Parking Eye Letter before county court claim

Johny86

Hi Guys
I received a letter before county court claim from Parking eye.

KeithP

The guidance you are looking for is in post #2 of the NEWBIES FAQ sticky thread.

That's the second post on the thread where you posted your first message earlier today.

Send a rebuttal to PE.

Also send a Subject Access Request to PE.

You've wasted the best part of a month so need to wake up and take immediate action NOW.

You will get a Claim Form from the County Court Business Centre later this month. Do not ignore that.

Johny86

Hi Keith

Thank you for your response.

Please send me a recent template so I can amend and keep the relevant information and send it to PE asap. Also how do I ask for SAR? Sorry for asking too much.

KeithP

Yes, you are asking for too much.

Full details, including a link to a template, are in that post you have been pointed towards.

Coupon-mad

ParkingEye are specifically mentioned in the LBC part of post #2 of the NEWBIES thread...I specially mention them, with an email address and clear instructions.

So you just need to read it and come off this thread.

Please no asking if what it says in the sticky thread is right, as we have no time to do this one by one. That's why the thread is at the top.

Johny86

To Parking Eye Pre-Litigation Manager,

Cease and desist from contacting me - this is now unwarranted harassment and you are causing significant distress to me and my family.

This continued contact and demands for money from me, a person who is not liable in law, POFA was flagrantly not adhered to you, is a significant nuisance that is continuing to affect my peace of mind and that of my family, distracting me from my work and my daily life. Hours of my time have already been wasted on this matter, only to receive more threatening and misleading letters. The entire rogue ticketing operation and the bombardment of legalese and threatening letters indicates a course of unwarranted harassment in pursuit of money I do not owe to anyone.

This baseless but nasty financial attack on me is causing serious distress (Ferguson v British Gas Trading Ltd. [2009] EWCA Civ 46 is the authority in such a case). Should you proceed, I will have no hesitation in seeking my full costs on the indemnity basis, and will invite the Court to dismiss the claim and to award such Defence witness costs as are permissible, pursuant to CPR 27.14.

I repeat -I am not liable in law, outwith the POFA, there is no 'keeper liability'. Stop writing misleading letters. Your company has no cause of action against me.

Take formal note: This is a formal cease and desist letter, and a Section 10 notice under the DPA. I am issuing a Section 10 notice to you. You must now stop processing my data and delete it from your records after cancelling the meritless 'charge' you are chasing, to my huge distress.

If you proceed to court, I will file a counter-claim in excess of the sum you are unreasonably demanding, seeking Vidall Hall compensation for my distress that I am noting and recounting to family and friends on a week-by-week basis, as evidence to support my position. I will have no hesitation in seeking the full amount of damages the Judge sees fit to award.

I am aware of the following two cases in the past year:

- on Friday 16th March, in case D8HW7G7P in the Slough County Court, another notorious ex-clamper parking firm (UKPC) lost an unreasonable claim against a beleaguered motorist and were found liable for the Defendant's ordinary costs and his £500 counter-claim for distress for a DPA breach by processing his data contrary to the Data Protection Principles.

- in May 2017, in case D6GM2199 CEL v Mr B, Bury County Court, before DJ Osborne, a motorist was awarded £900 because another ex-clamper parking company of the same type as your client (in this case, Civil Enforcement Limited) committed data protection breaches against him. Mr B. was the vehicle keeper but was not the driver on the day. As the NTK was not POFA compliant, the parking firm had no valid claim against the keeper. In addition, Wright Hassall had acted unreasonably in artificially inflating the claim from £100 to £300 by adding spurious amounts.
Mr B filed a counterclaim and this was upheld. In his judgment, DJ Osborne ruled a data breach had occurred, the tort of damages was applicable and that £500 was not an unreasonable amount in the circumstances. He added an additional £405 in costs, part of which were awarded on the indemnity basis, under rule 27.14.2(g) for the unreasonable behaviour of CEL. The Judge also stated he was disappointed in the claimant bringing an unfounded case, and in the behaviour of Wright Hassall who were otherwise a respectable law firm.

I urge you to avoid the same, and confirm this charge is immediately cancelled and my data as registered keeper is removed from all records held by you.

It must also be noted that your “Letter before county court claim” on 10th January 2019 contained insufficient detail of the claim and failed to provide copies of evidence you rely upon.

You must know that on 1st October 2017 a new protocol is applicable to debt claims. Since proceedings have not yet been issued, the new protocol clearly applies and must be complied with.

Your letter lacks specificity and breaches both the requirements of the previously applicable Practice Direction - Pre-Action Conduct (paragraphs 6(a) and 6(c)) and the new Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims (paragraphs 3.1(a)-(d), 5.1 and 5.2. Please treat this letter as a formal request for all of the documents / information that the protocol now requires you to provide. You must not issue proceedings without complying with that protocol. I reserve the right to draw any failure of the Claimant to comply with the protocol to the attention of the court and to ask the court to stay the claim and order you to comply with its pre-action obligations, and when costs come to be considered.

As you must know, the Practice Direction and Protocol bind all potential litigants, whatever the size or type of the claim. Its express purpose is to assist parties in understanding the claim and their respective positions in relation to it, to enable parties to take stock of their positions and to negotiate a settlement, or at least narrow the issues, without incurring the costs of court proceedings or using up valuable court time. It is astounding that you have sent me a vague and un-evidenced 'Letter before Claim' in complete ignorance of the pre-existing Practice Direction and the new Protocol.

Nobody, including you is immune from the requirements and obligations of the Practice Direction and the Protocol.

I require you to comply with its obligations by sending me the following information/documents:

1. An explanation of the cause of action
2. To explicitly state whether they are pursuing me as a keeper
3. To explicitly state whether they are relying on the provisions of Schedule 4 of POFA 2012
4. What the details of the claim are; where it is claimed the vehicle was parked, for how long, how the monies being claimed arose and have been calculated
5. Is the claim for a contractual breach? If so, what is the date of the agreement? The names of the parties to It and provide to me a copy of that contract.
6. Is the claim for trespass? If so, provide details.
7. Provide me with a copy of the contract with the landowner under which they assert authority to bring the claim, as required by the IPC code of practice section B, clause 1.1
8. A plan showing where any signs were displayed
9. Details of the signs displayed (size of sign, size of font, height at which displayed)
10. Provide details of the original charge, and detail any interest and administrative or other charges added
11. Provide a copy of the Information Sheet and the Reply Form

If you do not provide me with this information then I put you on notice that I will be relying on the cases of Webb Resolutions Ltd v Waller Needham & Green [2012] EWHC 3529 (Ch), DaejanInvestments Limited v The Park West Club Limited (Part 20) !!!8211; Buxton Associates [2003] EWHC 2872, Charles Church Developments Ltd v Stent Foundations Limited & Peter Dann Limited [2007] EWHC 855 in asking the court to impose sanctions on you and to order a stay of the proceedings, pursuant to paragraphs 13 ,15(b) and (c) and 16 of the Practice Direction, as referred to in paragraph 7.2 of the Protocol.

Until you have complied with its obligations and provided this information, I am unable to respond to the alleged claim and to consider my position in relation to it, and it is entirely premature (and a waste of costs and court time) for you to issue proceedings. Should you wish to do so, then I will seek an immediate stay pursuant to paragraph 15(b) of the Practice Direction and an order that this information is provided.


If no reply is provided within 14 days, I will consider this matter closed and will not enter into any further correspondence with you.

Umkomaas

Was all that entire post copied directly from the NEWBIES FAQ sticky? It looks very old to me and full of superfluous waffle.

If you've lifted it from a random thread rather than the sticky, you must go back to the sticky. You will not see off PE with any amount of legal cases you care to throw at them, especially as they will see right through the fact that you probably have no idea what any of the cases are about and how they impact on your particular case.

POFA was flagrantly not adhered to you

Doesn't make sense.

I am not liable in law, outwith the POFA, there is no 'keeper liability'.

Have PE failed PoFA? If so, in what way?

If no reply is provided within 14 days, I will consider this matter closed and will not enter into any further correspondence with you.

Dangerous strategy in dealing with PE.

The_Deep

The whole industry is a scam, relying on threats of court, and the public's ignorance of the Law, A bill is currently before parliament which will regulate the scammers, many of whom are ex-clampers.

This is an entirely unregulated industry which is scamming the public with inflated claims for minor breaches of alleged contracts for alleged parking offences, aided and abetted by a handful of low-rent solicitors. Is has been suggested by an MP that some of these companies may have connections to organised crime.

Parking Eye, CPM, Smart, (especially Smart}, and others have already been named and shamed in the House of Commons as have Gladstones Solicitors, and BW Legal, (these two law firms take hundreds of these cases to court each week), hospital car parks and residential complex tickets have been especially mentioned. They lose most of them, and have been reported to the regulatory authority by an M.P. for unprofessional conduct

The problem has become so widespread that MPs have agreed to enact a Bill to regulate these scammers.

Sir Greg Knight's Private Members Bill to curb the excesses, and perhaps close down, some of these companies passed its Second Reading in the Lords this month, and, with a fair wind, will l become Law later this year..

All five readings are available to watch on the internet, (some 7-8 hours), and published in Hansard. MPs have an extremely low opinion of the industry. Many are complaining that they are becoming overwhelmed by complaints from members of the public. Add to their burden, complain in the most robust terms about the scammers.

Johny86

Hi Umkomaas

Yes I have copied it from someones thread. I am really confused what to do and stressing. Coupon mad advised me to send a rebuttal to PE. I have read lots of threads but cant seem to find any rebuttal. Please help guys. I am new to this. I have sent an email to PE already regarding SAR.
Only rebuttal left. Thank you guys all

Coupon-mad

Coupon mad advised me to send a rebuttal to PE

No, I certainly didn't.

I HATE the idea of 'rebuttals' - totally pointless as a stance at this stage.

I said:

ParkingEye are specifically mentioned in the LBC part of post #2 of the NEWBIES thread...I specially mention them, with an email address and clear instructions.

And the NEWBIES thread (clear instructions) says to treat it like a last gasp appeal:

The exception is PARKINGEYE
If you get a LBCCC from ParkingEye, do send a SAR using the form on their PRIVACY page if you feel you are missing evidence (such as the VRN list from any PDT machine) but also email their litigation team if there is anything you wish to say that could stop the claim:

enforcement@parkingeye.co.uk

Do that email as well as the SAR, treat it as a last gasp chance to appeal, because ParkingEye can and will sometimes stop the case and revert to appeal stage, or they will accept you naming the driver & postal address (and will reissue the PCN and start again with the driver being allowed to appeal).

Or send them relevant things you really should have sent earlier as an appeal - such as a copy of the Blue Badge of an occupant of the car, or a shopping receipt if over £30.

ParkingEye WILL sometimes cancel the PCN at LBC stage.

You have done nothing like the above, in that lengthy and pointless 'rebuttal' rant!

This is an easy stage with ParkingEye, loads of ways to pull it back to appeal.

And complain the landowner sharpish!

Johny86

Hi Coupon mad
I sincerely apologize yes you didn't. I was suppose to say KeithP. Really sorry.
To be honest I didn't do any shopping. I was simply just being an ignorant assuming they cant do anything. Lesson learnt though for next time better safe then sorry.
Ok I will do as you explained. I am really panicking and my acute depression getting worse. I only have till tomorrow to submit whatever letter.