Parking eye taking me to court

Coupon-mad

I think as a cabbie, in the defence you could certainly put them to strict proof that this was a single visit, as you visit several locations on a shift.

You need to defend as admitted driver - with the caveat above that this may have been a double visit not picked up by ANPR (the Parking Prankster and the NoToMob websites have evidence bout ANPR being unfit for purpose, that you could use later as evidence). This is not for you to prove - it would be for them to prove every aspect of the case - but evidence to cast doubt on their case is required.

He seemed reasonable and took my details and i have a email from him that says he requested the parking co to cancel the ticket and that i should expect there email to confirm it been cancelled ( haven't heard from them as of yet)

As the hotel have your details and you are the only insured driver and a cabbie, be the driver in the defence.

And also state that when visiting this location on various occasions (... be vague...!) you have never seen any prominent signs inside or in the car park, that could create an obligation and contract to register a VRN, if that is what the Claimant wants to penalise you for. Had you known, obviously as a cabbie, you would have asked the hotel to exempt your vehicle on their permanent 'white list' to enable you to use the site regularly without being punished for not knowing about an onerous hidden trap. Not only was that option never stated anywhere, but in fact nothing was seen about any keypad to input any VRN, a wholly unexpected requirement!

Also state how this case differs from Beavis and that you have evidence that the hotel wants to cancel the charge now they are aware of it. So, there are no facts that save this case from being struck out as punitive and unconscionable, and the penalty rule mentioned in Beavis remains engaged on this occasion. With no support of the landowner and no deterrent value or commercial justification, and a complete lack of clear signs inside & out to draw attention to some sort of keypad/ipad, there is no legitimate interest that could allow this Claimant to charge more than the nominal damages that only a landowner could claim if applicable.

There is already an example ParkingEye defence in the NEWBIES thread about a hidden ipad at the Odeon, I am sure. You can certainly adapt that one.

Allygood100

I did indeed ..but still reading

Allygood100

Hi all
Got mail from PE today it reads
without prejudice (save as costs)
My name
We are now in receipt of further info and in an effort to bla bla prepard to accept sum of £60 with in 14 days.


Bear in mind that i havent filed my defence yet.
What do you think?

BrownTrout

They clearly realise they don't have a case.

waamo

I hate to say but it's your call. £60 and it's all over. Or you can defend and if you win you pay nothing.

A point to bear in mind though is you can negotiate and settle right up to the last minute. You can also make a counter offer to their offer.

Allygood100

Honestly its not the money...but the fact that someone can turn up and threaten to use the law and whatever to take my money where i Haven't done anything wrong or cause harm or damage or a loss to anyone...ok i get that i may have parked without paying or over stayed but for god sake are we not born free .
I'll think about it but i realy feel that i have a strong case.

KeithP

If you do make a counter offer, use the same phrase - without prejudice (save as costs).

That means they can't turn up at court and say "look your honour, he admits fault by offering to pay".

Coupon-mad

Allygood100 wrote: »

Honestly its not the money...but the fact that someone can turn up and threaten to use the law and whatever to take my money where i Haven't done anything wrong or cause harm or damage or a loss to anyone...ok i get that i may have parked without paying or over stayed but for god sake are we not born free .

I'll think about it but i realy feel that i have a strong case.

Send them a SAR (on their PRIVACY page) for this 'further information' that must by definition, be a communication from the hotel with personal data about you. Say you wish to see that exchange of information about you.

Ignore the £60. Carry on. As Brown Trout says, they have no case as there is no legitimate interest to proceed, now.

I wrote an email for someone here in a similar situation:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/74993938#Comment_74993938

Unfortunately he never came back to update the thread but I suspect PE discontinued that one.

Allygood100

hi guys this a draft defense :


IN THE COUNTY COURT

CLAIM No: xxxxxxxxxx

BETWEEN:

XXXX PARK (Claimant)

-and-

xxxxxxxxxxxx (Defendant)

________________________________________
DEFENCE
________________________________________

1. The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to relief in the sum claimed, or at all.
1.2 The Defendant is the registered keeper of the vehicle in question. The Claim relates to an alleged debt in damages arising from a driver's alleged breach of contract, when parking at xxxx

1.3. Any breach is denied, and it is further denied that there was any agreement to pay the Claimant's £100 'Parking Charge Notice ('PCN')'.

2. The allegation appears to be based on images by their 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 cxxxxxx Hotel.


2.1. The defendant is a private hire driver and due his trade is in constant use of the pickup and drop off at the car park in question, and the registration of the vehicle is picked up numerous times when entering and leaving the site, the defendant rise the fact that is could sometimes create a double dip scenario where the system calculate wrongly the amount spent in the premises. And from previous experience with parking firm the same issue occurring and will be providing proves in due time.

3. The Particulars of Claim state that the Defendant was the registered keeper and/or the driver of the vehicle(s). These assertions indicate that the Claimant has failed to identify a Cause of Action, and is simply offering a menu of choices. 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.

4. 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.

5. 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. They merely state that vehicles must be parked correctly within their allocated parking bay, giving no definition of the term 'correctly parked', nor indicating which bays are allocated to whom.

5.1. 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. The defendant never noticed the signs prior to the fine and if he knew about the parking terms he would’ve asked the hotel in question to exempt his vehicle on their permanent ‘white list’ to enable him to use the site regularly without being punished for not knowing about an onerous hidden trap. Not only was that option never stated anywhere, but in fact nothing was seen about any keypad to input any VRN, a wholly unexpected requirement.


6. This case is different to Beavis vs ,,, furthermore the hotel wants the whole claim cancelled and the defendant will provide prove in due time. So there are no facts that save this from being struck out as punitive and unconscionable, and the penalty rule mentioned in Beavis remains engaged on this occasion, with no support from the landowner and no deterrent value or commercial justification, and a complete lack of clear signs inside and out to draw attention to some sort of keypad/ipad, there is no legitimate interest that could allow this claimant to charge more than could the normal damages that only a landowner could claim if applicable.


7. [FONT=&quot]XXXX recently issued a parking ticket to a motorist who they said had stayed almost 3 hours in a car park. They based this accusation on pictures their ANPR had taken of the vehicle arriving and leaving. However, the motorist had visited the car park twice, once in the afternoon and then later in the early evening. XXXXXs system, being unfit for purpose, had failed to take pictures of the first exit and second entry. The motorist appealed; XXXX responded with a threatening letter. Luckily for the motorist, they had a tracker device in their vehicle which showed their journey.[/FONT]

8. The Claimant is put to strict proof that it has sufficient proprietary interest in the land, or that it has the necessary authorization from the landowner to issue parking charge notices, and to pursue payment by means of litigation. Furthermore the landowner (business) agrees with the defendant in that there no ground of the parking fine and has requested the Claimant to cancel the fine.

9. The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4, at Section 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. The claim includes an additional £60, for which no calculation or explanation is given, and which appears to be an attempt at double recovery. Shall I keep this as the fine was for £100.

10. 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.

I believe the facts contained in this Defense are true.

Name
Signature
Date

Coupon-mad

I am not sure that #7 helps your case, so I wouldn't refer to other cases.

This needed tidying up, and ''double dip'' is only forum slang(!) so I suggest:


2.1. The defendant is a private hire driver and due his trade is in constant use of the pickup and drop off at the car park in question, and the registration of the vehicle is picked up numerous times when entering and leaving the site. The defendant [STRIKE]rise the fact[/STRIKE] contends that is could sometimes create a PCN when no contravention occurred. [STRIKE]double dip scenario where the system calculate wrongly the amount spent in the premises. And from previous experience with parking firm the same issue occurring and will be providing proves in due time.[/STRIKE]

2.2. The Defendant (and the Claimant but they have so far withheld it and tried to use it as leverage) holds an email from the Hotel, stating that they wish this charge to be cancelled and do not support it, as the Defendant is a private hire driver and as such, a regular authorised visitor who should be on the site's ''white list''. Thus, there is no legitimate interest or commercial justification possible for this charge, and (as was discussed in the Beavis case) here the penalty rule remains engaged.