ParkingEye Defense Letter - 10 Minute Overstay

Le_Kirk

From the Parking Prankster's site but here is a link: -
http://nebula.wsimg.com/c289944f81b4afb375a97d05d5a80df6?AccessKeyId=4CB8F2392A09CF228A46&disposition=0&alloworigin=1

Well_Well

Le_Kirk said:

From the Parking Prankster's site but here is a link

Thanks. but do I attach this to my defence or attach later with the Claimant's Directions Questionnaire?

Well_Well

Here is a nice touch to use parking Eye's own comments from their website against them, as I was only in the car park 10 extra minutes they are not compliant. My defence references this but I thought this additional section was a nice touch 

- Parking Eye state on their Website, “As the largest private sector operator of ANPR car park management we take our responsibilities as the industry leader very seriously. We work hard to raise standards within the industry and to promote compliance with both industry specific regulations and with all other relevant laws.”

- The Defendant considers the facts of this case demonstrate that Parking Eye are not operating a fair and reasonable grace period in line with the BPA’s Approved Operate Scheme Code of Practice and therefore are not promoting compliance with industry specific regulations.

Redx

normally its neither

it is usually submitted with all the other EXHIBITS at the WS + EXHIBITS + SUMMARY COSTS ASSESSMENT stage in several months time

Well_Well

Redx said:

normally its neither

OK thanks, good to know.

Le_Kirk

Well_Well said:

Le_Kirk said:

From the Parking Prankster's site but here is a link

Thanks. but do I attach this to my defence or attach later with the Claimant's Directions Questionnaire?

Answered for you by Redx - he's always on forum before me!  Make sure you mention it in defence so that you can submit it at WS and evidence time and not be accused by claimant of ambushing them.

Redx

Le_Kirk said:

Well_Well said:

Le_Kirk said:

From the Parking Prankster's site but here is a link

Thanks. but do I attach this to my defence or attach later with the Claimant's Directions Questionnaire?

Answered for you by Redx - he's always on forum before me!  Make sure you mention if in defence so that you can submit it at WS and evidence time and not be accused by claimant of ambushing them.

I don't even know where he obtained those 2 options because neither are ever mentioned in court claim threads , nor do I understand this urban myth of rocking up in court with all the evidence and documents that nobody else has seen (ambush)

Full disclosure is seen in all the cop shows , law and order , major crimes , trial re enactments etc

Le_Kirk

Redx said:

Le_Kirk said:

Well_Well said:

Le_Kirk said:

From the Parking Prankster's site but here is a link

Thanks. but do I attach this to my defence or attach later with the Claimant's Directions Questionnaire?

Answered for you by Redx - he's always on forum before me!  Make sure you mention if in defence so that you can submit it at WS and evidence time and not be accused by claimant of ambushing them.

I don't even know where he obtained those 2 options because neither are ever mentioned in court claim threads , nor do I understand this urban myth of rocking up in court with all the evidence and documents that nobody else has seen (ambush)
Full disclosure is seen in all the cop shows , law and order , major crimes , trial re enactments etc

There is even a new one coming out called Inspector Remorse, where everyone regrets ignoring PCNs, LoCs and court papers!!!

Well_Well

Hi All
I have updated my defence following your feedback and based off the newbie thread and templates.
Would you have a look and let me know what you think - is anything obvious missing, out of place or which could be improved?
Really appreciated, thanks.

Background

1.             The Defendant is the registered keeper of the vehicle in question. The Claim relates to an alleged debt arising from the driver's alleged breach of contract on 6th December 2019, 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.

 

1.1.       The allegation appears to be that the 'vehicle overstayed the 3-hour free stay period by 10 minutes’ based on images by the Claimant’s 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 'the vehicle having been parked for more than 3-hours’.

 

2.             The Defendant was authorised to park at “St Martin’s Precinct, RG4 8BA Customer” car park in Caversham, Berkshire, on the day the PCN was issued.

 

2.1.       No payment for parking was required as this is a free 3-hour stay car park and there is no ticket machine or ticketing system in operation at this car park.

 

3.             The Defendant made all reasonable efforts to abide by the terms and conditions of the car park and was using the parking facilities at this time whilst shopping.

 

British Parking Association (BPA) Approved Operate Scheme Code of Practice – non compliance

 

4.             In making this claim the Claimant must reference ‘British Parking Association (BPA) Approved Operate Scheme Code of Practice – Version 7’.

 

4.1.       Section 13.2 states that, “If the parking location is one where parking is normally permitted, you must allow the driver a reasonable grace period in addition to the parking event before enforcement action is taken. In such instances the grace period must be a minimum of 10 minutes.

 

4.2.       Section 13.4 states that, “You should allow the driver a reasonable period to leave the private car park after the parking contract has ended, before you take enforcement action. If the location is one where parking is normally permitted, the Grace Period at the end of the parking period should be a minimum of 10 minutes.”

 

4.3.       The Defendant considers, given this was a peak shopping period in the run up to Christmas and because the Defendant was obstructed from both parking and exiting the car park promptly and safely due to the volume of pedestrians and other motor vehicles entering, within and exiting the car park, that the penalty levied by the Claimant is unreasonable given the claimed total time in the car park was 3 hours and 10 minutes – this being within the 3-hour permitted free stay period and Grace Period.

 

5.             The final ANPR image is of the car in moving traffic, waiting to leave the car park. The car was certainly not parked in a parking-bay for longer than the 3-hour permitted free stay period.

 

5.1.       This exact scenario has been tested in the County Court before, and a transcript will be produced which (whilst not binding precedent) is on all fours with this case, namely (3JD08399) ParkingEye v Ms X at Altrincham 17/03/2014, where it was held that driving around the car park was not classed as parking.

 

6.             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 when unable to fully comply with the terms.

 

7.             Further, this Claimant has taken no steps to provide evidence that they were entitled to pursue drivers for a penalty for the time spent driving around the car park before completely leaving the site and passing the ANPR camera upon exit. Even if the landowner contract allows for this, it is an unreasonable and unenforceable term, akin to charging a person at the point of joining a queue (to leave the premises).

 

8.             Kelvin Reynolds of the BPA says there is a difference between grace periods and observation periods in parking and that good practice allows for this: “The BPA’s guidance specifically says that 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 person 10 minutes depending on various factors, not limited to disability.” britishparking.co.uk News good-car-parking-practice-includes-grace-periods

 

9.             ParkingEye state on their Website, parkingeye.co.uk, “As the largest private sector operator of ANPR car park management we take our responsibilities as the industry leader very seriously. We work hard to raise standards within the industry and to promote compliance with both industry specific regulations and with all other relevant laws.”

 

9.1.       The Defendant considers the facts of this case demonstrate that ParkingEye are not operating a fair and reasonable grace period in line with the BPA’s Approved Operate Scheme Code of Practice and therefore are not promoting compliance with industry specific regulations.

 

Signage – unclear and inadequate

10.         Further to this, the signage located in this car park does not make it clear that you must leave the entire premises within the permitted stay period.

 

11.         The Defendant avers there was no mention of a charge being issued during a 'Grace Period' (either before or after permitted time). Nothing warns a reasonably circumspect driver that he/she must guess the undisclosed ANPR timeline when they passed the threshold of the site.

 

12.         The bar for clear parking terms on signage was set by Denning LJ in J Spurling Ltd v Bradshaw [1956] referring to the well-known 'Red Hand Rule' where hidden/unknown terms were held to be unenforceable: “Some clauses which I have seen would need to be printed in red ink, and or, with a red hand pointing to it before the notice could be held to be sufficient.”

 

13.         It is impossible to read the terms on the signage of the site due to the size of the text and the height of the signs.

 

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

14.         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.

 

15.         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.

 

16.         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.

 

17.         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.

 

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

Well_Well

Hi All, just wanted to see if there is any feedback on my updated defence above. Cheers.