Court Appeal - ParkingEye Leeds Aire St

KeithP

Scoops, why have you quoted my post?

Scoops wrote: »

I've tried to post links on this original, 10yr old account, and an alternative but unfortunately I'm falling foul of forum requirements.

And you will continue to be unable to post links until your postcount increases. The way you are posting tonight, that won't be long.

Scoops2

Sorry I guess there is a reason noobs can't do stuff . My other account I can only see my original post and a reply box. Very Strange. This account I can see the whole tread.

I originally was replying to your post to add more relevant information i.e a link and more photos.

This is my Evidence File in PDF (Redacted) so far
Copy and Paste - dropbox.com/s/i9n2djlbaz4m824/%21%21Copy%20of%20ParkingEye%20-%20Evidence%20File%20%28Redacted%29.pdf?dl=0

I will post the photos in a separate post. I guess I am freaking out as it seems I have been denied the right to an independent appeal via POPLA. Is this common. and if so what are my chances of winning.

Would appreciate your advice based on my file. I still need to do the Court Defence and I will print and email you advised.

Scoops2

As I can't post links yet you will need to copy and paste.

I am hoping that these photos show that on one side of the car park there is a severe lack of signage and that the signage is unreadable from a drivers point of view.

Photo - Response to SAR - No Personal Data
dropbox.com/s/saj3c0xdwhx2417/3-PR_Reply_toSAR_NoPersonalData.jpg?dl=0
Photo Aire Street - View from Driver 1
dropbox.com/s/2d7i7zoqseebsvs/4-Fig1.jpg?dl=0
Photo Aire Street - View from Driver 2
dropbox.com/s/4fx3ihbbtdfq120/5-Fig2.jpg?dl=0
Photo Aire Street - Driver unable to read sign
dropbox.com/s/zwx5zzsrjrre9oh/7-Appeal2_Fig1.jpg?dl=0
Photo Aire Street - Route Taken no signs
dropbox.com/s/kc0l8w247wrf1f7/8-Appeal2_Fig2.jpg?dl=0
Photo Aire Street - Inadequate signage
dropbox.com/s/hdj5yjurv2cpj92/9-Appeal2_Fig3a.jpg?dl=0
Photo Aire Street - No Visible signs when leaving on foot 1
dropbox.com/s/59rbp6zk7l9r9ck/10-Appeal2_Fig3b.jpg?dl=0
Photo Aire Street - No Visible signs when leaving on foot 2
dropbox.com/s/mdqoc0r19xtivgj/11-Appeal2_Fig4.jpg?dl=0
Photo Aire Street - No Visible signs when leaving on foot 3
dropbox.com/s/x1p7trczxwia7ce/12-Appeal2_Fig5.jpg?dl=0
Photo Aire Street - Kiosk - unclear about overnight
dropbox.com/s/0d6uqwifmru1woa/13-Kiosk.jpg?dl=0
Photo Aire Street - Distance from Driver
dropbox.com/s/ce891nsjp7h4l58/14-Restricted_View_%20DrivingIn.jpg?dl=0
Photo Aire Street - Sign on the wrong side too high when leaving
dropbox.com/s/vmwjq9abfkz6aja/15-SignOnExit_OppositeSide.jpg?dl=0
Photo Aire Street - Zoomed Terms
dropbox.com/s/4pphiuraz3mhe42/16-ZoomedTerms%20in%20day%20light.jpg?dl=0
Photo Aire Street - ZoomedTerms on post
dropbox.com/s/il79llynkkoaiqs/17-ZoomedTerms%20on%20post.jpg?dl=0

nosferatu1001

Have you done your AoS?
If NO then you MUST do it today. WIthout fail.

Follow the instructions in the newbies thread, and confirm when you have done so. Spamming the thread will not help, you just need to do this one, first step, to buy you another two weeks, so you can stop panicking.

Did you appeal in time? Yes or No. If NO thats why you didnt get a POPLA code.

Scoops2

nosferatu1001 wrote: »

Have you done your AoS?

Did you appeal in time? Yes or No. If NO thats why you didn't get a POPLA code.

Yes I have done my AoS. I completed the online forms but I am not convinced that that might be acknowledged so I have sent it via email today.

I was outside the 28 days as I was informed Via a SAR that they didn't hold any of my personal Information and I was led to believe at the time that it was a Scam . I attempted to contact them via phone but that was impossible.

I am getting the feeling that even if it is no fault of your own, if you miss the 28 day timeline and you want to Appeal\Defend it has to be done in court . . . . or you could just pay up. Which just boils my blood that they can get away with extortion.

I keep asking myself - how much of a chance do I have.

Redx

Stop worrying about chances and get on with it

We are helpers not lawyers or judges

Complain to the ICO about the lack of a SAR reply

If the AOS has been done, crack on with your draft defence and post it below

nosferatu1001

If they did not respond to your SAR with YOUR personal data, then of course complaint to the ICO is in order.

So you didnt appeal? Fair enough - but you missed a shot there.

Scoops2

Okay, Taking Advice from BargePole's Defence

This is what I have so far. There a lot of defences out there. It blows my mind reading them. I take my hat off to you all offing help and guidance, and thank you in advance.

I hope my defence meets the "Perfect Defence" you talk about in other posts


IN THE COUNTY COURT

CLAIM No: XXXXXXX

PARKINGEYE LTD (Claimant)

-and-

xxxxx (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 material date in a marked bay allocated to Company ParkingEye at Aire Street Leeds, and was parked with the understanding that no charge was required as the sighs stated that payment was required between 8:00 - 18:00 and the vehicle would not be parked overnight.

3. The Particulars of Claim states that the Defendant; was the registered keeper and/or the driver of the vehicle(s). These assertions indicate that the Claimant has failed to identify a 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. Due to the sparseness of the particulars, 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.

5. 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. On entering the car park the sign displayed at ground level on the passenger side could not be read clearly by the driver. There was also no other signage from where the vehicle was parked or when exiting and entering the car park on foot.

6. The terms on the Claimant's signage is 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.

7. 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.

8. The Defendant has the reasonable belief that the Claimant has not incurred £75 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. The Defendant also believes that they have been denied the right to an independent appeal through POPLA as the Claimant replied to a Subject Access Request stating they did not hold any personal information on the Defendant. Only when the Claimant pursued the PCN again was an official appeal logged. As this was outside the 28 days there has been no acknowledgment of the appeal from the Claimant.

9. 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.

Statement of Truth:

I believe the facts contained in this Defence are true.

Name
Signature
Date

Redx

add the full abuse of process paragraphs and renumber, almost doubling the size of the defence , if they have added any spurious costs to the POC


EDIT

I have found your POC and can see that PE have not added those spurious costs on , interesting that they do not try and milk the cash cow and yet some of the others are disgraceful in adding on those abuse costs which they are not entitled to

Coupon-mad

Yes P/Eye are unusual in not adding fake debt letter costs.

Typo here:

2. The facts are that the vehicle, registration XXXX, of which the Defendant is the registered keeper, was parked on the material date in a marked bay allocated to Company ParkingEye at Aire Street Leeds, and was parked with the understanding that no charge was required as the sighs stated