Parking Eye - paid parking ticket wrong machine

bobgroups

I am also considering adding the below text as item 7:
(I want to express that the signage showing the charge of £100 is not clear enough compared to the Beavis case and is also missing at the entrance to the car park. I copied this from https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showpost.php?p=71285691&postcount=2341)

The signs in this car park are not prominent, clear or legible from all parking spaces and there is insufficient notice of the sum of the parking charge itself

I note that within the Protection of Freedoms Act (POFA) 2012 it discusses the clarity that needs to be provided to make a motorist aware of the parking charge. Specifically, it requires that the driver is given 'adequate notice' of the charge. POFA 2012 defines 'adequate notice' as follows:

''(3) For the purposes of sub-paragraph (2) 'adequate notice' means notice given by: (a) the display of one or more notices in accordance with any applicable requirements prescribed in regulations under paragraph 12 for, or for purposes including, the purposes of sub-paragraph (2); or (b) where no such requirements apply, the display of one or more notices which: (i) specify the sum as the charge for unauthorised parking; and (ii) are adequate to bring the charge to the notice of drivers who park vehicles on the relevant land''.

Even in circumstances where POFA 2012 does not apply, I believe this to be a reasonable standard to use when making my own assessment, as appellant, of the signage in place at the location. Having considered the signage in place at this particular site against the requirements of Section 18 of the BPA Code of Practice and POFA 2012, I am of the view that the signage at the site - given the minuscule font size of the £sum, which is illegible in most photographs and does not appear at all at the entrance - is NOT sufficient to bring the parking charge (i.e. the sum itself) to the attention of the motorist.

There was no contract nor agreement on the 'parking charge' at all. It is submitted that the driver did not have a fair opportunity to read about any terms involving this huge charge, which is out of all proportion and not saved by the dissimilar 'ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis' case.

bobgroups

yep i did do the AOS by 15th April and I checked on the MCOL website and it is listed there, so yes phew that was done in time..

bobgroups

sign entering private car park if you are already in the council car park:
http://i65.tinypic.com/zyd7ya.jpg

http://i68.tinypic.com/302m83q.jpg

photo showing how to go from private car park to the council car park
http://i66.tinypic.com/2rxuyrk.jpg

one of the signs in the private car park:
http://i68.tinypic.com/302m83q.jpg

Le_Kirk

There is a lack of clear demarcation to distinguish a private car park and a council car park.

Add a word in here.

There is a lack of clear demarcation to distinguish between a private car park and a council car park.

It's only DEFENCE, you don't need STATEMENT. Also your points 2 & 3 seem to be saying the same thing and points 3 & 4 are similarly repetitive.

bobgroups

ok thanks working on merging 2 & 3 and 3 & 4.

Does it make sense/is relevant to add that last section I pasted regarding the signage?

bobgroups

how does this look...

IN THE COUNTY COURT

CLAIM No: xxxxxxxxxx

BETWEEN:

PARKINGEYE LTD (Claimant)

-and-

xxxxxxxxxxxx (Defendant)

________________________________________
DEFENCE
________________________________________

1. The Defendant was the registered keeper and driver of vehicle registration number XXXXXXX on the material date. The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to relief in the sum claimed, or at all.

2. The ‘land’ which forms the basis of the current claim is amongst a much larger council car park (managed by Slough Borough Council). There is a lack of clear demarcation to distinguish between leaving a private car park and entering into a council car park. Vehicles and passengers can easily pass between each of the 2 car parks freely and this is a critical point to note. It is not clearly visible from a moving car that the car park in question is a private car park and not part of the adjacent council car park.

3. The facts of the matter are that the defendant obtained a ticket from the parking ticket machine allowing 30 minutes of free parking and this ticket was displayed in the defendant’s car windscreen.

4. The ANPR has captured the defendant’s vehicle entering and exiting the car park managed by ParkingEye. The ANPR footage does not show which parking bay the defendant’s vehicle was parked in.

5. Had the defendant been aware with clear demarcation that these were 2 different car parks the defendant would not have obtained a parking ticket from the Slough Council Car park machine.

6. The signs in this car park are not prominent, clear or legible from all parking spaces and there is insufficient notice of the sum of the parking charge itself

I note that within the Protection of Freedoms Act (POFA) 2012 it discusses the clarity that needs to be provided to make a motorist aware of the parking charge. Specifically, it requires that the driver is given 'adequate notice' of the charge. POFA 2012 defines 'adequate notice' as follows:

''(3) For the purposes of sub-paragraph (2) 'adequate notice' means notice given by: (a) the display of one or more notices in accordance with any applicable requirements prescribed in regulations under paragraph 12 for, or for purposes including, the purposes of sub-paragraph (2); or (b) where no such requirements apply, the display of one or more notices which: (i) specify the sum as the charge for unauthorised parking; and (ii) are adequate to bring the charge to the notice of drivers who park vehicles on the relevant land''.

Even in circumstances where POFA 2012 does not apply, I believe this to be a reasonable standard to use when making my own assessment, as appellant, of the signage in place at the location. Having considered the signage in place at this particular site against the requirements of Section 18 of the BPA Code of Practice and POFA 2012, I am of the view that the signage at the site - given the minuscule font size of the £sum, which is illegible in most photographs and does not appear at all at the entrance - is NOT sufficient to bring the parking charge (i.e. the sum itself) to the attention of the motorist.

There was no contract nor agreement on the 'parking charge' at all. It is submitted that the driver did not have a fair opportunity to read about any terms involving this huge charge, which is out of all proportion and not saved by the dissimilar 'ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis' case.

7. Accordingly, it is denied that the Defendant breached any of the Claimant's purported contractual terms, whether express, implied, or by conduct.

8. The Defendant has the reasonable belief that the Claimant has not incurred £50 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 £100. (this is the Legal Representative’s costs on my claim form)

9. 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.

Statement of Truth:

I believe that the facts stated in this Defence are true.

Name
Signature
Date

bobgroups

KeithP wrote: »

No a good idea to do it 'all in one go'.

Doing the AoS in a timely manner buys you an extra fourteen days to file a Defence.

With a Claim Issue Date of 25th March, you have until Monday 15th April to do the Acknowledgement of Service, but there is nothing to be gained by delaying it. To do the AoS, follow the guidance offered in a Dropbox link from post #2 of the NEWBIES FAQ sticky thread.

Having done the AoS, you have until 4pm on Monday 29th April 2019 to file your Defence.

That's a whole month away. Loads of time to produce a perfect Defence but best not leave it to the very last minute.


When you are happy with the content, your Defence should be filed via email as suggested here:

Print your Defence.
1. Sign it and date it.
   
2. Scan the signed document back in and save it as a pdf.
   
3. Send that pdf as an email attachment to CCBCAQ@Justice.gov.uk
   
4. Just put the claim number and the word Defence in the email title, and in the body of the email something like 'Please find my Defence attached'.
   
5. Log into MCOL after a few days to see if the Claim is marked "defence received". If not chase the CCBC until it is.
   
6. Do not be surprised to receive a copy of the Claimant's Directions Questionnaire, they are just trying to put you under pressure.
   
7. Wait for your DQ from the CCBC, or download one from the internet, and then re-read post #2 of the NEWBIES FAQ sticky thread to find out exactly what to do with it.

Hi keithP,

You mentioned file defence by 29th april 4pm, but you also said "Log into MCOL after a few days to see if the Claim is marked "defence received". If not chase the CCBC until it is.".

If I file defence (by email) before 29th April 4pm, but after logging into MCOL it does not show "defence received", will that be a problem for me? Or is the email I send proof that my defence was filed?

Planning to submit my defence by tonight or latest over the weekend and then login on monday at some point to MCOL to see if it shows as "defence received"..

Thanks in advance

bobgroups

need some help please.. I sent the defence. however i recently got in the post a photocopy of a N180 directions questionnaire that was completed by ParkinEye.

ParikingEye ticked following boxes

A1 = Do you agree to the case being referred to the small claims mediation service - Yes
B = parking eye details
C1 = YES to small claims track
D1 = no name of local county court
D2 = NO to expert evidence
E1 - No to have you included a fee with this form

I did not get anything in the post from the court asking for me to fill in one of these? Was I supposed to?

KeithP

You need to read again items 7 and 8 in the list in post #16 above.

Also read bargepole's 'what happens when' post linked from post #2 of the NEWBIES thread.

bobgroups

KeithP wrote: »

You need to read again items 7 and 8 in the list in post #16 above.

Also read bargepole's 'what happens when' post linked from post #2 of the NEWBIES thread.

Ahhh thanks missed that and re-read that now..

I rang Northampton (CCBC) and they said they have not yet received the acknowledgement of my defence from ParkingEye. They said they have till Monday 3rd June i.e. the last day of the 33 days. (the fact that ParkingEye in advance sent the DQ as they know the procedure may mean they are intending to submit acknowledgement of my defence.) The court clerk also said once they get the acknowledgement from ParkingEye they would automatically post the DQ to me and the clerk said better to wait till after Monday 3rd June and not send a DQ myself before them getting an acknowledgement of the defence from parkinEye.

Got a qn:

Read the newbie posts but just curious if the mediation is just a phone call, could it still be useful to say yes to mediation?

I saw Bargepole said "A1 = NO to mediation (they want the whole amount, you want to pay them nothing, so no scope for mediation. This will not go against you)"

Could it still give me a good result if i explain during mediation?

Am i right in understanding if mediation does not give the right outcome it will in any case go to my local court?

just wondering if i can save my self hassle of a day in court...

Cheers