County Court Claim Form from ParkingEye Ltd

ChezWillo

Another question...sorry but I have checked the Newbies thread!
When I submitted my AOS, I noticed that there was an option to submit my defence that way too. This isn’t how it is advised in the Newbies section and I was wondering if there was an issue doing it this way of if it is just a new option. I know that the Newbie section talks about printing, signing, scanning to PDF and then sending via e-mail.
Thanks again!

KeithP

ChezWillo wrote: »

Another question...sorry but I have checked the Newbies thread!
When I submitted my AOS, I noticed that there was an option to submit my defence that way too. This isn’t how it is advised in the Newbies section and I was wondering if there was an issue doing it this way of if it is just a new option. I know that the Newbie section talks about printing, signing, scanning to PDF and then sending via e-mail.
Thanks again!

In fact post #8 above in your very own thread also suggests a way of doing it.

You need to read post #2 of the NEWBIES thread a bit more thoroughly.

In Bargepole's 'what happens when' thread linked from that post he explains exactly why you should not file your Defence via the MCOL website.

Your choice though.

ChezWillo

I thought I had read all of the relevant posts in the NEWBIES thread...obviously not! ����!♀️
I mustn’t have clicked on all the links.
I will do it the way you suggested; I just wasn’t sure if that link was new and I’d missed the advice.
Do you think it’s worth sending an e-mail to PE, as suggested in the thread, or does that only work at LBC stage?
Thanks again!

ChezWillo

Here is my Defence...left it until the last minute! The Grace Period seems to fit perfectly, so I’m looking to rely on that.

IN THE COUNTY COURT

​​​​​​​​​CLAIM No: XXXXXXXX

BETWEEN:

ParkingEye Ltd (Claimant)
And
XXXXXXXXXXX (Defendant)

DEFENCE




1. The Defendant is the registered keeper of the vehicle in question. The Claim relates to an alleged debt in damages arising from an alleged breach of contract, when parking at Two Saints Retail Park, Ormskirk, on 3 December 2018.


1.1. Any breach is denied and it is further denied that there was an agreement to pay the Claimant’s £100 Parking Charge Notice.

2. The allegation appears to be based on images produced by the Claimant’s 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 ‘’parking without a valid parking charge ticket’.

2.1. The images, provided upon request, show images of the vehicle entering the car park at 16.52.45 and leaving at 18.08.31.

2.2. As there is a free stay period of 1 hour, the Claimant is alleging that the Defendant overstayed in the car park for a period of 15 minutes.



3. It is clear that the Claimant has paid no heed to the British Parking Association Code of Practice in respect of Grace Periods.

3.1. Clause 13.2 in the BPA COP clearly states ‘If the parking location is one where parking is normally permitted, you must allow the driver a reasonable grace period in addition to the parking event before enforcement action is taken. In such instances the grace period must be a minimum of 10 minutes.’


3.2. Clause 13.4 further states ‘You should allow the driver a reasonable period to leave the private car park after the parking contract has ended, before you take enforcement action. If the location is one where parking is normally permitted, the Grace Period at the end of the parking period should be a minimum of 10 minutes.’


4. The Defendant can prove that they were a patron of a number of retailers at the site on the day in question.


5. The Claimant is put to strict proof to explain their reasoning behind trying to collect £100 for the alleged breach, instead of the few pounds tariff, if it is their case that this sum went unpaid.


6. If the parking charge was unpaid, then the sum owed is a quantifiable figure. The sum owed was a small tariff and, had the Defendant been alerted to the sum at the time, this would have been paid. The use of ANPR cameras and the demand for £100 is viewed to be wholly excessive.

7. The Claimant is also 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 Parking Charge Notices, and to pursue payment.


8. In addition to the original parking charge, for which liability is denied, the Claimant has artificially inflated the value of the Claim by adding purported Legal representative’s costs of £50, which have not actually been incurred by the Claimant.

8.1. Whilst £50 may be recoverable in an instance where a Claimant has used a legal firm to prepare a claim, ParkingEye Ltd has not done so in this case. The Claimant has a legal team with salaried, in-house Solicitors and it files hundreds of similar claims per month. The Defendant puts the Claimant to strict proof to the contrary.

9. In summary, it is the Defendant’s case that the Claim is without merit, that it breaches the BPA COP, and that it has no real prospect of success.


I believe the facts contained within this Defence are true.

XXXXXXXXXXXX.


16 April 2019

The_Deep

PE signs leave much to be desired, read this and use it in your defence

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=5972164

Also complain yo your MP, they are very familiar with these scams. and on 15th March 2019 a Bill was enacted to curb the excesses of these private parking companies. Codes of Practice are being drawn up, an independent appeals service will be set up, and access to the DVLA's date base more rigorously policed, and persistent offenders denied access. Hopefully life will become impossible for the worst of these scammers.

Until this is done you should still complain to your MP, citing the new legislation.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2019/8/contents/enacted

Just as the clampers were finally closed down, so hopefully will many of these Private Parking Companies. lso complain to your MP, they are well aware how the scam works.