County Court Claim from Parking Eye Ltd (Home Bargains)

silverchoice

Coupon-mad wrote: »

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.

I would be going as her lay rep speaking on her behalf. Do I have to tell them this? Does she even have to go?

Umkomaas

She has to go.

You let the usher know of your LR intentions on arrival and ask that he/she informs the Judge before you go in to the Judge’s room.

Google LR and McKenzie Friend so you understand the subtle differences and the respective roles each one plays.

Coupon-mad

I would be going as her lay rep speaking on her behalf. Do I have to tell them this?

I already answered that in my last sentence - you even quoted me!

Does she even have to go?

Yes, she must.

silverchoice

I have received reply to my defence from Parkingeye which I have attached here:

The_Deep

Have you read this?

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

IMO PE signs are too difficult to read to form a contract.

They are very free with Beavis, but in that car park PE were the de facto landowners as they were paying £1.000 per week to harvest the car park, and their signs were considered to be fair.

Fruitcake

Do you have a court date yet?

What happened about your complaint to the planning department, your complaint to your MP, and your complaint to the press?


This case can be distinguished from the Beavis case because,

Mr Beavis was offered free parking at the store where he was a paying customer, and overstayed the parking period offered.
In the defendant's case, the defendant was not a paying customer of the store, no offer of parking was made to anyone not using the store, thus no contract could be formed.

In addition, the parking management plan does not prohibit the use of the car park for non-store users. The council planning department approval states that the primary reason for the car park is for store users, but does not mention any restriction or the existence of a secondary reason for using the car park.
It is quite common for councils to allow car park planning approval for motorists to park in order to utilise other shops nearby and thus help the local economy.
The defendant has reasonable grounds to believe this. The lack of restrictions prohibiting a motorist from visiting other shops in the planning approval for this car park supports this.

The planning approval limits the parking charge for failure to comply with parking restrictions to £70, yet the claimant has repeatedly demanded an amount in excess of the stated maximum. Again this is a breach of the planning approval.

The planning approval also states that a notice to keeper will be sent for failing to abide by the parking conditions, a reminder sent if the charge is not appealed or payed, followed by a final reminder if the charge has still not been appealed or payed. This final reminder was never received meaning that the claimant has yet again failed to abide by the process detailed in the planning approval.

Finally, nowhere in the planning approval is there any allowance for an unregulated private parking company such as the claimant to start court proceedings against a motorist. It merely states that if the charge is not payed or appealed, it will be passed to a debt recovery agent. The defendant has never received any contact from a debt recovery agent, again breaching the planning approval process.



I don't know if or how any of this can be used, but you need to get it in somehow.

Coupon-mad

The reply to defence is just a template to ignore, and I saw lots of irrelevant generic crap and repetition in that statement.

Having said that, as this is about an overstay in a retail park, how on earth are you going to distinguish your case from Beavis, which was the same, as far as I can see?

As we are on page 3 as I see the thread (not sure you see the same, but it's a long thread and I never look back and expect posters to remind us of important stuff) is the driver disabled or had a medical condition allowing them more time?

If not then maybe offer P/Eye £50 to settle it, in a WP email offer to:

enforcement@parkingeye.co.uk

Remind us how this is different from Beavis?

silverchoice

Just got my court date which is 27th August which is a lot sooner than I expected.

silverchoice

Coupon-mad wrote: »

The reply to defence is just a template to ignore, and I saw lots of irrelevant generic crap and repetition in that statement.

Having said that, as this is about an overstay in a retail park, how on earth are you going to distinguish your case from Beavis, which was the same, as far as I can see?

As we are on page 3 as I see the thread (not sure you see the same, but it;s a long thread and I never look back and expect posters to remind us of important stuff) is the driver disabled or had a medical condition allowing them more time?

If not then maybe offer P/Eye £50 to settle it, in a WP email offer to:

[EMAIL="enforcement@parkingeye.co.uk"]enforcement@parkingeye.co.uk[/EMAIL]

Remind us how this is different from Beavis?

My mother is very deaf which is the main reason she wants me to represent her in court.


Wouldn't it prejudice my case or make Parkingeye more determined if I offer to settle the case? What would I put in the email ?

Also isn't the main point of the case that they have increased the free parking period from 2 hours to 1.5 hours with no planning permission ?

Fruitcake

Again, what happened about your complaint to the planning department, your complaint to your MP, and your complaint to the press?