CCCF - Parking Eye - Holiday Inn Reading

littlefinger

I arrived home yesterday to a county court claim (issued 11.11.19) for the sum of 175.00 (original fee 60 then increased to 100) for parking in a holiday inn car park (back in April) where I did enter my full registration information and number of nights staying at the hotel on the Sunday evening to check out on the Friday. I then went back to the hotel on tuesday for 40 minutes before heading out for dinner.

I received a PCN and immediately appealed attaching a paid invoice thus proving i was at the hotel and stating as I entered my details full and correctly it should be quashed. Their response that “it has come to light details weren’t entered correctly blah blah blah” but out respect a reduced fee of £20 pounds is payable. I also stated in my appeal that it must be a system glitch as I didn’t have any parking charges for any other period of my stay (I have stayed in this hotel over 100 times and never had this issue) so therefore as it was in the middle it is a system error.

I will be issuing an SAR based on guidelines in the newbies section so as to get all their information they have on me and see how they can possibly prove I didn’t enter details correctly which I definitely did! (This surely is data on my car which they would have to disclose in the SAR)??

In terms of defence draft, Can anyone direct me to a similar issue which I can then use their defence and witness statements as templates?

I have searched dozens of threads and couldn’t find one similar to this! I am not questioning their grace periods but more their computer systems. Would using all my paid hotel invoices over the last year showing over 175 nights at the hotel (I work away from home) and only having this issue once half way through a stay be a reasonable defence?

Would drafting up a document in which I can get the regular hotel staff who check me in to sign to second my defence stating I input my data correctly within the system on a Sunday upon arrival be a good idea?

I have asked the hotel to quash via emails and in Person but they said they won’t be able to do anything and I will be complaining to the MP (once elections are completed).

Coupon-mad

I received a PCN and immediately appealed attaching a paid invoice thus proving i was at the hotel and stating as I entered my details full and correctly it should be quashed. Their response that “it has come to light details weren’t entered correctly blah blah blah” but out respect a reduced fee of £20 pounds is payable.

Did YOU type the VRN in that day, or did the Hotel staff?

In terms of defence draft, Can anyone direct me to a similar issue which I can then use their defence and witness statements as templates?

Yep, you want a mixture of two of the 17 examples defences you saw in the NEWBIES thread. I will not provide links as newbies on this board need to practise and get up and running with using the forum well, but I'm directing you to look for the ParkingEye Odeon hidden keypad one and the one about inputting a wrong VRN.

Amalgamate them and you will be there - show us your draft.

littlefinger

That’s great thank you, I will write up a draft today and post it below

In response to the VRN, the policy at the HI appears to be that the hotel staff when checking the customer in (me), they input the data, confirm with me/customer how long we are staying, they then select that number of days and spin around the key pad to allow myself to put in my VRN. This was all done and confirmed. If the information wasn’t inputted correctly then I should have a PCN for every time I had entered then exited the car park breaching the T&C’s? 4 nights, and 2/3 times on evenings not including the PCN issued to me.

Cheers

beamerguy

They are part of InterContinental Hotel Group UK

Contact the CEO, prove how much you spend with Holiday Inn
Ask him to cancel it

Mr Keith Barr CEO

Email keith.barr@ihg.com

fisherjim

Good grief you have stayed at this hotel over 100 times and you couldn't get the hotel to get their PPC to cancel this what excuse did they give?

Half_way

There have been a few cases where someone has entered a location such as a hotel, booked in, booked their car in with the reg number, driven out, at which point the parking companies system sees it as a leave, returned after a meal out for example, but the parking companys system sees the return as a new visit.
Not quite a double dip, more of a Yo-Yo effect

littlefinger

Ill do that today but continue with defence etc just in case.

KeithP

littlefinger wrote: »

I arrived home yesterday to a county court claim (issued 11.11.19)...

With a Claim Issue Date of 11th November, you have until Monday 2nd December to do the Acknowledgment of Service, but there is nothing to be gained by delaying it. To do the AoS, follow the guidance offered in a Dropbox file linked from post #2 of the NEWBIES FAQ sticky thread. About ten minutes work - no thinking required.

Having done the AoS, you have until 4pm on Monday 16th December 2019 to file your Defence.

That's nearly four weeks away. Plenty 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 could 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. No need to do anything on MCOL, but do check it 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 trying to keep you under pressure. Just file it.
   
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.

littlefinger

I have looked at a few cases and amalgamated them as best as possible. My defence is based on the fact that I entered my stay and VRN details correctly on upon checking in (Monday evening) and as I have not received any other PCN for any other part of my stay apart from the one in question it must be a system error and they rejected my appeal which showed proof of patronage at the hotel and as such they are acting wihtout faith or fairness.

Defence is drafted below

Any comments to improve would be greatly appreciated

---

IN THE COUNTY COURT

CLAIM No: xxxxxxxxxx

BETWEEN:

ParkingEye Ltd

-and-

xxxxxxxxxxxx (Defendant)



DEFENCE


1. The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to relief in the sum claimed, or at all.

2. It is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper and driver of the vehicle in question at the time of the alleged incident.

3. It is believed that it will be a matter of common ground that claim relates to a purported debt as the result of the issue of a Parking Charge Notice (PCN) in relation to an alleged breach of the terms and conditions by the driver of the vehicle XXXX XXX when it was parked at Holiday Inn Reading South 23rd April 2019.

3.1. The allegation appears to be that the 'vehicle was not authorised to use the car park' based on images by their ANPR camera at the entrance and exit to the site. This is merely an image of the vehicle in transit and is no evidence of 'No Authorisation' or not being a patron of the facility.

3.2. The Defendant has already proved patronage of the facility on the date in question and has made reasonable endeavours to comply with the contractual terms upon arrival at the hotel and registering the vehicle within the system provided in the hotel foyer.

3.3. In Jolley v Carmel Ltd [2000] 2 –EGLR -154, it was held that a party who makes reasonable endeavours to comply with contractual terms, should not be penalised for breach.


Primary defence – VRN was entered upon arrival of Hotel
4.1. The Defendant made all reasonable efforts to make payment for parking by using an approved payment channel. Registration of VRN was entered as per hotel and parking policy by entering VRN and number of nights stay in the system provided. Witness statement of Hotel Policy from Hotel Duty Manager will be submitted as evidence.

4.2. The service makes no provision to print a ticket to display, or a receipt so that a driver could check the details in a tangible format. The Defendant reasonably expected that the defendants VRN and stays details were inputted correctly.

4.3. It was only when a PCN arrived in the post, that the Defendant knew (too late) of what appeared to be a minor data problem caused by the Claimant's system itself. The defendant had inputted their VRN and stay detail correctly and in full and received no PCN for any other part of the stay when the claimant states parking charges apply 24 hours a day.

4.4. The only route offered was a supposed 'appeal' to ParkingEye themselves, but the Defendant knew that no offence or mischief had occurred and honestly believed from initial research, that private parking charges and the appeals systems were unlikely to be fairly weighted in favour of consumers.

4.5. This fact was later confirmed in all readings of the Private Parking Code of Practice Bill, from February 2018 to date, where MPs universally condemned the entire industry as operating 'an outrageous scam' typically relying upon hidden, punitive terms that purposely rely on drivers not seeing an unexpected obligation. Both the British Parking Association ('BPA') Trade Body and indeed, ParkingEye themselves were specifically named and shamed more than once in Parliament and the Bill was introduced purely because the industry is out of control, self regulation has failed, and in many cases any 'appeal' is futile.


No agreement on the penalty and no contract formed by conduct

5.1. The claim appears to be based upon damages for breach of contract. However, it is denied that the Defendant breached any contractual terms, whether express, implied, or by conduct.

5.2. 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 in these circumstances, and to pursue payment in the court in their own name. Even if they hold such authority, the Claimant is put to strict proof that this authorisation expressly allows litigation against patrons even when the business in fact supports the Defendant in wanting an unfair charge to be cancelled.

5.3. It is clear that no conduct by the Defendant caused the penalty to arise and a professional parking firm could not reasonably lay any blame with the Defendant, for their own system error. The charge offends against the reasonable and statutory expectations of trader/consumer relations requiring 'open dealing' and the doctrine of good faith.


5.4. Further, there was no overstay nor any mischief to deter, nor was there any misuse of a valuable parking space by the Defendant, whose car was parked in good faith, not in contravention nor causing an obstruction, and was certainly not 'unauthorised'. With no 'legitimate interest' excuse for charging this unconscionable sum given the above facts, this Claimant's claim is reduced to an unrecoverable penalty and must fail.

5.5. Further, the Claimant will no doubt hope to convince the court that a 'relevant contract' was breached. As this would be a consumer contract, it must be 'fair' and 'transparent' as set out in the Consumer Rights Act 2015 and must also be a valid and enforceable. The Defendant avers that this punitive charge fails in all respects.

5.6. The Claimant may also try to rely upon the completely different Supreme Court case of ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67. However, the Defendant avers that decision confirms the assertion that this charge is unconscionable, given the facts. To quote from the decision in Beavis:

Para 108: ''But although the terms, like all standard contracts, were presented to motorists on a take it or leave it basis, they could not have been briefer, simpler or more prominently proclaimed. If you park here and stay more than two hours, you will pay £85''.

Para 199: ''What matters is that a charge of the order of £85 [...] is an understandable ingredient of a scheme serving legitimate interests. Customers using the car park agree to the scheme by doing so.''

Para 205: ''The requirement of good faith in this context is one of fair and open dealing. Openness requires that the terms should be expressed fully, clearly and legibly, containing no concealed pitfalls or traps. Appropriate prominence should be given to terms which might operate disadvantageously to the customer.''

Lack of good faith, fairness or transparency and misleading business practices

6.1. If a parking firm was truly acting in good faith and keeping the interests of consumers at the heart of their thinking, they would concentrate on ensuring firstly, that patrons who
did receive an unfair PCN as a genuine customer and provide evidence of this would have their charge cancelled. Clearly the Claimants interest is purely in misleading and punishing customers and extracting as much money as possible in three figure penalties, given that this is the only way ParkingEye make any money.

6.2. The Claimant's negligent or deliberately unfair business practice initially caused the unfair PCN to arise, This Claimant cannot be heard to blame consumers for not trying a futile 'appeal' to them, whilst themselves hoping the Defendant does not discover that ParkingEye withheld the option of landowner cancellation all along.

6.3. By withholding from the registered keeper any/all information about the 'user agreement' with the landowner which would have enable an immediate route of cancellation, are 'misleading omissions' of material facts. These are specific breaches of the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 and transgress the tests of fairness and transparency of consumer contracts, as set out in the Consumer Rights Act 2015 (this relatively untested legislation was enacted after the final hearing in Beavis and not actively considered in that case). As such, this claim must fail.

Inflation of the parking charge and double recovery - an abuse of process

7.1. This claim inflates the total charges in a clear attempt at double recovery. The Defendant trusts that the presiding Judge will recognise this wholly unreasonable conduct as a gross abuse of process. It was held in the Supreme Court in Beavis (where £85 was claimed, and no more) that a private parking charge already includes a very significant and high percentage in profit and more than covers the costs of running an automated regime of template letters. Thus, there can be no 'costs' to pile on top of any parking charge claim.

7.2. In addition to the original penalty, the Claimants have artificially inflated the value of the Claim by adding purported legal costs of £50, which have not actually been incurred by the Claimant. ParkingEye Ltd have not expended any such sum in this case, given that they have a Legal Team with salaried in-house Solicitors and (shamefully) this firm whose main business is supposed to be parking 'management' as a service provision, files tens of thousands of similar 'cut & paste' robo-claims per annum. No genuine legal costs arise, per case, and their in-house Solicitors cannot possibly be believed to be paid in the millions per annum for their services.

7.3. The added 'legal' cost is in fact an artificially invented figure, which represents a cynical attempt to circumvent the Small Claims costs rules and achieve double recovery. According to Ladak v DRC Locums UKEAT/0488/13/LA, a Claimant can only recover the direct and provable costs of the time spent by legally qualified staff on actually preparing the claim and/or the cost of obtaining advice for that specific claim, in a legal capacity.

7.4. The defendant denies the claim in its entirety voiding any liability to the claimant for all amounts claimed due to the aforementioned reasons. The Court is invited to dismiss the Claim, and to allow such Defendant's costs as are permissible under Civil Procedure Rule 27.14.

I confirm that the facts in this defence are true to the best of my knowledge and belief.


Name/ Signature




Date

littlefinger

If someone can give me a few pointers on the defence above and help make it as strong as possible that would be much appreciated!
Defence isnt due until 4th december at the latest but i'd rather get it submitted and out of the way.

Thank you in advance

KeithP

littlefinger wrote: »

Defence isnt due until 4th december at the latest...

That's not right.

Please read again what I wrote in post #8 above...

...you have until 4pm on Monday 16th December 2019 to file your Defence.

That's still three weeks away.