Parkingeye Court Defence on unfair PCN, 11 minutes for £100

Spectre777

Hi everyone!
As others here, I am being taken to court by this scam company. This is what happened. 
I wanted to park around 11PM to collect a shop order. The private car park (owned by a school across the road although is in front of the shopping area) is adjacent to the council car park (free to park at that time). I noticed this after few minutes and I tried to make the payment for one hour. However, the app did not take the payment (later I noticed that Monday-Friday was permit only, Saturday and Sunday was with payment). Left after 11 minutes. Ignored the letters and did not appeal until they sent the court letter which was obviously too late. I genuinely thought these scammers would just bluff and they know they have no grounds. However, it looks like they are really aggressive and they like to scare people to get paid. Of course I won't pay.
Here is my defence and I would really appreciate some feedback:

IN THE COUNTY COURT

CLAIM No: Removed

 

BETWEEN:

ParkingEye Ltd (Claimant)

-and-

xxx mf87 xxx(Defendant)

 

DEFENCE

Background

1.     The Defendant was looking for somewhere to park in an area they are not very familiar with. Around 11PM, the Defendant was driving on <street name> and saw on the right-hand side what looked like the shopping centre car park <name>, managed by the local council and the one the defendant used few times prior. The Defendant knew that the car park he thought he entered had no charges after 7PM.

2.     After few minutes of being parked, the Defendant noticed different signage to what he was used to in <name>, and proceeded to investigate. The Defendant noticed that this is a separate car park, adjacent and connected to <name>, but with no obvious signage. The Defendant noticed there was a 50p charge for one hour. The Defendant proceeded to make the payment but the app would provide an error. After 11 minutes, the Defendant decides to leave the car park.  

3.     The Defendant states there was no obvious signage outside the car park to indicate clearly the distinction of the adjacent, free car park. The Defendant states that the signage inside the car park was poorly lit which made it difficult to read the Terms and Conditions and to notice that <name>, was “permit only” for that day and time (this was observed at a later date by the Defendant).  

4.     The Defendant states that in order to read the Terms and Conditions, any driver would have to enter the car park, park the car safely, locate by foot the signage and then make a decision. In the case that the driver would not agree or cannot comply with the Terms and Conditions within a reasonable time (which is the case of the Defendant), the ANPR would be used to trigger a charge to the driver.

5.     The Defendant refers to section 13.1 of the BPA (British Parking Association) Approved Operator Code of Practice which states “The driver must have the chance to consider the Terms and Conditions before entering into the ‘parking contract’ with you. If, having had that opportunity, the driver decides not to park but chooses to leave the car park, you must provide them with a reasonable consideration period to leave, before the driver can be bound by your parking contract.” The Defendant states that the Claimant has not adhered to this.

 

Further points

6.      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.

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

8.     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.

9.     The allegation appears to be based on the claim that “the signage clearly displayed throughout Harrow Hall Car Park states that this is private land, managed by ParkingEye Ltd.” This allegation is denied by the defendant.

10.  The allegation infers signage is clearly displayed throughout <290 High Street>. This allegation is denied by the Defendant. The entrance to the cark park on <290 High Street> does not have clear signage, well-lit before entering the car park.

11.  Signage with the Terms & Conditions are within the car park itself. The Defendant states that 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.

12.  The Defendant states that 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. 

13.  The Claimant states that the Defendants vehicle was in the car park for 11 minutes. Based on the information provided in points 1-4, 7 & 8 this is a fair amount of time required to take those actions.

I believe that the facts stated in this defence are true. I understand that proceedings for contempt of court may be brought against anyone who makes, or causes to be made, a false statement in a document verified by a statement of truth without an honest belief in its truth.

Spectre777

A claim was issued against you on 20/02/2023

Your acknowledgment of service was submitted on 23/02/2023 at 20:30:19

Your acknowledgment of service was received on 24/02/2023 at 08:05:28

Coupon-mad

I think it would flow better if 6 and 7 are taken right to the top, above the rest.  Then re-number it all.

You are missing the usual point about putting the C to strict proof that they were authorised by the landowner at the material time, and that the C had standing to sue in their own name, as opposed to acting merely as agents on behalf of a named principal (the school).

Do ANY of the signs identify the school anywhere, even with a logo? This is important.

Is this a claim filed by ParkingEye themselves, whose employee in-house solicitor has signed it off, or is it filed by a named legal firm who are given as the address for papers?

KeithP

Spectre777 said:

A claim was issued against you on 20/02/2023

Your acknowledgment of service was submitted on 23/02/2023 at 20:30:19

Your acknowledgment of service was received on 24/02/2023 at 08:05:28

Hello and welcome.

With a Claim Issue Date of 20th February, and having filed an Acknowledgment of Service on 24th February, you have until 4pm on Friday 24th March 2023 to file your Defence.

That's nearly three weeks away. Plenty of time to produce a Defence and it is good to see that you are not leaving 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.

Do not try and file a Defence via the MoneyClaimOnline website. Once an Acknowledgment of Service has been filed, the MCOL website should be treated as 'read only'.

Spectre777

Coupon-mad said:

I think it would flow better if 6 and 7 are taken right to the top, above the rest.  Then re-number it all.

You are missing the usual point about putting the C to strict proof that they were authorised by the landowner at the material time, and that the C had standing to sue in their own name, as opposed to acting merely as agents on behalf of a named principal (the school).

Do ANY of the signs identify the school anywhere, even with a logo? This is important.

Is this a claim filed by ParkingEye themselves, whose employee in-house solicitor has signed it off, or is it filed by a named legal firm who are given as the address for papers?

Hi! Thanks for the quick response, I will make the suggested changes. Yes, there is a logo sign in the car park and also in their T&C on the board, about permits (to contact the school to receive permits). Why is this so important if I may ask?
I am pretty sure the claim is filed by Parkingeye because their name appears on the Claim form (address for sending documents to). 

Coupon-mad

It's important because where there is a 'disclosed principal' in an offered contract, it is legally very difficult for a middle-man agent like ParkingEye to demonstrate that they have standing to sue. The proper Claimant is the principal.

Quite a strong legal argument.

Add this as para 3 onwards (thanks to @bargepole, as I cribbed from his work):


3.  The notices at the entrance to the car park, and within, state that the land is managed by the Claimant, with the authority of the landowner, who in this case is name of school. The school is prominently identified by name and logo and it is they (not this Claimant) who are stated to provide permission to park, in the form of permits.  Thus, the Defendant takes the point that any contract was offered by the school.

4.  It is a matter of trite and long-established law that an agent may not sue in its own name in circumstances where the identity of the principal is disclosed.  Therefore, this Claimant has no locus standi to bring this claim, for which the correct Claimant would have been name of school.

5.  The Claimant may be considered to be acting as an agent of the car park owner, and may even hold a site service agreement, however as the identity of the principal is disclosed on the signage, the authorities of Fairlie v Fenton [1870] LR 5 Exch 169, and Montgomerie v United Kingdom Mutual Steamship Association [1891] 1 QB 370, both hold that an agent may not sue in its own name in circumstances where the principal is disclosed.

Spectre777

I have my court date on the 17th of November. Can someone please confirm where to I need to send the WS and evidence? The Claimant but also, which court? The one where the hearing takes place? Thanks in advance (I could not find the info on 

Court Claim Procedure (updated October 2016)

KeithP

Spectre777 said:

Can someone please confirm where to I need to send the WS and evidence? The Claimant but also, which court? The one where the hearing takes place?

Yes, to the court where the hearing is due to take place.

Coupon-mad

And a copy to the Claimant's solicitors (NOT THE PARKING FIRM THEMSELVES) of course.

Latest examples of good WS are by @_blueberry_ and @vincentvega27

Spectre777

Thanks both for prompt reply!

Spectre777

Coupon-mad said:

And a copy to the Claimant's solicitors (NOT THE PARKING FIRM THEMSELVES) of course.

Latest examples of good WS are by @_blueberry_ and @vincentvega27

So this is a draft of my WS and evidence but I have two questions before I post it on 30/10. 

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1d_sLNPCbdhahxIIIY40W-XTZriJQtuHz/edit?usp=sharing&ouid=102002230596635490530&rtpof=true&sd=true

1. Is there anything else I need or is there anything extra that should not be there?
2. Where do I write the breakdown of the costs/expenses incurred by me during this process? 

Thanks!!