County Court Claim from Parking Eye Ltd (Home Bargains)

silverchoice

[FONT=&quot]This is the latest draft that I plan to submit on Monday. It is basically the bargepole defence with paragraphs 2, 3 and 4 added. Are there any more changes anyone recommends before I submit it?
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]In The County Court Claim No: xxxxxxxxx[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot] Between[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]PARKINGEYE Ltd (Claimant)

-and-

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (Defendant)
__________
DEFENCE[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT][FONT=&quot]1. The Defendant was the registered keeper and driver of vehicle registration number xxxxxxxxxx on the material date. The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to relief in the sum claimed, or at all.

2. The signs used by the claimant cannot constitute a contract as they are prohibitive or forbidding and do not have the necessary requirements of a contract, offer, acceptance and consideration. The supreme court stated in Parking Eye v Beavis that only the land owner/occupier could sue for trespass. [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]3. 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.
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]4. The signs state the maximum stay was one and a half hours. The parking management plan that was submitted with the planning permission for the previous Netto store states the maximum stay was two hours. This has not been amended by further planning applications. The Defendant was parked for two hours and eleven minutes which is within the grace period for parking.

5. Accordingly, it is denied that the Defendant breached any of the Claimant's purported contractual terms, whether express, implied, or by conduct.

6. The Claimant is put to strict proof that it has sufficient interest in the land or that there are specific terms in its contract to bring an action on its own behalf. As a third party agent, the Claimant may not pursue any charge, unless specifically authorised by the principal. The Defendant has the reasonable belief that the Claimant does not have the authority to issue charges on this land in their own name, and that they have no right to bring any action regarding this claim.

7. The Defendant has the reasonable belief that the Claimant has not incurred £50 costs to pursue an alleged £100 debt. The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, in Schedule 4, Para 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.

8. In summary, the Claimant's particulars disclose no legal basis for the sum claimed, and the Court is invited to dismiss the claim in its entirety.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Statement of Truth:[/FONT][FONT=&quot]

I believe that the facts stated in this Defence are true.

Name[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Signature
Date [/FONT]

Coupon-mad

Looks fine, but I'd add clarification here:

2. The signs used by the claimant restrict the parking licence on offer, to ''Home Bargains customers only''. Upon scrutinising the wording as drafted, no offer is made to non-customers, yet the car park is open 24/7 and there is no signage warning drivers not to leave the site. The signs are forbidding for any non-Home Bargains shopper or anyone parking out of hours, and thus and the elements of a contract - offer, acceptance and consideration - are absent for non patrons.

2.1. Given the lack of any parking licence offered to local shoppers who do not happen to use Home Bargains, this could only be considered by a court under the tort of trespass. Yet the Supreme Court stated in Parking Eye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67 (the Beavis case) that only the land owner/occupier could sue for trespass, and nor could a case be pleaded in damages, as the parking firm has suffered none. Any parking charge on private land is fully dependent upon a clear contract being on offer - and there was none.

2.2. The stark difference in drafting of the words on this sign, compared to the more simple 'offer to all' in the Beavis case, renders this sign incapable of forming a contract with anyone except a Home Bargains customer during opening hours. The only similarity is the retail park location. Other than that, the Beavis case is distinguished on the facts of the words on the signs.

silverchoice

Umkomaas wrote: »

How else did you expect the council to react to a sticky question raised in a phone call? Did you ask them who does deal with it?

You need to put this in writing. Maybe you should issue a Freedom of Information request, then they can’t fob you off. You might get a very different (and more helpful) response in writing.

You need to ask questions about when the request to change the maximum stay was made, with copies of all correspondence pertaining to the request and responses to it. Who made the request? Ask when the request was granted.

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com


Parking companies should be operating within legal and local regulations. You need to find out what those local regulations are - we cannot do that for you.

Using this website I have just had the following reply from the council:


"Planning Officers have no records of any request to change the maximum free parking period."

Umkomaas

silverchoice wrote: »

Using this website I have just had the following reply from the council:


"Planning Officers have no records of any request to change the maximum free parking period."

So you now make a formal complaint to the Planning Department of the council that Home Bargains and ParkingEye have ignored and defied planning permission by unlawfully reducing the approved 2 hours free parking to 1.5 hours free parking, and local people are being penalised to the tune of £100 by PE and being sued through the county court by them even though their parking time has not exceeded the council’s 2 hour planning permission limit.

Tell them in your letter that unless they take action, you will be referring this to the Local Government Ombudsman for a formal investigation.

You also email Steve Clark of the BPA and report that PE are not complying with the terms of the planning permission given by xxxx Council and are therefore in breach of the BPA Code of Practice para 4.3. Give him the background details and copy him the Netto documents and your FOI request and the council’s response. Ask him to investigate.

4.3 Under the Code you must keep to all the requirements laid down by law.The Code reflects our understanding of the law at the date of publication. However, you are responsible for familiarising yourself with the law on any activities covered by the Code.

steve.c@britishparking.co.uk

Similarly you complain strongly to the DVLA that by operating outside of local planning laws, PE have accessed your data when they had no reasonable cause (use that term) to do so. Pass them copies of the above paperwork and ask them to investigate urgently as you are now being sued through the courts by PE.

ccrt@dvla.gov.uk

EDIT TO ADD

In each correspondence above I’d also make play on the fact that planning permission was sought and given on the basis that the parking ‘penalty’ was £70 and (under para 6.3) first time ‘offenders’ would be given a warning letter, not hit with an immediate £100 penalty.

Lay it on thick about how all these planning permission pledges have been blatantly discarded, all to the detriment of the individual, and clearly for the enrichment of ParkingEye.

Coupon-mad

Tell the local paper too, like here:

https://www.theargus.co.uk/news/9031524.aldi-fined-for-breaking-law-on-parking-charges-at-portslade-store/

Sadly, a couple of years later ParkingEye (seems it was them pushing it and making it look like Aldi wanted it...) got the max time agreed by the Council to be reduced to 1.5 hours! Didn't Aldi learn when they were fined? No.

This despite objections that this then gives people no time to use the local high street over a railway crossing, as is allowed at that site. Effectively forcing people only to use the car park to shop at Aldi even though that's not allowed at that site and PE were made to take 'Aldi customers only' signs down within a week.

Castle

If they are reducing the free parking period, wouldn't that also be in breach of the Equality Act?

silverchoice

We have received a copy of the Directions Questionnaire filled in by Parking Eye Ltd but not a blank one to fill in ourselves. What should we do?

KeithP

silverchoice wrote: »

We have received a copy of the Directions Questionnaire filled in by Parking Eye Ltd but not a blank one to fill in ourselves. What should we do?

You should re-read points 7 and 8 in the list in post #6 above.

For simplicity, here they are again:

• Do not be surprised to receive a copy of the Claimant's Directions Questionnaire, they are just trying to put you under pressure.
  
• 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.

silverchoice

If we have to go to court I will have to go with my mother so do I put myself down as a witness?

Coupon-mad

If you are going as a witness, yes.

If you are going as her McKenzie friend, to stay silent & hold her hand, no.

If you are going as her lay rep, to speak on her behalf & present her case, no.

The last two options need no permission or notice.