ParkingEye LBCC and defence of 'landowner authority'

Todd_J_Bonzalez_the_Third

Hello, I wonder if anyone can help me with this. I'm trying to help a person with a parking ticket who has little English and the charge, currently £100, is quite a sum of money to him. I appealed to Popla, mainly on the grounds of no landowner authority but that was rejected (despite my own appeal some months previously on the same grounds being upheld). 
Now an LBCC has arrived and I was planning on offering a defence on the grounds PE has failed to show they have landowner authority.
But I read this below on the 'irrelevant defences' thread: "Distinguishing your case from Beavis: The fact that Parking Eye paid £1,000 a week to operate in that case makes no difference at all, the arrangements between landowner and PPC are not relevant, as has been ruled by the higher courts. You need to concentrate on things that make your case substantially different, otherwise you're unlikely to win."
I'm a bit confused so if someone could clarify, does the above, "the arrangements between landowner and PPC are not relevant, as has been ruled by the higher courts" relate specifically to landowner authority? Are there any examples of a claim being successfully defended at court via landowner authority?
Many thanks for any help and keep up the good work!

Coupon-mad

does the above, "the arrangements between landowner and PPC are not relevant, as has been ruled by the higher courts" relate specifically to landowner authority? 

No.

Are there any examples of a claim being successfully defended at court via landowner authority?

Yes, lots, including one about UKPC this past week and loads about Britannia and UKCPM.  All easy to find by searching the forum (as the NEWBIES thread tells you to do) for ANOTHER ONE BITES THE DUST and reading how people won.

Todd_J_Bonzalez_the_Third

OK thank you. I did try searching for 'landowner authority' but must have not been looking in the right place. Thanks again for your help.

D_P_Dance

Nine times out of ten these tickets are scams, so consider complaining to your MP, sometimes it can lead to cancellation.,

Parliament is well aware of the MO of these private parking companies, many of whom are former clampers. On 15th March 2019 a Bill was enacted to curb the excesses of these shysters. Codes of Practice are being drawn up, and hopefully this will become law shortly

Todd_J_Bonzalez_the_Third

Hello, I need help further on this if anyone can assist. I've read bargepole's helpful guidance re the pre-court protocol but I'm a bit confused by the letter from PE.
Their letter is headed, 'Letter Before County Court Claim' and includes all the statement of means forms etc as detailed that should be issued to debtors in the civil procedure rules. 
But this letter states we have 30 days to reply with the completed forms to PE not a court, rather than the 14 days acknowledgement of service as described by bargepole?
I don't have an issue with replying within the 30 days, however in the section on my defence, should I be telling PE what my defence is before it goes to court? Aren't they better not knowing? My defence is one of landowner authority.
Can I also check the long post regards pre-court procedure dating from 2013 - is not relevant now, right?
Also, I assume, dangerous I know, I will be able to accompany and speak for the person who is in dispute with PE as his literacy and language is not good?
Finally, if it does get to court and we lose, will we have to pay the maximum amount immediately or will the court take into account the respondent is on benefits and payment by instalments are acceptable?
A lot of questions I know but if anyone could assist it would be most welcome.

Redx

do not fill those financial forms in, its not a court claim , YET

its an LBCCC , or LBC , or LoC , all the same thing , Letter Before Court case, with 30 days notice and not to fill in the forms because the recipient is an alleged debtor, not an actual debtor , YET

so its currently LBC stage, so its email a SAR to the DPO at PE to get all the data (from the recipients email address)

plus send a letter to the claimant telling them to place it on hold, pending the SAR reply and whilst they see debt management advice

stick to posts after 2013 , preferably in the last 18 months unless linked in that newbies thread, like the bargepole guide for example, but ideally the newer the better

ideally the recipient wants a landowner cancellation, this is always best

if this person loses in court, they get 30 days to pay of the CCJ is entered on their credit file, for 6 years, meaning they will struggle for all sorts for 6 years, loans , mobile phone contracts etc , so ideally pay it , IN FULL , asap, not instalments

I am not sure how being on benefits may help this person, it might, but I dont know the answer and this is not a benefits helpline forum

a court claim comes from the CCBC in Northampton in the post, not from Parking Eye in Chorley

the defence will be based on a lot more than no landowner authority, it should include signage etc too

Coupon-mad

The NEWBIES thread tells you that LBCCC stage from P/Eye is different, and a chance to appeal.  Unlike with other PPCs.

Todd_J_Bonzalez_the_Third

Thanks for your reply.
Can I ask, if it is not a court claim yet, why are PE sending the statement of means forms etc as advised in the civil procedure protocols?
And I don't follow the point on SAR - it's just kicking the can down the road isn't it?
Re the landowner cancellation. I've pulled the title deeds and the car parking space outside the Starbucks is owned by Euro Garages (who I think are a big client of PE). I've written to Starbucks and got no reply but will try Euro Garages, but not expecting a good response as they are, as you are probably aware, a huge landowning company.
Our defence really is solely based on landowner authority. In view of the fact that it may well get to court, and my friend would not be able to pay in full and so could get a CCJ, is it better to simply ask for sight of the contract (as per BPA rules) and if they do not offer it up then that is a defence when we get to court? And if they do offer it up, we are better paying now on an instalment basis?
We really don't have any other defence I'm afraid but I'm aware PE has issued pcn's for land they do not own or do not have authority for.

Redx

they are obliged to follow those protocols, the recipient is not in these cases because its not like they signed a mobile phone contract, there is no actual paper contract, so PE are following the correct protocols for small claims pre-action but for an implied contract and alleged debt instead of a rent agreement or mobile phone agreement etc. The recipient is in dispute same as if I said you owe me £100 for reading my reply

the SAR obtains all the victims data, so if the recipient already has all their data , then yes, it kicks the can down the road, but the recipient has no idea if all their data has been provided so far, hence the SAR, TO FIND OUT FOR SURE and to collate ALL data about themselves and their vehicle (maybe there are more pcn,s in the pipeline for example)

It also gives them work to do and shows half of the cards in their hand , stopping them from having a few up their sleeve

Starbucks tend to be a franchisee, not the landowner, so are probably leasing from the landowner or a managing agent on behalf of the landowner

you can ask for sight of the contract, they are not obliged to provide the contract so probably wont show it until court when the defendant can insist on it to be shown to the judge (and possibly to the defendant in the exhibits part of their bundle at WS + EXHIBITS stage)

they will show it to the court so its not a defence, but you would put them to strict proof in court

the recipient can try to settle (without prejudice) to the enforcement email with a lower figure, but they may still want the money in full, only they can tell you about an instalment plan , or not, which would have to be signed, thereby creating a contract

Coupon-mad

What were the circumstances then, normally there is a defence and reasons why the person parked as they did.

I assume he didn't use the EuroGarages site as a place to dump the car all day?  What happened?

Todd_J_Bonzalez_the_Third

The circs were, he had been to visit the grave of his recently deceased mother, the Starbucks is next door to St Helen's Crematorium. He was a bit upset and went into Starbucks for a drink. I think it is something like a one hour max stay and he stayed 40/45 mins over. He then got an ANPR ticket in the post. There's no argument about length of stay, or the signage etc.
I've written to Starbucks for him and got no reply. I only went down the 'no landowner authority' as it was the only possible defence he had. 
Also I had a PCN from PE after parking at a car park in Leeds city centre some months previously. I used that defence with Popla and they upheld the appeal on the grounds PE did not cough-up proof of the contract. In this case is used the same defence and Popla refused it. 
With regards Redx response, can I clarify, PE not supplying the contract to show authority is not a defence as such? They could just turn up with it at court and then he will lose and be lumbered with a bigger bill and a CCJ if he can't pay up straight away (which he can't).
It's quite a simple point really, if they have authority then show us the contract and we will pay. Though as someone recently linked on here to a news report of PE issuing tickets to motorists captured by their cameras but not actually parked on land they had authority for.
So either, a) they don't have such authority, b) they do but can't be bothered producing or c) they do but will not produce until we get to court.
Regards c) surely this is against the spirit of the protocol and an abuse of process? If I write on his behalf saying, 'show us the contract and we will pay' and they do not produce and/or ignore, then what is the point of the pre-court protocol and trying to remedy such matters without recourse to bothering the small claims court and incurring further costs?