Court Appeal - ParkingEye Leeds Aire St

Le_Kirk

no charge was required as the sighs stated

should be: -

no charge was required as the [strike]sighs[/strike] signs stated

Also, if what Redx states in post # 20 is true, you should remove the points about the additional costs of £75 added.

Scoops2

Hi Sorry for the late reply, I have been out of the country on business.

Thanks for all the comments please find below my latest edit.

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 xxxxxx 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 signs stated that payment was required between 8:00 - 18:00 and the vehicle would not be parked overnight. The vehicle was parked for a total of 19 minutes and entered the car park at 19:55.

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. The Claimant’s “Letter before Count Court Claim” is lacking in the information required to be sent to the defendant. It does not set out the basis on which the claim is made, nor does it define how their costs have been calculated. There is no summary of the facts on which the claim has been made either.

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. There was no definition of what constitutes “overnight” parking and coupled with the largest font stating “8am -6pm”; a stay of a mere 19 minutes beginning at 19:55 can not be classed as “overnight”, nor being within the “8am -6pm” timeframe.

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 has failed to provide 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. The Claimant has not itemised exactly what their “£50 solicitor’s costs” entail.

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 acknowledgement 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

if they have added those spurious costs on , then your complaint about the added costs should actually be all the coupon mad comments and all paragraphs of heres in post #14 of the ABUSE OF PROCESS thread by Beamerguy, which contains the strike outs by DJ GRAND and DJ TAYLOR

THIS WILL ALMOST DOUBLE THE AMOUNT OF PARAGRAPHS


however, if they didnt add those costs on , then you were told to remove those paragraphs and have ignored that advice

Coupon-mad

With P/Eye I wouldn't have all the costs paragraphs we use for other cases, but victims should object to the added £50 legal fees as they expended none.

IMHO, that is a very good specific defence for a P/Eye case at Aire St. I would just add somewhere that in all facts and details, the Supreme Court decision in ParkingEye v Beavis [2015] UKSC67 is distinguished and the penalty rule remains engaged due to a 'concealed pitfall or trap', namely unclear and ambiguous signage terms which must, under the Consumer Rights Act 2015, always be interpreted by courts in the way that most favours the consumer.