County Court Claim Form **URGENT**

Coupon-mad

Have you acknowledged the claim on MCOL now? Don't sit about waiting for the SAR as you will need to be reading other ParkingEye defences and preparing yours in time.

hannah141

Hi All, I have my draft defence, I'd be really grateful for any feedback. (submission Monday).

My main defence is signage, in this particular case, the driver did not leave the car during the parking stay. There is no signage on the wall in front of the space occupied. The only signage the motorist passed is at the busy entrance so it's unreasonable that a contract was entered. The second major part is £100 stay for a 16 minute overstay, and an overall stay of 36 minutes in a Tesco express car park. I think you'll agree that this is grossly inflated.

For some reason I can't post the text on here but here's a link:

https(REMOVE)://docs.google.com/document/d/1bqTF1XFkq6DXa5rdccz_IuLp6nBKRGUE3eDfd8tj7yY/edit?usp=sharing

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1bqTF1XFkq6DXa5rdccz_IuLp6nBKRGUE3eDfd8tj7yY/edit?usp=sharing

KeithP

You've had four weeks to prepare a Defence, yet leave it to the very last moment to show us your draft.

You need to hope that someone is free this weekend to look at it.

As Coupon-mad asked on 22nd January... did you do the Acknowledgement of Service before 4th February?


After a quick glance at your Defence I would say - remove paragraph 4 in its entirety.
That is a very old argument - hasn't been useful for at least three years.

The Unfair Terms in Consumer Contract Regulations 1999 were replaced in October 2015 by parts of the Consumer Rights Act 2015.

Where id you find that old Defence?

Have you seen Bargepole's concise Defences linked from post #2 of the NEWBIES thread?

[Deleted User]

Try again my friend. Have you cribbed from an old precedent?

The Supreme Court (not Court of Appeal) by and large put paid to most of those arguments. In short it's acceptable to have a system that encourages "churn" in a car park and charges those who overstay a sum, capable of being a penalty.

Signs for parking are common. You're not going to make it fly that contract regulations prevent the motorist from agreeing terms on the basis of a disparity in bargaining power.

If your case is that there's one invisible sign only visible to those who visit on foot, say that explicitly. I have grave doubts you'll succeed on running those points at a hearing.

I mean, goodness me, that defence doesn't even say (as you do above) that the car was never parked but waited for a short period only. You're not going to be able to run a new argument not in the defence at trial, so work out your argument and get it down. I'd set out in full what the sign you procured from Google maps says, respond to that and reserve the right to amend the defence if the claimant later asserts the signs said something else.

hannah141

You've had four weeks to prepare a Defence, yet leave it to the very last moment to show us your draft. You need to hope that someone is free this weekend to look at it.

I know full well I've had time to prepare. In all honesty I'm ready to pay but I gave myself a stern talking to because I would be letting down everyone that gets screwed over by these guys every day. I understand that leaving it so late is my own bloody fault so I'll deal with it whatever I end up with. Any help I get is bonus, I certainly don't expect it.

Yes, I did MCOL.

My defence wasn't a straight copy by any means. I've spend hours on lots of forums from all over the place to pick, choose, tweak and add relevant parts. I think I got the out of date part from Legal Beagle.

It's a wordy scramble in my brain - Keith Ps suggestion of Bargepole's concise defence is most welcome. I've never done any legal writing before so I have no idea. My idea was to find whatever might be relevant to my case and in many defences I've read, there seems to be so much recurring stuff. I was of the understanding, that you're supposed to put you case specifics forward (I don't have much of note for my case) and then add the generic 'applies' to all, such as signage, and disproportionate charge. I still think £100 for 36 minutes is insane.

The only point is that the driver genuinely did not see any signage so by default, had no idea that any parking restrictions were in force.
Am I therefore to take it that I should remove all other information including 3. The Consumer Contracts (Information, Cancellation and Additional Charges) Regulations 2013 applies?

I get confused between what a judge's decision's based on. Morally, this £100 charge is wrong, but factually, that is the charge so isn't it irrelevant that it's morally wrong?

I've amended the first point for Bargepoles defence.

1. The facts are that the vehicle, registration XXXXX, of which the Defendant is the registered keeper, occupied a marked bay on the material date allocated to Company Parking Eye at Alfreton Road, Nottingham. As the motorist did not leave the car, but waited inside for a short time, it is unreasonable to assume that they entered a contractual agreement with ParkingEye as there is no signage on the wall that stands in front of the occupied bay.
Furthermore, with this being a free car park - the absence of pay machines is a further absence of signage. Minimal signage with unclear terms and the absence of PDT machines and attendants indicates a hidden and subversive operation. It is, therefore, denied that the Claimant's signage is capable of creating a legally binding contract. The elements of offer, acceptance and consideration both ways have therefore not been satisfied and so no contract can exist.

hannah141

Here is the carpark:
https://drive.google.com/open?id=1VsZj8aIg7v9t8WY55NNQ7SuMlkY6vD3x

On entrance to the carpark, the fencing on the left obscures your view of the carpark so you have to approach slowly and creep round the corner to check there's nothing coming - no chance of seeing the sign. The driver parked in the circled bay - no signage. On leaving, again, the traffic is blocked by the fencing. So your attention is not sky-high on signage when pulling out onto a road.

NB: This image is August 2018, a month before the overstay.

The_Deep

If you were to insist on paying pay them only £125, that is all that a judge would award them if they won a court case, the other £50 would be for legal expenses which, as they have in-house dirty !!!!!!, they have not incurred.

[Deleted User]

£100 parking
£25 court issue fee
£25 hearing fee
£50 advocate fee

At a hearing, if it all went Pete tong, the court can quite happily order sums c. £200. Court fees would follow the event after a win - so the only debate is fixed advocacy costs and those are often awarded.

In terms of the defence, bearing in mind we drive on the left, it is an oddity that the perimeter sign is on the right of the entrance, where it is less likely to be seen. Similarly, more 'repeater' signs and at a sensible level, rather than elevated would've helped

If not aware of contract terms, they cannot be agreed to. Naturally this is a high risk defence - it depends wholly on the judge agreeing with you and your later witness statement.

Coupon-mad

First of all, as I say often, I have no idea why anyone would ever drive in to a car park to pick up something like a pizza, when you can park on-street, even on a double yellow if quick (loading is allowed, if the item is pre-paid).

I would never have driven in there. The street looks perfectly OK to park on. Car parks are to be avoided! STOP LOOKING FOR THEM. Learn the lesson (whatever the outcome of this) and stop seeking out private car parks when you want to stop.

Actively avoid them and use the street places as intended, including yellow lines when loading.

Anyway, you may or may not win this one, as the signs aren't that terrible and the car park is small, and the onus is on the driver to look at terms that are there to be found, when choosing to drive onto private land (please don't say the old chestnut that you didn't know it was private land). Non Council car parks of any description, retail, Hotel, whatever, are all 'private land' of course, and it has no secret meaning.

I would defend it because it's got this far, may as well fight it!

Is there little point in paying at this stage?

No point unless you offer £50 and they agree. You could try that as well, marked WITHOUT PREJUDICE, SAVE AS TO COSTS.

MUST BE A SEPARATE EMAIL, NOT IN YOUR DEFENCE:
enforcement@parkingeye.co.uk

even if it goes to court with my defence, and I lose, I will pay no more than £175 and still get no CCJ?

Correct, no CCJ. You'd likely pay about £150 plus a tiny bit of interest, if you lose.

If you'd parked on street and got a real PCN, if you paid early, you'd have paid £25!

The risk on street is soooo much less than private shark land, with exemptions/appeals that work.

[Deleted User]

FWIW, I agree with Coupon-Mad that there probably are sufficient signs in that car park... (Sorry)