Claim form from ParkingEye Court summons

Bestdea1s

I have a court claim form that was issued on 20th May 2019. For a parking charge issued on 19/2/19. This was when my disabled partner was the driver and uses the car to take me to a hospital appointment, he stayed in the vehicle for the 1.45mins while I attended my appointment but did not see any notice saying no waiting in the car park so didn't bother paying for parking. I have filed an acknowledgment of service. Do should I appeal or pay?

KeithP

Bestdea1s wrote: »

I have a court claim form that was issued on 20th May 2019. I have filed an acknowledgment of service.

With a Claim Issue Date of 20th May, and having done the Acknowledgement of Service in a timely manner, you have until 4pm on Monday 24th June 2019 to file your Defence.

That's two weeks away. Loads of time to produce a perfect Defence, but please don't leave it to the last minute.


When you are happy with the content, your Defence should be filed via email as suggested here:

Print your Defence.
1. Sign it and date it.
   
2. Scan the signed document back in and save it as a pdf.
   
3. Send that pdf as an email attachment to CCBCAQ@Justice.gov.uk
   
4. Just put the claim number and the word Defence in the email title, and in the body of the email something like 'Please find my Defence attached'.
   
5. Log into MCOL after a few days to see if the Claim is marked "defence received". If not chase the CCBC until it is.
   
6. Do not be surprised to receive an early copy of the Claimant's Directions Questionnaire, they are just trying to keep you under pressure.
   
7. 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.

Bestdea1s

Hi everyone, I think this covers everything. If anyone would like to proof read for me and feedback any improvements it would be appreciated.

Defence ready to file??????
Claim No++++++++

1. I, """"""""", The Defendant, deny liability for the entirety of the claim.

2. It is claimed that a vehicle with registration """", of which the Defendant is the registered keeper of a car with that mark, was captured using Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR), entering, leaving and parking in a car park on Hardwick road, Stockton on Tees.
The defendant has seen no evidence of any images captured using APNR cameras to support these claims. The defendant has requested the information under the freedom of information act from the claimant however as yet has received no reply. Therfore the Claimant is put to strict proof to show evidence of the APNR images.

3. The Particulars of Claim state that the Defendant was the registered keeper of the vehicle """"""". These assertions indicate that the Claimant has failed to identify the driver. The defendant, having received no communication prior to the court claim form, asserts that the claimant failed to show Cause of Action, and is simply offering a menu of choices. As such, the Claim fails to comply with Civil Procedure Rule 16.4, or with Civil Practice Direction 16, paras. 7.3 to 7.5. Further, the particulars of the claim do not meet the requirements of Practice
Direction 16 7.5 as there is nothing which specifies how the terms were breached.

4. The vehicle on the date claimed by the claimant was not being driven by me.
The driver of the vehicle on the date claimed was a disabled family member with mobility problems and a valid blue badge and who would have needed more time than able-bodied users. The Equality Act 2010 calls this 'reasonable adjustments'.
(i) Service providers have a legal duty to make 'reasonable adjustments' and not knowing about an individual driver's medical condition is no excuse, since it is a blanket legal duty imposed under the Equality Act 2010 (the EA) to make adjustments in advance, to cater for the disabled population at large.

(ii) It is averred that no such adjustment - i.e. no clear offer of an extension of time - was drawn to the attention of the driver, whose disability means they were and still is, a protected person under the disability/reasonable adjustment provisions of the EA.

(iii) Proof of the driver's disability will be filed as evidence, along with a witness statement from them, should this Claimant proceed to a hearing.

(iv) Proof that this Claimant does make such adjustments at some sites will also be evidenced (pictures of a current ParkingEye sign that does allow for an extension of time), to show that the signs here fail and thus, discrimination exists at this location.

(v) In this respect, this case differs significantly from ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67 because as the defendant, I was not the driver and that driver did not have the offer of extra time drawn to their attention at all, which is believed to be written as a secret clause in the User Manual agreement between
this Claimant and the Hospital Trust. I put this Claimant to strict proof of the terms of the User Manual in terms of allowing extra time and/or the right of the Hospital trust to have cancelled any charge, had a driver known this was possible.

(vi) If elderly or disabled drivers are not informed that they can ask for more time/are unaware that £70 will be charged for purported 'breach' of a contract they never knew existed, then there is no contract formed at all.

(vii) Indeed, withholding the entitlement for drivers to know about the most onerous of terms (£70 penalty in a free car park) and to learn that, in fact, they could have asked for an extension of time on the day, simply by requesting it from Hospital staff, constitutes a 'misleading omission' in the CPUTRs 2008:ii)

Misleading omissions 6.—

- A commercial practice is a misleading omission if, in its
factual context, taking account of the matters in paragraph

(a)the commercial practice omits material information,
(b)the commercial practice hides material information,
(c)the commercial practice provides material information in a
manner which is unclear, unintelligible, ambiguous or untimely, or
(d)the commercial practice fails to identify its commercial
intent, unless this is already apparent from the context, and as a
result it causes or is likely to cause the average consumer to
take a transactional decision he would not have taken otherwise.

- In paragraph (1) “material information” means— (a)the
information which the average consumer needs, according to the
context, to take an informed transactional decision.''

5. Due to the sparseness of the particulars of claim, it is unclear as to what legal basis the claim is brought, whether for breach of contract, contractual liability, or trespass. However, it is denied that the Defendant, or any driver of the vehicle, entered
into any contractual agreement with the Claimant, whether express, implied, or by conduct.

6. 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.

7. The defendant has not at any stage been supplied with any means of appealing this parking charge as only the driver can appeal, as I was not the driver therefore I cannot appeal. But it is clear from research that the car park in question does not have compliant signs and Parking Eye fail to provide compliant notices to keeper.

8.The Claimant states that “clearly displayed signage at the entrance to the car park states that this is private land managed by ParkingEye Ltd". However the defendant, upon visiting the site in preparation of a defence, found no evidence of this. The Claimant is put to strict proof to show this 'clearly displayed
signage'

9. 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. No contract can be construed from the Claimant's signage, under the contra proferentem principle.

10. 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.

10.1. The Defendant avers that the signage at the site in question is woefully inadequate and extremely confusing. The small sign at the car park entrance does not state clearly that it is affiliated with ParkingEye, is partially obscured and placed at an intersection with and extremely large confusing payment booth at the extreme of the site. All of these combine to make this initial sign easily missed.

10.2. The ParkingEye signs within the parking area are equally as hidden and therefore misleading.Furthermore there are no clear signs that were 'bound to be seen' between where the Defendant believes the car was and the entrance to the Hospital building.

10.3. It is not known whether driver of the car did see a PDT machine and pay a tariff/input the VRN whilst the Defendant attended the hospital, and the Defendant is none the wiser due to the lack of information from the Claimant. The claim could mean that the Claimant is suggesting the car overstayed paid for time, or even that a wrong VRN was recorded by the PDT keypad, and it is impossible for the Defendant to be certain about the alleged breach and to make an informed decision about what to say by way of defence, which puts the Defendant in a position of disadvantage.

10.4. Upon receiving this unexpected Claim, the Defendant has researched the site in order to submit a defence. Two black, unlit terminal 'boxes' are placed within the carpark, both are sited together at on only at one exit that are extremely easily missed. There is no PDT machine near the entry point from the roadside, towards a building that is entirely unused by patrons of the hospital. The black PDT is unremarkable, with absolutely no distinguishing features or signage, to associate it with parking. There is no ''Pay Here'' arrow or other prominent signpost or any 'Have you paid ?' reminders as patrons leave the car park.

11. 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 are true.

Name
Signature
Date

Coupon-mad

You don't have a summons.

Nor have you asked for ''information under the freedom of information act'' because private firms do not fall within that legislation. Presumably you mean you sent them a SAR (which is under the Data Protection Act) as explained in the NEWBIES thread?

Unless you can show evidence that the signage was unclear what are you going to do to explain to the Judge why you/the driver thinks that sitting in the car means people don't have to pay for parking? Why would anyone ''not bother''...I don't get it, do people honestly think all car parks still have traffic wardens walking round and you'd have got a ticket if you saw a warden?

Sorry to say, it's parking like this that actually causes Hospitals to use ANPR scammers.

This was when my disabled partner was the driver and uses the car to take me to a hospital appointment, he stayed in the vehicle for the 1.45mins while I attended my appointment but did not see any notice saying no waiting in the car park so didn't bother paying for parking.

Just to play Devil's Advocate for a moment, what are you going to say to the Judge? Where do people get this idea from that sitting in the car is somehow 'waiting' and not 'parking'?

That's wrong on Council streets as well, you can't just not pay, not even if the driver is disabled. If you park/wait for more than 10 minutes, you pay the tariff for parking, regardless of leaving a person in the car.

And a disabled person can't claim concessions or adjustments if they didn't get out of the car, any more than they'd have needed a disabled bay (a disabled drier who never gets out of the car shouldn't take up such a bay but I assume the driver knows that, and didn't).

This is your main defence (below) and I hope you win, but I was just trying to give you some info so you are not surprised if the Judge gives you a hard time on the actual parking without paying:

10.4. Upon receiving this unexpected Claim, the Defendant has researched the site in order to submit a defence. Two black, unlit terminal 'boxes' are placed within the carpark, both are sited together at on only at one exit that are extremely easily missed. There is no PDT machine near the entry point from the roadside, towards a building that is entirely unused by patrons of the hospital. The black PDT is unremarkable, with absolutely no distinguishing features or signage, to associate it with parking. There is no ''Pay Here'' arrow or other prominent signpost or any 'Have you paid ?' reminders as patrons leave the car park.

Your defence says all it needs to say.

Did you never try a complain to PALS to cancel it? Always the first thing to do.

Bestdea1s

Thanks for the response. I do actually have the summons, which was the first piece of paper I received from PE.

The main defence point is that as the driver did not use a parking bay within the car park to wait it can not be classed as parking. Upon entering the car park we saw there were no spaces and I got out and went into hospital. Driver said that as over 40 mins had passed and still no spaces became available they decided that when one did become available, as it was not a disabled space and suffering themselves and would not be able to get out of the car in a normal width space, decided not to park and just sit and wait. The car park says it has 20min free parking. our overall time in car park was between 15.54 and 17.01, so 1hr 7mins
Do you think I need to emphasise that the car park definitely did not say who operated it at the entrance and that the hospital website states that the parking pay machines work for all car parks except the one we were in which must be paid separately at that pay machine within that particular car park. But the signs in the car park don't state that.

Redx

You definitely do not have a summons

Coupon-mad

A county court claim using the Small Claims track is NOT a summons.

decided not to park and just sit and wait.

That is parked.

Do you think I need to emphasise that the car park definitely did not say who operated it at the entrance and that the hospital website states that the parking pay machines work for all car parks except the one we were in which must be paid separately at that pay machine within that particular car park. But the signs in the car park don't state that.

Yes, defend using all ammo but be aware P/Eye do win a number of claims.

The_Deep

Personally, I do not fancy your chances, it was a P&D car park and you did not pay. You also abused a disabled spot, so a judge is, imo, very likely to find for the claimant. I would try to settle before the hearing.

However you might be able to convince a judge that no contract existed, read this

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

but I would not hold my breathe.

Bestdea1s

you must have not read the full post as we never parked in a disabled spot, so would be difficult to have abused it.

Redx

in which case its time parked (waiting in car = pedantic = still "parked") on a private site without making any payment at all, hence why this has escalated to a Moneyclaim from a simpler pcn

an invoice for non-payment of a parking contract by remaining on site with no effort to pay

so as I said , its not a summons , its a Parking Charge Notice (PCN) in the form of a Notice To Keeper (NTK) which has morphed into a Moneyclaim using the online system managed by the CCBC in Northampton

so unless the defendant can get off on a legal technicality (like Beckham did when he hired Nick Mr Loophole Freeman) then PE have the defendant over a barrel right from the start

ie:- remained on a private site where parking is paid for , not in accordance of the rules and signage that allows a parking contract, so in breach of contract and defrauding the PPC of the appropriate parking charge on the day

I cant see how the defendant can win this one, not against the biggest private parking company in the land (who took Beavis to 3 courts and won 3 times)

Parking Eye won this one in court not long ago

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5926933/parking-eye-court-claim-form-please-help