Parking Eye Court Case

D_P_Dance

Many PE signs are very iffy, no sufficient to form a contract imo, read this

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5972164/parking-eye-signs-oxford-road-reading&highlight=

and complain to your MP

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 become so widespread that MPs agreed to enact a Bill to regulate these scammers. It received The Royal Assent today.

OneTrickpony

DP Dance thanks for the reply.

Can i please get some feedback on draft statement, need to get the defence sorted asap.

Thanks

Le_Kirk

If your defence is based upon one found in the link to Bargepole's concisely written defences (and it looks like it is) and you have countered all/any claims the clamant makes in the POC (assuming it is better than "sparse") then it is good to go.

OneTrickpony

1. The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to relief in the sum claimed, or at all.

2. 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 also denied. Also, the defendant had no idea about any ANPR surveillance and received no letters after the initial ‘PCN’, a vague document which gave no indication as to what the alleged breach actually was. No photographic evidence of the terms on the terms of the signage has been supplied, not even on the postal ‘PCN’. It is further denied that there was any agreement to pay the Claimant a punitive parking charge.
2.1 The allegation appears to be to be that the vehicle was not authorised to use the car park 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 and is no evidence of ‘No Authorisation’ or not being a patron of the facility.
3. 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. The car park was served by signs with text that is so small, it would be difficult to read.
3.1. At best, parking without authorisation could be a matter for the landowner to pursue, in the event that damages were caused by a trespass. A parking charge cannot be dressed up by a non-landowner parking firm, as a fee, or a sum in damages owed to that firm for positively inviting and allowing a car to trespass. Not only is this a nonsense, but the Supreme Court decision in ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67, confirmed that ParkingEye could not have pursued a sum in damages or for trespass.

3.2. County Court transcripts supporting the Defendant's position will be adduced, and in all respects, the Beaviscase is distinguished.

4. The Claimant is put to strict proof that it has sufficient proprietary interest in the land, or that it has the necessary authorisation from the landowner to issue a Parking Charge, and to pursue payment by means of litigation.

4.1. It is averred that the landowner contract, if there is one that was in existence at the material time, is likely to define and provide that the Claimant can issue 'parking charge notices' (or CNs) to cars - following the procedure set out in paragraph 8 of the POFA - or alternatively, postal PCNs where there was no opportunity to serve a CN (e.g. in non-manned ANPR camera car parks, and as set out in paragraph 9 of the POFA). The Claimant is put to strict proof of its authority to issue hybrid non-CNs, which are neither one thing nor the other, and create no certainty of contract or charge whatsoever.

5. The POFA, 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 £50, for Legal fees which is inappropriate and wholly unfair.

6. 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.

OneTrickpony

Resending on original thread:
Hi All,
Received one of these after submitting a defence- offering to reduce the total amount, i seem to remember that there is information about this stage on the board but cannot find it.
Could some kind soul point me in the right direction please?

Yes have searched various terms and coming up blank....

OneTrickpony

I do not intend to pay you any money because I maintain that this claim has no basis. Moreover, since you are now in recipt of further information as you indicate in your letter, I believe you too recognise how futile your position is. Further to this, I have had subsequent correspondence with the Principal (who you know requested this be cancelled) and sought additional legal advice.

In light of the above, along with the other points raised in my defence, this claim has no realistic prospect of success and the claimant is invited to withdraw the claim with no order for costs. This is a "drop hands" offer to settle with each party bearing their own costs. The offer is available for acceptance for a period of 14 days from the date of this letter.

The terms of the offer have value to the claimant insofar as the defendant will not seek his costs of defending the action, where recoverable and will not pursue any additional but related claim(s) in connection with this matter.

If you do not withdraw unconditionally, the defendant will seek to claim his costs of the defence and additional costs for unreasonable conduct pursuant to CPR Part 27.

Also, should the case proceed to a court hearing where I am successful, this clear infringement of the International Parking Community's Code or Practice will be reported to the DVLA with a request that your client is suspended from further access to the registered keeper database.

I look forward to your reply

Redx

if this is Parking Eye , as your initial post suggests, why is the IPC mentioned in your last post ? ( instead of the BPA)


PE have nothing to do with the IPC

Coupon-mad

You just ignore a letter offering to settle.