Defence sent - Updates coming

iloveparkingeye

KeithP wrote: »

...

Redx wrote: »

...

iloveparkingeye so lets make love in the courtroom

Hi there all

This is what I have so far, I'm thinking of adding a little bit more.

Not legally trained, have a medical / research background.

Long story short. Two hotel car parks next to each other - LITERALLY joined

Even though one of the hotels is almost 1km away. Signage is very, very poor. And the car park fronts as though it's a pay and display. Even though its free for patrons.

Basically parked in the wrong car park, but there are 0 signs on entrance. And to make things worse the land is actually owned by about 10 different people. There are different signs that certain spots belong to certain people / business. It's not clear at all.

IN THE COUNTY COURT
CLAIM No:

BETWEEN:
Parkingeye Ltd (Claimant)

-and-

ME (Defendant)



DEFENCE

1. Defence

1.1 The Defendant is the registered keeper of the vehicle in question. The Claim relates to an alleged debt arising from the keepers's alleged breach of contract; which is denied. It is further denied that there was any agreement to pay the Claimant a punitive £100 'parking charge notice' (PCN) for the lawful conduct described below.



1.2. The allegation appears to be that the vehicle in question was ‘parking without a valid paid parking ticket', and this assumption is based upon still images produced by their ANPR cameras.

1.3 These pictures are merely images of the vehicle in transit and not evidence of: the vehicle parking, that the vehicle was parked, permission to park, or purchase/display of a parking ticket. The images of the vehicle in transit is not evidence of the registered keeper parking without a valid paid parking ticket'; nor would they be evidence of parking without permission.

1.4 As seen by the images produced by the ANPR cameras the alleged contravention occurred during darkness.

2. Signage

2.1 The facts of the matter are that the claimant operates at car parks for both: HOTEL2, and HOTEL1 .

2.2 The car park for HOTEL2 is on XXXXX which runs parallel to XXXX, and is outside HOTEL2.

2.3 The car park in question (for HOTEL1) is also on XXXX, outside HOTEL2 – even though HOTEL1 is 0.5 kilometres away.

2.4 It is denied that the claimant has any signage displayed at the entrance/exit of the car park and it would therefore not be possible for the Defendant to be privy to the ownership of the land.

2.5 It now emerges that the car park in question which is adjacent to HOTEL2, is for patrons of HOTEL1.

2.6 Upon revisiting the property in daylight it now transpires there are two signs approximately 50 metres from the entrance, at the end of the car park which mention HOTEL1.

2.7 These signs are wooden, and badly worn making them almost illegible. They are unilluminated and therefore unable to be read at night. Given that they are affixed only slightly above the ground they are also not able to be seen once obscured by parking vehicles.

2.9 It is contended that the Claimant has neglected to display signage in order to deceive users of the car park. And it would be unreasonable for the Defendant to know the ownership of the car park. The Claimant is put to strict proof, with the bar being set in Spurling v Bradshaw Ltd in the well-known 'Red Hand Rule' where hidden/unknown terms were held to be unenforceable: “the more unreasonable a clause is, the greater the notice which must be given of it. Some

2.10 At the material time, the Claimant is strictly subject to the British Parking Association ('BPA') CoP which states the following:

• 18.2 - Signs at the entrance to the parking area should clearly show the type of parking; and if, when and how any payment should be made.
• 18.2 - Sign must take into account the expected speed of vehicles (…) and follow Department for Transport guidance.
  
• 18.3 - Signs must be conspicuous and legible, and written in intelligible language, so that they are easy to see, read and understand.
• 21.1 - You may use ANPR camera technology to manage, control and enforce parking in private car parks, as long as you do this in a reasonable, consistent and transparent manner. Your signs at the car park must tell drivers that you are using this technology and what you will use the data captured by ANPR cameras for.

2.11 The Defendant avers that the BPA CoP Section 18.2, 18.3, and 21.1 has not been adhered to as:

• i. Signage at the entrance fails to outline who the car park is intended for, and only states that a tariff is payable which is untrue as free parking is available for patrons. It is not clear when payment should or shouldn’t be made.
• ii. Signage fails to take into account the speed of vehicles as it is not possible to interpret the signs while driving.
• iii. Signs are inconspicuous as they can be obscured by parked vehicles, and vital signs are unable to be seen at night as they are not illuminated.
• iv. The use of ANPR cameras to manage parking is not signposted.

2.12 The Claimant references Beavis v Parkingeye [2015]. However, this case is distinguishable as signs!were not compliant in terms of the font size, lighting or positioning.

2.13 The only signage at the entrance states “tariff payable at machine or by phone” and that the car park is private property.

2.14 The allegation appears to be that the vehicle in question was ‘parking without a valid paid parking ticket', and the signage states that “tariff [are] payable at machine”. The Defendant denies that the above claim is valid, or that the signage is correct as both HOTEL1, and HOTEL2, offer free parking to patrons.

2.15 Free parking is available to patrons of HOTEL1, and HOTEL2 if they themselves, or a staff member, input the Vehicle Registration Number (VRN) into an electronic device.

2.16 The Defendant had given their VRN to staff at HOTEL2 and was informed that was input into the system; and that the defendant had permission to park and would not incur any penalties.

2.17 Given that the Defendant had used the car park correctly to the best of their knowledge it would be unreasonable to penalise them. This is as set out in Jolley v Carmel Ltd [2000], where it was held that a party who makes reasonable endeavours to comply with contractual terms, should not be penalised for breach.

3. Ownership

3.1 It happens that upon entering the car park there are several signs placed on the wall that make claims which contradict those made by the claimant. Several other signs state that car parking spaces are owned by other private individuals, and intended for patrons of other businesses.

3.2 Upon further inquiry it transpires that the land in question upon where the car park occupies is owned by 10 private individuals.

3.3 At the material time, the Claimant is strictly subject to the British Parking Association ('BPA') CoP which states the following:

• 7.1 - If you do not own the land on which you are carrying out parking management, you must have the written authorisation of the landowner (…)
• 7.2 - If the operator wishes to take legal action on any outstanding parking charges, they must ensure that they have the written authority of the landowner prior to legal action being taken
• 7.3 - The written authorisation must also set out:
  
• a. the definition of the land on which you may operate, so that the boundaries of the land can be clearly defined
• b. any conditions or restrictions on parking control and enforcement operations, including any restrictions on hours of operation
• c. any conditions or restrictions on the types of vehicles that may, or may not, be subject to parking control and enforcement.

3.4 The Defendant avers that the BPA CoP Section 7.1, 7.2, and 7.3 have not been adhered to.

3.5 It is the Defendants understanding that the Claimant does not have written authorisation from all land owners to carry out parking management.

3.6 It is the Defendants understanding that the Claimant does not have written authority from all/any landowners prior to legal action taking place.

3.7 Given the other signage and multiple owners of the land, it would be imperative to clearly define the boundaries on which the Claimant operates, as well as and conditions on types of vehicles that may, or may not, be subject to parking control (i.e. patrons of the business).

iloveparkingeye

Issue: 08/07/19
And already don’t the acknowledgement

iloveparkingeye

Also approached the hotel directly, the manager wasn’t kind of helpful and said she would try to help. And then just got stone-walled with ‘talk to parking eye’ email.

KeithP

iloveparkingeye wrote: »

Issue: 08/07/19
And already don’t the acknowledgement

I don't know what to make of that post.

Please clarify. Whole sentences might help, but I do understand that is no longer normal behaviour when using a mobile telephone.

iloveparkingeye

Oh!

I mean I have already filled out the acknowledgement. Apologies, thanks for the quick reply.

KeithP

I am going to assume you did the Acknowledgement of Service before 27th July. Please confirm.

With a Claim Issue Date of 8th July, and having done the Acknowledgement of Service in a timely manner, you have until 4pm on Monday 12th August 2019 to file your Defence.

That's over a week away. Loads of time to produce a 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.

Redx

iloveparkingeye wrote: »

Hi all, I’m currently about to submit a defence.

But I’m kind of tempted to just pay the fine to avoid the headache.

I had a question, if I submit a defence, do I then have to go to court? Because I don’t think I would have the time and it wouldn’t be worth it.

Second question, I’ve emailed parking eye and said I wasn’t the driver - I then told them who the driver wasn’t and they said they didn’t care. Is there anything I can do about that?

what fine ? there is no "fine" , but there is a parking charge notice , or INVOICE

you can decide to pay the claim in full and close the case, everyone has that right

no you dont have to attecnd court, it can be heard on papers as long as you tell the court 2 to 3 weeks prior to the hearing

if PE followed the law called POFA, then you as keeper are legally liable and they wont care about who the driver was, because the law of POFA makes the keeper responsible for their vehicle, providing PE followed it on timescales and wordings (they usually do follow it, but check the NTK in case they failed POFA)

iloveparkingeye

That’s correct I did the acknowledgement before that date.

I think I’ll be able to do the defence. But my worry is I will have to go to court - which makes me tempted to just pay.

Do you have any idea if that would be the case? I read some other posts and it seemed some people attended court, and some had out-of-court offers?

iloveparkingeye

Thank you for the reply, that helps a lot.

Another question, if I were to lose in the hearing. Do you know if the amount changes at all? I.e. extra legal fees?

The_Deep

If you pay you may be funding organised crime.

Have you seen this?

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

Nine times out of ten these tickets are scams so consider complaining to your MP.

Parliament is well aware of the MO of these private parking companies, and on 15th March 2019 a Bill was enacted to curb the excesses of these shysters. Codes of Practice are being drawn up, an independent appeals service will be set up, and access to the DVLA's date base more rigorously policed, persistent offenders denied access to the DVLA database and unable to operate.

Hopefully life will become impossible for the worst of these scammers, but until this is done you should still complain to your MP, citing the new legislation.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2019/8/contents/enacted

Just as the clampers were finally closed down, so hopefully will many of these Private Parking Companies.

Redx

if the defendant lost , and if PE have claimed around £175 in total, then that total is the judgment unless the judge saw fit to alter it up or down for some legal reason, so usually its the figure on the claim

they may allow you to negotiate a without prejudice settlement

you do not have to attend court, but its usually wise to do so

a papers only hearing is possible, long as you inform the claimant and the court beforehand

attending court is NOT mandatory , but is preferred