Help defending court claim from ParkingEye for 15 minutes overstay

KeithP

robiee4u, try posting live links.

You have probably been here long enough and now have enough posts under your belt to be able to do so.

Egbert_Nobacon

You seem to have a strong case and would be unlucky with judge bingo not to win in court.

I doubt they have planning permission for their cameras or consent for signs.
This could be checked with Tendring District Council.

Please do not use these scam car parks in Clacton as there are loads of free on street spaces.
In 20 years I have never paid a penny.

Quentin

robiee4u wrote: »

Here is a screenshot of the form I sent on the 13th April. .......

You have redacted certain parts of that image, but there is enough on show there for the PPC to identify you

Remove the image and edit the link out of your post

The ppcs monitor this forum and can use posts in your thread against you if they know who you are!

robiee4u

I have removed the image and that link shouldn't work anymore.
But my point was that I have made the SAR on the 13th using the online form but haven't received any response at all. I know they can take up to 1 month but I have no way to prove that I sent them incase they don't reply. Any ideas?

Quentin

Wait the month and if you get no reply send another

(You have your screenshot of your original SAR)

robiee4u

Here is my latest defence statement based on @Coupon-mad's recent suggestions.
Is there any way I could add anything to point out the 24 minutes gap between the (first) entry and the ticket purchased time to prove that it is a double-dip error?

In The County Court CLAIM No: XXXXX

Between

ParkingEye Ltd (Claimant)
-and-
XXX XXX(Defendant)

____________
DEFENCE
____________

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

2. The facts are that the vehicle, registration XXXX, of which the Defendant is the registered keeper, was parked on the date at Colne Road, CO151PY and did purchase a valid ticket for the parking.

3. Upon receipt of a parking charge notice from the Claimant, the defendant supplied them with the evidence that ticket for 3 hours was indeed purchased, however, they have elected to pursue this matter via litigation.

4. The Claimant is claiming that the defendant has overstayed for 15 minutes since he paid for 3 hours only. In fact, the Defendant tried to park there first, then had to leave since no parking space was available - to be clear, the car left the site without parking. After some 10-15 minutes the Defendant went back and this time, found parking. The Defendant has submitted a SAR to the Claimant for all ANPR image records from that day, which thus far have not been produced. The Claimant is put to strict proof of all images of the car captured that day from the entry and exit cameras.

4.(i) It is known that ANPR has an inherent fault admitted in a British Parking Association ('BPA') article a few years ago that this Claimant is familiar with, that (to quote the BPA): ''As with all new technology, there are issues associated with its use: a) Repeat users of a car park inside a 24 hour period sometimes find that their first entry is paired with their last exit, resulting in an ''overstay''. Operators are becoming aware of this and should now be checking all ANPR transactions to ensure that this does not occur.'' It is submitted that the Claimant has not properly checked its records and even if one of the middle 'entry or exit' manoeuvres was not captured - due to something as simple as tailgating traffic - it is likely the other one was picked up yet the system has reverted to the well-known flaw of defaulting to use the 'first in, last out' images to issue a PCN that should never have been issued, had proper, human checks been made for a third ANPR image.

4. (ii) Even if the Claimant produces clear evidence of a search of all images and cannot locate a partial or full image of the Defendant leaving then returning, it is a matter of fact that the Defendant did not park for longer than 3 hours. The Claimant is attempting to sweep together the initial 'observation period' on arrival before parking and paying, with the final 'grace period' after the expiry of paid-for time. The latter 'grace period' is stated in the BPA Code of Practice, as a mandatory period of at least ten minutes after a ticket has expired, and this is, in fact, an industry standard, following the mandatory practice across the Country now, for Council PCNs to allow ten minutes grace after a parking licence expires.

4. (iii) However, the Claimant has ignored the initial (arrival) 'observation period' which was defined in another BPA article by Kelvin Reynolds, BPA Director of Corporate Affairs who this Claimant is well are, is on record as saying: ''there is a difference between 'grace' periods and 'observation' periods in parking and that good practice allows for this. An observation period is the time when an enforcement officer should be able to determine what the motorist intends to do once in the car park. Our guidance specifically says that there must be sufficient time for the motorist to park their car, observe the signs, decide whether they want to comply with the operator’s conditions and either drive away or pay for a ticket. No time limit is specified. This is because it might take one person five minutes, but another person 10 minutes depending on various factors, not limited to disability. The BPA's guidance defines the 'grace period' as the time allowed after permitted or paid-for parking has expired but before any kind of enforcement takes place.''

4. (iv). So the 'observation period' (on arrival before paying at the machine or by phone) is undefined, as the facts differ in each case, according to the BPA. In this case, the Defendant found on the second arrival that he had no cash and had to first take time to register online to pay. Setting up a new app for the first time on the spot, and successfully paying for parking at an unfamiliar location inevitably took several minutes, yet this Claimant has not allowed any time at all for that activity which was a pre-requisite of being able to comply with their stated terms. This Claimant offers a contract for a driver to pay by phone and they supply a convoluted (several pages and clicks) phone app for registration - after a driver has already taken a few minutes driving in, finding a space, parking then walking over to the machine - yet have allowed no time at all for any of this time-consuming activity.

5. The defendant submits that the POPLA decision should be disregarded. POPLA provided a very low standard of service in this instance for the defendant as the caseworker did not address the ground of the appeal of the defendant. Upon complaining they apologised and agreed that the assessor indeed did not mention the ground in her assessment. But they insisted that POPLA is a one-stage process, there is no opportunity for the defendant to appeal the decision. And they also said that their decision would not have changed since they did not have enough evidence to prove the defendant's ground.

6. The ground of POPLA appeal was that the defendant had to enter twice (within about a 15 minutes window) to get a parking space and ParkingEye’s system might have taken the first entry and last exit which is not right. The defendant made it clear so that POPLA consider this and enforce Parkingeye to provide the recorded images/videos with timestamps in the appeal but unfortunately they completely ignored the defendant's ground of appeal.

7. The defendant has asked the Claimant on the 13th of April to provide recording of all images with timestamps captured by any of their cameras at Colne Road car park in Clacton-on-sea, C0151PY on that day and but has not received any response from them yet. The defendant strongly believes that ParkingEye’s system has failed to recognise this and in their claim, they are including the first entry of failed attempt to park at the start of the parking in their claim which is not right.

8. 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 defendant relies upon the case of Vine v London Borough of Waltham Forest; CA 5 APR 2000, a case won by the consumer on appeal where the Judges also found that clear entrance signs are expected.

9. The terms on the Claimant's signage are also displayed in a font which is too small to be read 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 based on Consumer Rights Act 2015.

10. 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 parking charge notices and to pursue payment by means of litigation.

Costs on the claim - disproportionate and disingenuous
11). CPR 44.3 (2) states: ''Where the amount of costs is to be assessed on the standard basis, the court will –
(a) only allow costs which are proportionate to the matters in issue. Costs which are disproportionate in amount may be disallowed or reduced even if they were reasonably or necessarily incurred, and
(b) resolve any doubt which it may have as to whether costs were reasonably and proportionately incurred or were reasonable and proportionate in amount in favour of the paying party.

11)(i). Whilst quantified costs can be considered on a standard basis, this Claimant's costs are wholly disproportionate and do not stand up to scrutiny. In fact, it is averred that the Claimant has not paid or incurred such damages/costs or 'legal fees' at all. Any debt collection letters were either sent by a third party which offers a 'no collection, no fee' service or were a standard feature of a low-cost business model. The Beavis case is the authority for the recovery of the parking charge itself and no more, since that sum is, by definition, already hugely inflated for profit, not loss, and the Judges held that a parking firm not in possession cannot plead their case in damages, as none exist.

11)(ii). The Claimant cannot reasonably recover an additional three-figure sum in damages or costs to pursue an alleged £100 debt. The POFA states that the maximum sum that may be recovered is the charge stated on a compliant Notice to Keeper ('NTK') - in this case, £100.

11). (iii). Even the purported 'legal costs' are made up out of thin air. No individual Solicitor has signed the Particulars of Claim - in breach of Practice Direction 22, and rendering the statement of truth a nullity - and this template roboclaim has clearly had no input from any supervising Solicitor, whether in-house or externally. According to Ladak v DRC Locums UKEAT/0488/13/LA the claimant can only recover the direct and provable costs of the time spent on preparing the claim in a legal capacity, not any administration costs allegedly incurred by already remunerated clerical staff.


12. 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.

---

I believe the facts contained in this Defence Statement are true.
Name: XXX XXXX

Coupon-mad

How about:

2. The facts are that the vehicle, registration XXXX, of which the Defendant is the registered keeper, was parked on the date at Colne Road, CO151PY and did purchase a valid ticket at 3:44pm which covered the full parking period. This ticket was purchased within a reasonable observation period of grace, some 5-10 minutes after driving in for a second time that afternoon. This second entry was on/after 3.30pm but the Claimant has failed to show that entry image. From the time relied upon by the Claimant, it appears they are relying upon using the first ANPR image, captured a little earlier that day, but this was not part of any 'parking event' as defined by the applicable law regarding parking on private land, because the car left due to no spaces being available and returned shortly after. The Claimant cannot add the two events together, but given the inexplicable alleged '24 minutes' between their first ANPR capture time and the ticket purchase time, it is submitted that this is what this Claimant has done. The Claimant is put to strict proof otherwise.

robiee4u

I have read other threads but still unsure about, sending the Defence, do I just print and send it on its own or do I not have to sign and attach the N9B (SDT) form that came with the claim form? Is there anything I need to do on the moneyclaim online website before sending it? Thanks

robiee4u

Thanks @Coupon-mad, I will update point 2.

KeithP

robiee4u wrote: »

I have read other threads but still unsure about, sending the Defence, do I just print and send it on its own or do I not have to sign and attach the N9B (SDT) form that came with the claim form? Is there anything I need to do on the moneyclaim online website before sending it? Thanks

robiee4u, I really am very disappointed to read that post.

You asked a somewhat similar question just six days ago, when I replied suggesting:

Please re-read post #2 above - the first reply you received on your very own thread.

Did you not bother to re-read that post?

Everything you need to do on the MCOL website is also described in that post.