Help needed for court Defence against ParkingEye for unfair PCN

Rich_the_owl

Hi all, 
I've been following the STICKY thread to construct a Defence against ParkingEye. I've used the 2 templates that it suggests but both are very specific to the case in question and some of the terminology I am not familiar with so just looking for a bit of help and advice on my Defence please from the experts. 

Background of my case: I was looking for somewhere to park in an area I'm not familiar with. I saw what looked like a Private car park and decided to try it. There was no obvious signage outside the car park with the prices on. Only when you actually go in (and go past the first ANPR camera) can you actually read the board with prices. So I safely parked in a space, got out of my car and read the board with the prices. Thought it was too expensive so got back in my car, drove off and exited the car park. The ANPR camera clocked me as having been in the car park for 10 minutes. The whole basis of my Defence is you cannot know the prices without actually going into the Car Park. So if you don't agree to them (like me) and then leave the ANPR clocks you as having not paid which is totally unfair. There should be signage outside the car park with the prices.
Unfortunately I decided to ignore the PCN letters they sent me as I knew of others who had done the same and had eventually stoped. I also stupidly ignored the LBCCC as I just put it down to them trying 1 last thing to scare me into paying. I then got the County Court Claim form and have been through the AOS (Acknowledgement of Service) and now just have a few days left to submit my defence. I requested the SAR over 3 and half weeks ago but ParkingEye have still not sent the requested information. I've also got an email chain where I have asked 3 times who the Landowner of the car park is and what Solicitors they are using but they have just chosen to ignore the questions and not answer them

This is my Defence that I have come up with so far:

IN THE COUNTY COURT

CLAIM No: Removed

BETWEEN:

ParkingEye Ltd (Claimant)

-and-

xxx xxx(Defendant)

DEFENCE

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, 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.

2. Any breach is denied, and it is further denied that there was any agreement to pay the Claimant's £100 'Parking Charge Notice ('PCN')'. 

3. The allegation appears to be 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, entering and leaving the car park in question and is not evidence of the registered keeper 'not purchasing the appropriate parking time.

4. The allegation appears to be based on the claim that “the signage clearly displayed throughout <Car park address> states that this is private land, managed by ParkingEye Ltd.” This allegation is denied by the defendant.

Signage

5. The allegation infers signage is clearly displayed throughout <street 1>. The entrance to the cark park on <street 2> does not have clear signage before entering the car park.

6. Signage with the Terms & Conditions are within the car park itself. An individual would have to enter the car park in order to read the Terms & Conditions in order to make an informed decision as to whether they are agreeable to them.

7. In order for an individual to review the signage inside the car park with the Terms & Conditions they would be required to safely park their vehicle and exit it. 

8. The Claimant states the time spent in the car park was 10 minutes. Based on the information provided in points 6 & 7 this is a fair amount of time required to take those actions.

 

Data Protection concerns

9. The Defendant requested a SAR (Subject Access Request) on <date>. The Claimant acknowledged that the SAR request had been passed to the Privacy team on <date> but as of yet the requested information has not yet been provided to the Defendant.

 

Lack of Transparency

10. The Defendant has requested on 3 different emails for the Claimant to provide details of the Landowner of the Car Park and the Solicitor details who they are instructing on their claim. The Claimant has not provided this information to the Defendant

I believe the facts contained in this Defence are true.

Name

Signature

Date

Questions:
I don't think there's enough in the Defence and I'm not sure that its punchy enough
1. Please can I have advise if I should add anything else?
2. Please can I have advise if any of the language on what is currently there be altered?
3. Should I leave point 8 included on the Defence? As this information was only in the PCN's (which I chose to ignore), so is it better to not put this so there is less proof that I actually did receive the PCN's?

Any other points people think are worth mentioning please advise? Thanks in advance

KeithP

Rich_the_owl said:

I then got the County Court Claim form and have been through the AOS (Acknowledgement of Service) and now just have a few days left to submit my defence. 

What is the Issue Date on your County Court Claim Form?

Upon what date did you file an Acknowledgment of Service?
Your MCOL Claim History will have the definitive answer to that.

Rich_the_owl

KeithP said:

Rich_the_owl said:

I then got the County Court Claim form and have been through the AOS (Acknowledgement of Service) and now just have a few days left to submit my defence. 

What is the Issue Date on your County Court Claim Form?

Upon what date did you file an Acknowledgment of Service?
Your MCOL Claim History will have the definitive answer to that.

Hi KeithP

Issue Date = 10th May
AOS submission date = 13th May
AOS received date = 14th May

Half_way

The parking company will not tell you who the landowner is , as doing so may cut their income ( ie the chances of them getting your money)

Sometimes the landowner can be obvious that is its a car park attached to a single business, sometimes you may need to do a little digging, so if its a retail park it should be a simple task of using a bit of nous and google  searching for retail park name and units often yeilds results, another method is on site signage that may state something like savills , and another method is to ask on a forum such as this, instead of ignoring everything and making things harder.

 anyway, we all learn by our mistakes and believe it or not its not too late for a landowner complaint, or for intervention

so where was / is this car park ? and we might be able to show you how to find a landowner - it could even be a known hotspot for parking companies

KeithP

Rich_the_owl said:

KeithP said:

Rich_the_owl said:

I then got the County Court Claim form and have been through the AOS (Acknowledgement of Service) and now just have a few days left to submit my defence. 

What is the Issue Date on your County Court Claim Form?

Upon what date did you file an Acknowledgment of Service?
Your MCOL Claim History will have the definitive answer to that.

Hi KeithP

Issue Date = 10th May
AOS submission date = 13th May
AOS received date = 14th May

With a Claim Issue Date of 10th May, and having filed an Acknowledgment of Service on 14th May, you have until 4pm on Friday 11th June 2021 to file your Defence.

That's less than a week away. Plenty of time to produce a Defence, but please don't leave it to the last minute.

To create a Defence, and then file a Defence by email, look at the second post in the NEWBIES thread.

Don't miss the deadline for filing a Defence.

Rich_the_owl

KeithP said:

To create a Defence, and then file a Defence by email, look at the second post in the NEWBIES thread.

Don't miss the deadline for filing a Defence.

Hi KeithP,
Yes, I have already followed this. And what I put in my opening post is what I have come up with so far. What I am looking for is some help from the experts on whether I need to change or add anything. Please refer to the questions I asked in the post which are:

1. Please can I have advise if I should add anything else?
2. Please can I have advise if any of the language on what is currently there be altered?
3. Should I leave point 8 included on the Defence? As this information was only in the PCN's (which I chose to ignore), so is it better to not put this so there is less proof that I actually did receive the PCN's?

Your help (and any others) would be greatly appreciated

Coupon-mad

 I've also got an email chain where I have asked 3 times who the Landowner of the car park is and what Solicitors they are using

ParkingEye don't use solicitors as they have an in house litigation team.  Shocking that this is how parking firms operate, aiming for income from penalising and suing people.  They don't make their money from landowners, generally, and even pay them for the 'right' to sue patrons.  Something is wrong in a society that allows this to continue to be a thing. 

 Anyway they don't have to tell you who the landowner is, either...which is another problem.  IMHO the signs should state who owns the land so people can complain about these contractors and call out the worst rogues.

Your defence has the wrong approach entirely,  You need to admit to driving and say what happened, for goodness' sake. That is your defence, as you rightly said:

I was looking for somewhere to park in an area I'm not familiar with. I saw what looked like a Private car park and decided to try it. There was no obvious signage outside the car park with the prices on. Only when you actually go in (and go past the first ANPR camera) can you actually read the board with prices. So I safely parked in a space, got out of my car and read the board with the prices. Thought it was too expensive so got back in my car, drove off and exited the car park. The ANPR camera clocked me as having been in the car park for 10 minutes. The whole basis of my Defence is you cannot know the prices without actually going into the Car Park. So if you don't agree to them (like me) and then leave the ANPR clocks you as having not paid which is totally unfair. There should be signage outside the car park with the prices.

Why do we see none of that in your defence?   

These are not defence points:

Data Protection concerns
9. The Defendant requested a SAR (Subject Access Request) on <date>. The Claimant acknowledged that the SAR request had been passed to the Privacy team on <date> but as of yet the requested information has not yet been provided to the Defendant.
 
Lack of Transparency
10. The Defendant has requested on 3 different emails for the Claimant to provide details of the Landowner of the Car Park and the Solicitor details who they are instructing on their claim. The Claimant has not provided this information to the Defendant

And this is not the current statement of truth:

I believe the facts contained in this Defence are true.

You need to look at the example defences for ParkingEye cases, as shown in the NEWBIES thread and see the 2020 statement of truth that is clearly stated there.

Rich_the_owl

Hi Coupon-mad,

Thanks for the advice. I must say though some of it appears to be contradictory to some of the advice seen in previous threads. The things you are saying that should be in my Defence I did not include as it feels more like a witness statement. I have seen this in other threads where it advises to not make the Defence like a witness statement.

As for your comment regarding example defences for ParkingEye cases, I have been following these but clearly I am missing something. This one for example: https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/74850073#Comment_74850073
At the end it says "I believe the facts contained in this Defence are true" so I was just following that.

Coupon-mad

That example is from 2018.  Therefore pre-2020 new statement of truth. 

The NEWBIES thread itself says what the statement of truth is and has been for over a year.

I am not saying write it as a witness statement, not ''I did this'' but it needs ''the Defendant was the registered keeper and driver'' and it needs ''the Defendant did this/that''.

You have the exact approach here, just change it all to the third person ''the Defendant'' instead of ''I'' and that is your first section of defence:

I was looking for somewhere to park in an area I'm not familiar with. I saw what looked like a Private car park and decided to try it. There was no obvious signage outside the car park with the prices on. Only when you actually go in (and go past the first ANPR camera) can you actually read the board with prices. So I safely parked in a space, got out of my car and read the board with the prices. Thought it was too expensive so got back in my car, drove off and exited the car park. The ANPR camera clocked me as having been in the car park for 10 minutes. The whole basis of my Defence is you cannot know the prices without actually going into the Car Park. So if you don't agree to them (like me) and then leave the ANPR clocks you as having not paid which is totally unfair. There should be signage outside the car park with the prices.

Rich_the_owl

Coupon-mad said:

That example is from 2018.  Therefore pre-2020 new statement of truth. 
The NEWBIES thread itself says what the statement of truth is and has been for over a year.

I thought because it was under the bit that says "UNLESS YOU HAVE A PARKING EYE CLAIM" then I should not use this but I now understand it means for all

Thanks for your feedback. I will edit my defence statement tomorrow and repost in here for further feedback. Thank you.

D_P_Dance

UKPC signs are pants, have you read this?

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5972164/parking-eye-signs-oxford-road-reading/p1