge notice it is stated that a parking charge is applicable if the motorist fails to enter their full, correct vehicle registration into the terminal in the reception. But the claimant failed to provide appropriate signage as to where the terminal reception is located. The driver was completely unaware of where the terminal in reception is located because of the insufficient signage.

Here is one written earlier:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/74254129#Comment_74254129

That one is a bit long but has a bit more to it about why a hidden keypad/iPad is not capable of forming a contract.

In your case, you cannot be expected to look at high up unremarkable signs at a place where you are used to parking. No-one would.