ParkingEye County Court Defence - Help

klaus303

Hi all, so after incorrectly ignoring the letters from parking eye, i have now had a Clain Form issued to me from the County Court. i have filed an AOS, but now need to submit my evidence.

The background is, that i drove into the Holiday Inn car park to wait for a colleague to hand over some bits. My colleague was running late, and in total i was in the car park for 40 mins. I waited in the car the whole time (except breifly getting out to hand over the items). i did not therefore,see the parking signs, or any machines, however it transpires you have to enter reg info within the hotel reception.

my defence is below, and i would greatly appreciate any guidance provided.

thanks

klaus303

In the County Court Claim Number: xxxxxxx

Between

ParkingEye Ltd

v

Xyour nameX



DEFENCE


1. The Defendant is the registered keeper of the vehicle in question. The Claim relates to an alleged debt arising from the driver's alleged breach of contract, which is denied. It is further denied that there was any agreement to pay the Claimant a punitive £100 'parking charge notice' (PCN) for the lawful conduct described below.

2. It is admitted that at the time of the alleged infringement the Defendant was the registered keeper of vehicle registration mark xxxxxxx which is the subject of these proceedings.

3. It is not admitted that on xxxxx the Defendant's vehicle was actually parked up and left the car, at the Holiday Inn, XXX.

a. The Claimant has provided no evidence, photographic or otherwise that the vehicle was indeed parked unattended, or where within the site, and/or whether the car stopped adjacent to, or in close proximity to which signage terms.

4. According to the sparse signs in this car park, it now transpires that to avoid a Parking Charge and despite there being no Pay & Display machines or similar, drivers were expected to know to input their Vehicle Registration Number (VRN). This was far from clearly signed and the purported keypad was nowhere to be seen.

5. The driver did not enter into any 'agreement on the charge', no consideration flowed between the parties and no contract was established.

a. The Defendant denies that the driver would have agreed to pay the original demand of £100 to agree to the alleged contract had the terms and conditions of the contract been properly displayed and accessible to a driver merely driving round and waiting within the car park, never getting out of the car.

b. The Defendant avers that indiscriminate use of ANPR data and images to penalise drivers who are just waiting within the car park, meets the mandatory test of fairness within the Consumer Rights Act 2015 which must be considered by the courts in all alleged 'consumer contract breach' cases, no matter how the issue is raised by a Defendant, and even if they have not raised the point at all. The Claimant has merely assumed that all cars that pass the cameras, park and take up a bay, yet it adduces no evidence to support this incorrect assumption and applies a blanket penalty unfairly.

c. The Defendant denies that the signs at this location meet the mandatory test of transparency of terms that are 'bound to be seen', as set out within the Consumer Rights Act 2015. For a driver just waiting within the car park, any terms relating to a parking contract would not reasonably be expected to apply, and would have had to have been extremely clear in all places within the site, in very large letters to ensure all drivers were 'bound to see' the terms even if not parking, getting out and/or approaching the hotel entrance.

6. Failure to set out clear parking terms - ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis (2015) UKSC 67 distinguished.

a. The Claimant is put to strict proof, with the bar being set by Denning LJ in J Spurling Ltd v Bradshaw [1956] in the well-known 'Red Hand Rule' where hidden/unknown terms were held to be un-enforceable: ''Some clauses which I have seen would need to be printed in red ink...with a red hand pointing to it before the notice could be held to be sufficient.''

b. The Defendant relies upon ParkingEye Ltd v Barry Beavis (2015) UKSC 67 insofar as the Court were willing to impose a penalty in the context of a site of commercial value and where the signage regarding the penalties imposed for any breach of parking terms were clear - both upon entry to the site and throughout. This case is distinguished from the Beavis case in that there are inadequate signs which are incapable of binding the driver who did not park and enter into any contract.

c. This land is not comparable with the retail park in Beavis, and nor are the facts of the case.

7. The ANPR cameras are not identified upon entry to the Holiday Inn, XXX site.
a. There is well-recorded evidence of ANPR cameras, being prone to error and inaccuracy. Timings of alleged parking incidents cannot be relied upon. The Claimant is put to strict proof that they have complied with ICO Code of Practice for CCTV Surveillance Cameras, which includes ANPR.

b. The Defendant puts the Claimant to strict proof of the existence of a Privacy Impact Assessment, made before ANPR surveillance and enforcement started. Further, the defendant puts the claimant to strict proof of regular assessments made in consultation with their clients at this location, to establish that ANPR being used 24/7, with all data indiscriminately and excessively harvested, including penalising drivers of cars that are waiting and never leave their vehicle, is justifiable and the least data-intrusive method of enforcement.


8. Legal Representatives Costs are disputed
a. The Defendant also disputes that the Claimant has incurred £50 solicitor costs.
b. The Defendant has the reasonable belief that the Claimant has not incurred £50 costs to pursue an alleged £175 debt.
c. ParkingEye Ltd appear to have an in house legal department as evidenced by their Letter Before County Court Claim which was signed off from 'ParkingEye Legal Department'.

9. The defendant denies the claim in its entirety, voiding any liability to the claimant for all amounts claimed due to the aforementioned reasons. The Court is invited to dismiss the Claim, and to allow such Defendant's costs as are permissible under Civil Procedure Rule 27.14


I confirm that the above facts and statements are true to the best of my knowledge.



Name

Signed


Date

KeithP

Hi and welcome.

What is the Issue Date on your Claim Form?

Is it from the County Court Business Centre in Northampton, or from somewhere else?

klaus303

I'm afraid i have left it late for the process, the issue date on the letter from the County Court Business Centre in Northampton, is 30 Jan 2019, and i filed the AOS last week

The_Deep

If this was a free car park you might like to google de minimis and perhaps include it in your piece.

How come the alleged debt is £175? Where does the extra £75 come from. If they are claiming for legals ask them for a copy of the vat invoice.

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.

KeithP

klaus303 wrote: »

I'm afraid i have left it late for the process, the issue date on the letter from the County Court Business Centre in Northampton, is 30 Jan 2019, and i filed the AOS last week

With a Claim Issue Date of 30th January, and having done the Acknowledgement of Service in a timely manner, you have until 4pm on Monday 4th March 2019 to file your Defence.

That's over a week away. Loads of time to produce a Defence, but don't 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 "defended". 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.

klaus303

The_Deep wrote: »

If this was a free car park you might like to google de minimis and perhaps include it in your piece.

Would this still apply, if you had to be a patron of the Hotel?

Coupon-mad

a. The Defendant denies that the driver would have agreed to pay the original demand of £100 to agree to the alleged contract had the terms and conditions of the contract been properly displayed and accessible to a driver merely driving round and waiting within the car park, never getting out of the car.

You have thrown that in as an aside but haven't actually said that, higher up.

Also, you don't seem to have the usual no landowner authority defence point.

klaus303

Hi, a bit of an update and further questions post.

I submitted my defence a while back, and then received a court date, which is next week.

However, due to working away at the time, i missed the date last week for submitting my witness statement. I unfortunately had no computer access, and no way to print and post it to the court or parking eye.

I had a minor panic over the situation, but i merely intend to rely on my defence statement originally submitted. Will this cause me any issue, or shall i try and still file it now, a week late?

In a slight twist, and this may not work in my favour given the above, parking eyes witness statement was delivered 4 days late!

Any advice on how to proceed would be greatly appreciated.

klaus303

Just to add to the above, their WS arrive with me on a saturday, so likely only got to the court yesterday, 8 days before the hearing.

Coupon-mad

However, due to working away at the time, i missed the date last week for submitting my witness statement.

Do it today. DON'T rely on your defence and no evidence!