CCj without knowledge parking eye

rosemorton95

Thanks for all the help. Hopefully will get  through tomorrow to pay. Am I right in thinking it can all still be sent my email to the ccbc?

I am adding to the end of the witness statement the orders dismissing the claim, as I think that I have to show the judge that I have a reasonable chance of defending the original claim for them to do the set aside. I have to be honest this is the bit that I have struggled with as the WS was basically my story and the draft order I was able to find a template for. I have used what I have seen on here regarding this specific car park, but I am not confident that it is relevant or even makes sense if I am honest.

Any thoughts would be massively appreciated but I will keep searching threads.
Orders dismissing the claim

4.1 The parking for the date in question, 8 August 2019, was paid via the parking app at 07:46. Evidence of this payment has also been given to Parking Eye using the details from the parking app. I have contacted Parking Eye and requested to be given information as to the nature of the reason for the parking ticket given that payment was received but no response has been given yet. I have also asked what time my car exited the car park and for any evidence showing this but have had no response. Further to this Parking Eye have not yet provided me with the original parking notice.

4.2 The signage in the Aire street car park is inadequate and unclear and there is also graffiti on the parking signs. In particular the over night parking rules are unclear. The car park site is not well lit as it relies on near by street lights with no other lighting in the car park, this is problematic when paying for overnight parking. The terms and conditions of the signs are also hard to read as the font is extremely small. The signs are either low to the ground just inches from the floor or around 8ft in the air, coupled with the small font and poor lighting this makes them hard to read and understand.

 

4.3 The BPA CoP requires written authorisation from the landowner before parking charges are pursued.  As of yet, Parking Eye limited has not provided any proof that they had the landowners consent to pursue parking charges. I do not believe that this operator has any proprietary interest in the land such that it has no standing to make contracts with drivers or to pursue charges for breach in its own name. I contend that they merely hold an agreement to maintain signs and to issue 'tickets' as a deterrent to car park users. I put the operator to strict proof otherwise because it cannot be assumed that any agent on site has any more than a bare licence. I require an unredacted, contemporaneous copy of the landowner contract (including the User Manual which forms a vital part of that contract). This is required so that I may see the definition of services provided by each party to the agreement, as well as any exclusions(e.g. exempt vehicles, users, days or times) as well as defined grace periods; the land boundary and the areas or specific bays enforced; the various contraventions and confirmation of the agreed ‘charge’ which may or may not be £100 and any circumstances where the landowner/firms on site in fact have a right to cancellation of a charge.

 

4.5. It is submitted that this charge was not properly given because it breaches the BPA Code of Practice regarding ANPR which requires checks to be made to ensure that a charge is ‘appropriate’ before issuing a PCN. The payment made for 5 hours would in fact be very easy to identify if this operator had carried out the necessary checks required in the BPA CoP, so I suggest these checks were not made and that the operator has contravened the requirements of professional diligence; a duty of consumer-facing service providers. I put this operator to strict proof that these checks were made (showing full records from that day including the VRN list of payments around the time in question) and to explain why a charge was issued when they would indisputably have identified the matching 5 hour payment. The operator would have been in no doubt that the car parking was paid for, had they made the required checks

 

4.6 The ANPR system used by Parking Eye ltd is not accurate of reliable and the signs do not state how the operator uses the data collected by ANPR. The Failure to tell a driver how the data will be used is an ICO breach AND a ‘misleading omission’ of a material fact –prohibited by consumer law.

rosemorton95

Also sorry for the double post but can I ask, some people have been advised to send a draft defence but others not. Am I right in thinking I sent the N244 form with the draft order and the witness statement that focus on why it should be set aside e.g the defective service at that old address and that is fine and if there is a hearing I can then send my defence beforehand and discuss the original claim? Also I refer to evidence in my witness statement do they need to see that now or later. Some of it I am still waiting from from the SAR.

Coupon-mad

You don't appear to have added to the WS itself, which @henrik777 told you to, what he called a 'bloody good' reason to set the CCJ aside (that you paid twice and covered all your parking time, your wording to us was good but you've not added it).

Orders dismissing the claim

Order not Orders.

rosemorton95

Thanks, I will change to order. I have added that  I paid and have no idea why I was charged into the WS and made that the key point along with defective service, but I didn't repost as I was only posting the bit I wasn't sure of regarding the order dismissing the claim. The car park has been abolished, I went down to see it today. Luckily, I took a picture of the sign on the day of the charge as I needed the code to pay by the app. But only of the 1 sign at the entrance. Hopefully it is on PE to prove any other signs were up to scratch as I can't prove otherwise but this one is damaged and some of the font miniscule. Thanks for the advice everyone very much appreciated.

Coupon-mad

Did you use the words that @henrik777 said were bloody good?  Not just saying you paid.

1505grandad

Some observations:-

I think you will find on the Court docs that the style of the claimant's name is ParkingEye Ltd. Check -  as you have also stated Park Eye Ltd.

As well as the correct spelling of "Judgment" in this context, you also have the incorrect spelling which contains an erroneous middle "e".

rosemorton95

@Coupon-mad, I have but I am worried about the fact that they haven't actually come out and said I overstayed yet. They basically won't tell me what the charge is for other than "parking without a valid ticket" and I have emailed several times and they just ignore that bit along with requests for the original NTK and reminders. But given I paid twice and for the correct amount of hours at the correct rate the only thing I could possibly think is that they think I overstayed but I haven't had it confirmed yet. I don't know if it is bit complicated to explain in the WS given that I don't know what the charge is for specifically. But the is the only thing that makes sense. @1505grandad- thanks all corrected.

Coupon-mad

You didn't overstay, stop worrying.  You paid for your time.

rosemorton95

Thanks, just looking at the surprise ccj thread. Is order to dismiss the claim and draft defence the same thing? I see people seem to have one or the other. Sorry if that is a stupid question.

Coupon-mad

No it's not the same thing, a draft defence would be based upon the ParkingEye defence examples specifically linked in the NEWBIES thread.

Not the template defence thread which is not for ParkingEye cases.