County Court Claim - parking Eye

RosieCottage

Oops missed ur post above re overstay examples. Thank you very much.

Yes I have original ticket which actually takes off
6 minutes

Castle

RosieCottage wrote: »

Oops missed ur post above re overstay examples. Thank you very much.

Yes I have original ticket which actually takes off
6 minutes

But it could be more because the ANPR clock is not synchronised with the P&D Machine clock.

RosieCottage

Coupon-mad - when you say I have not breached the 10 mins observation. Do you think the following could weaken my case?

I have 6 mins difference between entry and ticket time so if I subtract from my 18min overstay, this will leave 12 mins for the grace period when returning to vehicle which is more than suggested minimum of 10mins(although I realise still all adds up to less than 10 mins either side.)

RosieCottage

Castle. Yes good point

Coupon-mad

RosieCottage wrote: »

Coupon-mad - when you say I have not breached the 10 mins observation. Do you think the following could weaken my case?

Not when you had a disabled person with you, no, so you need both stems of the arguments in your defence.

Search the forum for INDIRECT DISCRIMINATION defence as we have had them written before and it will save you time, and you will see what I mean and why it makes no odds that the PPC didn't know and couldn't have known about the BB holder as they rely on remote cameras.

They have no legal excuse to indirect discrimination as it is not dependent upon 'knowing your customer' and quite the opposite, it creates a legal statutory duty to service providers...

...anyway do the search please or I will be typing it all out again and have no time!

...and I second the importance of what Castle said. These are two systems:

But it could be more because the ANPR clock is not synchronised with the P&D Machine clock.

That alleged 12 mins could in reality be ten anyway, as the two systems don't have the same clock and in other cases people have proved ANPR to be 3 minutes out in some places, when compared to the machine timing.

RosieCottage

I have a draft defence. Not sure if the 18mins overstay-6mins between parking and ticket purchase would leave 12 mins before leaving c.park....would this exceed suggested grace period and would this be ok?
Thank you so much for your time.(have not included disability evidence as not 100 per cent could get badge copied and to me in time as I need to have defence in by Monday

Thank you so much for your assistance 😀

Draft defence

In the County Court Claim No xxxxx

Between

ParkingEye Ltd (Claimant)

-and-

xxxxx (Defendant)


—————
DEFENCE
—————


Background
——————-

1.The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to relief in the sum claimed.

2.That the Defendant was the registered keeper but not the driver of the vehicle in question at the time of the alleged parking contravention.

3.The allegation appears to be based on images by the Claimant’s ANPR cameras at the entrance and exit to the site. These are merely images of the vehicle in transit, entering and leaving the car park in question and is not evidence of the registered keeper not purchasing the appropriate parking time.

4.The facts are that the vehicle, registration xxxxxxxx , of which the Defendant is the registered keeper, was parked at xxxxxxxx xxxxxx and did purchase a valid ticket for three hours parking. To the best of the Defendant’s knowledge, they fully complied with the car park’s rules by entering the VRN and purchasing a ticket within the initial ‘observation period’ allowed by the British Parking Association’s (BPA)Code of Practice (CoP) and left within the minimum ten minutes ‘grace period’ allowed by the BPA CoP at the end of the parking period.
4.1 The Defendant denies the contravention due to the alleged overstay being within a reasonable period of time allowed for observation, locating a parking space, parking, obtaining a ticket and leaving the car park.

5.Upon receipt of PCN from the Claimant, the Defendant supplied them with evidence that a ticket for x hours was in fact purchased, however, they have selected to pursue this matter through litigation.

6.The Claimant is claiming that the Defendant has overstayed for 18 minutes as they had paid for three hours only. The Claimant has failed to allow sufficient grace period and observation period for the Defendant for both in entry and exit based on the BPA Code of Practice.

7.Due to the conditions at the car park at time, the Defendant was unable to purchase a ticket straightaway. Time stamp between Entry ANPR camera and ticket purchased show a six minute time difference.

8.The Claimant has ignored both the initial (arrival)’observation period’ as well as the final ‘grace period’ after the expiry of paid up 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 in fact is the industry standard.

9. A BPA article by Kelvin Reynolds, BPA Director of Corporate Affairs who this Claimant is well aware, 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 when an enforcement officer should be able to determine what a motorist intends to do once in the car park. Our guidance specifically says 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 ten minutes, depending on various factors not limited to disability. The BPA’s guidance on the ‘grace period’ as the time allowed after permitted or paid for parking. The Claimant has ignored this guidance and therefore not abided by it’s own BPA’s code of practice.

10.Notwithstanding the BPA rules, relevant contract law also dictates that consumers must be given the opportunity to consider terms and conditions before entering a consumer contract. POPLA Assessors have stated in recent decisions that a reasonable time period for this would be up to about ten minutes.
10.1 In a recent (02/05/2019) Court of Appeal decision in the case between NCP(Appellant) and HMRC(Respondent) it was made clear that the offer and acceptance of a parking contract can only take place once the payer has inserted payment into the machine and pressed the green button to obtain a ticket.
.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2019/854
10.2 It is clear from this decision that a contract cannot possibly begin upon driving into the car park, not least because at that point the driver has not had the opportunity to read the terms and conditions of the contract that may or may not be entered into.
10.3 Timestamps from the Claimant’s ANPR camera images indicate that the vehicle entered the car park at xxxx and exited at xxxx. The Claimant’s PDT machine indicates that the driver paid for x hours of parking. The Defendant submits that the vehicle was not parked for longer than this x hours of paid for parking.
10.4 Given that the time periods specified by the BPA’s own Code of Practice, the Defendant submits that the vehicle was not parked for longer than the time paid for and that no parking contravention took place. Therefore the Defendant invites the court to dismiss the claim being without basis.

Denial of contract and of any breach or liability.
——————————————————————

11.Due to sparseness of the POC 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 breached any contractual agreement with the Claimant, whether express, implied or by conduct.

12.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.

13.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 said font would be unable to do so easily.


No standing or authority to form contracts and/or litigate.
———————————————————————————

14.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 re issuing parking tickets and to pursue payments by means of litigation.


Excess charges
———————-
15.In addition to the original parking charge, for which liability is denied, the Claimant has artificially inflated the value of the claim by adding purported Legal representative's costs of £50.00 which have not been actually incurred by the Claimant.

15.1 Whilst £50:00 may be recoverable in an instance where a Claimant has used a legal firm to prepare a claim, ParkingEye Limited have not expended any such sum in this case. This Claimant has a Legal Team with salaried in-house solicitors and it does hundreds of similar ‘cut and paste’ robo-claims per month, not incurring any legal cost per case. The Defendant puts the Claimant to strict proof to the contrary.

15.2 According to Ladak V DRC Locums UKEAR/0488/13/LA a Claimant can only recover the direct and provable costs of the time spent preparing the claim in a legal capacity, not any administrative costs allegedly incurred by already renumerated clerical staff.

In summary
——————
16.The Claimant’s particulars disclose no legal basis for the sum claimed and the court is invited to dismiss the claim in it’s entirety and to allow such Defendant’s costs as are permissible under Civil Procedure Rule.27.14

Statement of Truth
—————————
I believe that the facts stated in this Defence are true.

Name

Signature

Date

RosieCottage

So by not naming driver - I take it this carries no weight, as they can peruse registered keeper now?

nosferatu1001

ONLY if they meet the requirements of Schedule 4 of POFA2012, in full.

If they dont, then they never gain this right.

Le_Kirk

If you are going to rely on the Equality Act 2010, you don't need your (or any occupant of the car) blue badge for the defence, that comes later at Witness Statement stage. To enhance your points about additional charges, search the forum for a thread by beamerguy (with comments at post # 14 of that thread by Coupon-mad) about Abuse of Process and add those words to your defence.

RosieCottage

Thank you Nosferatu1001 and Le_Kirk

With regard to Abuse of process thread. Can I still include this if my claimant is ParkingEye as I read on coupon mads post PE not included. Although my claim form does include £50.00 legal and representatives costs(on top of £100 plus court fee)