Parking Eye - Defence

easytry16

Hi All,

Back again with a new claim, this time around a Parking Eye fine.

So basically, I parked in an underground car park in San Court Manchester Parking facility Manchester which had recorded the time I entered the parking and the time when I left (was travelling with family 2 adults and 3 kids).

The parking had very tight space for bends, and as soon as I entered the parking (after it registered my entry via camera), there was a large SUV Range Rover that was trying to come out of the parking, since there wasn't enough space for both cars to manoeuvre, I could not reverse back because I had another car behind me that had entered the car park, so in nutshell it took some time for the SUV driver to manage to give me space to enter the car park. Then I had to go roughly two levels down to get a parking as again the parking spaces were ridiculously tight. After I parked my car, got my kids out of the car, then I looked around to see parking signs and how to make the payment. Found that it could be paid by phone or app. However, there was no reception what so ever within the parking lot, so had to come out to find information on how it can be paid by paybyphone app. All this could have easily taken roughly 12-15mins. Then I paid using paybyphone, and then went on to have a dessert with family, came back and left the site, again had to put the kids in the car seats, secure them etc.

Few days later, I received a letter saying I overstayed at the car park for 17-18mins. To this I responded back as below:
"Please note that I had paid for the parking at the San Court Manchester Parking facility. However, when we entered the car park, another car was blocking access which took us some time to park in a parking bay. Upon parking, we noticed we would not get a phone signal in the building therefore had to come out of the car park to pay for our parking using the Pay by Phone app. Therefore you will notice from our evidence provided that , it took us 10 minutes to pay after entering the car park. 

While leaving the facility, I must highlight that we were with small children and thus fastening them safely to the car seat takes time. It took us 8 minutes to leave the facility once we were all safely seated in our car. 

The above explains our delay at the car park and therefore I would request you review our appeal and cancel the notice issued to us"

They responded back and "Thank you for your appeal in relation to the Parking Charge incurred on 21 January 2023 at 22:35, at San Court Manchester car park.

We have reviewed the details outlined in your appeal and can see that a payment to park was made on the date of the event. Unfortunately, the tariff purchased was insufficient

and did not cover the entire duration of the stay. The terms and conditions and tariffs are outlined on the signage which are on display throughout the car park.

We are writing to advise you that your recent appeal has been unsuccessful and that you have now reached the end of our internal appeals procedure."  

They offered to go to POPLA but I missed that, then I received a letter before court, followed by county court claim. I followed the newbies thread and acknowledged, claim summary below:

Claimant: ParkingEye Ltd

Claim Number: xxxxxxxx

Amount Claimed: £120.00

Court Fee: £35.00

Solicitor Costs: £50.00

Total Amount: £205.00

Issue Date: 22/05/2023
Your acknowledgment of service was received on 05/06/2023 at 14:05:09.

Now, I would really need help in preparing the defence, as I cannot seem to find a standard template for Parking Eye as compared to others which I successfully defended last time with help from members from this forum. Could anyone help me and guide me with defence preparation. I need to submit my defence by tomorrow 24th June if I have to submit the defence 33 days from issue date of 22/05/2023.

An urgent help with a defence template would be much appreciated.

KeithP

easytry16 said:

Claimant: ParkingEye Ltd

Claim Number: xxxxxxxx

Issue Date: 22/05/2023

Your acknowledgment of service was received on 05/06/2023 at 14:05:09.
I need to submit my defence by tomorrow 24th June if I have to submit the defence 33 days from issue date of 22/05/2023.

Probably best that you now edit your post above to remove your unique claim number. The parking companies are known to trawl this forum just waiting for people to trip themselves up.
You also should review your use of the word 'I' in your opening post. It was 'the driver' who parked, who may or may not be the same person as who received the Claim.
Do you understand that a keeper may have more protection than a known driver?

You have a couple more days than you think. A court deadline will never be on a weekend or bank holiday.

With a Claim Issue Date of 22nd May, and having filed an Acknowledgment of Service in a timely manner, you have until 4pm on Monday 26th June 2023 to file your Defence.

That's just a few days away but plenty of time to produce a Defence.

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'.

easytry16

KeithP said:

easytry16 said:

Claimant: ParkingEye Ltd

Claim Number: xxxxxxxx

Issue Date: 22/05/2023

Your acknowledgment of service was received on 05/06/2023 at 14:05:09.
I need to submit my defence by tomorrow 24th June if I have to submit the defence 33 days from issue date of 22/05/2023.

Probably best that you now edit your post above to remove your unique claim number. The parking companies are known to trawl this forum just waiting for people to trip themselves up.

You have a couple more days than you think. A court deadline will never be on a weekend or bank holiday.

With a Claim Issue Date of 22nd May, and having filed an Acknowledgment of Service in a timely manner, you have until 4pm on Monday 26th June 2023 to file your Defence.

That's just a few days away but plenty of time to produce a Defence.

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'.

Thanks Keith, I have removed the unique claim number. I just need a good defence template that would closely align my scenario, so would help me put the defence fairly quickly. 

KeithP

easytry16 said:

KeithP said:

easytry16 said:

Claimant: ParkingEye Ltd

Claim Number: xxxxxxxx

Issue Date: 22/05/2023

Your acknowledgment of service was received on 05/06/2023 at 14:05:09.
I need to submit my defence by tomorrow 24th June if I have to submit the defence 33 days from issue date of 22/05/2023.

Probably best that you now edit your post above to remove your unique claim number. The parking companies are known to trawl this forum just waiting for people to trip themselves up.

You have a couple more days than you think. A court deadline will never be on a weekend or bank holiday.

With a Claim Issue Date of 22nd May, and having filed an Acknowledgment of Service in a timely manner, you have until 4pm on Monday 26th June 2023 to file your Defence.

That's just a few days away but plenty of time to produce a Defence.

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'.

I just need a good defence template that would closely align my scenario, so would help me put the defence fairly quickly. 

Yes that's right. Follow the guidance I have given you.

Also note I have added a few words to my earlier post since you first saw it.

KeithP

Another problem you now have is that you have left it right to the last minute to face this. A lot of the regular posters seem to not be so readily available at weekends - especially nice sunny weekends.

You've had a month to tackle this.

Show us your proposed Defence as soon as you are able if you want a critique of it.

easytry16

KeithP said:

Another problem you now have is that you have left it right to the last minute to face this. A lot of the regular posters seem to not be so readily available at weekends - especially nice sunny weekends.

You've had a month to tackle this.

Show us your proposed Defence as soon as you are able if you want a critique of it.

I know, I had completely forgotten about it - I will try and get a defence ready using the examples on the forum and get it uploaded here soon for review and comments. Thanks for your help

Coupon-mad

Can you show us why it's £120? Is that extra £20 interest?  Please copy & paste the Claim form POC (on the left of tge claim) but redact your numberplate.

Did you read the ParkingEye defence examples linked specifically in the NEWBIES thread?  NB: they are a bit old so the Statement of Truth is the wrong one. Don't copy it.  The NEWBIES thread tells you the right SoT.

This Napier thread is exactly like yours:
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6454769/napier-parking-bw-legal/p1

easytry16

Coupon-mad said:

Can you show us why it's £120? Is that extra £20 interest?  Please copy & paste the Claim form POC (on the left of tge claim) but redact your numberplate.

Did you read the ParkingEye defence examples linked specifically in the NEWBIES thread?  NB: they are a bit old so the Statement of Truth is the wrong one. Don't copy it.  The NEWBIES thread tells you the right SoT.

This Napier thread is exactly like yours:
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6454769/napier-parking-bw-legal/p1

Thanks Coupon-mad, I will get that pasted here

easytry16

Attempt on first draft, done a lot of copy and paste but hopefully I can get some advice so I can get this updated and sent before the deadline tomorrow.

In the County Court

Claim Number: xxxxxxx

Between

ParkingEye Ltd

v

Xyour nameX

DEFENCE

Background

1. The Defendant is the registered keeper of the vehicle in question. The Claim relates to an alleged debt in damages arising from a driver's alleged breach of contract when parking at San Court Manchester Parking facility on 21/01/23. Any breach is denied, and it is further denied that there was any agreement to pay the Claimant's £100 'Parking Charge Notice ('PCN')' for the lawful conduct described below.

2. The allegation appears to be that the 'motorist fails to make the appropriate tariff payment' 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' at the San Court Manchester Parking facility.

3. When the Defendant's vehicle entered at San Court Manchester Parking facility, another car was blocking access which took defendant some time to navigate around, find a parking space and then park in a parking bay. Upon parking, the defendant noticed they would not get a phone signal in the building therefore had to come out of the car park facility to pay for parking using the Pay by Phone app, this took defendant around 10-12 minutes to pay after entering the car park, the defendant has evidence of the receipt of payment.

4. The Defendant returned to the vehicle and promptly exited the car park. While leaving the facility, the defendant must highlight that they were travelling with small children and thus fastening them safely to the car seat takes time. It took defendant around 8 minutes to leave the facility once everyone were all safely seated in our car. The alleged late exit of the Defendant’s vehicle from the car park was due to circumstances beyond the Defendant’s control, and as such constitutes frustration of contract.

5. As per the Private Parking Code of Practice, the Defendant was entitled to a minimum of 5 minutes consideration period, and an additional 10 minute grace period, totalling a minimum of 15 minutes additional time. In calculating the alleged overstay of the parking period using vehicle entry/exit time, as recorded by ANPR cameras, the Claimant has denied the Defendant these allowances. In addition, the code defines the parking period as follows, which the Claimant has not followed: "2.24 parking period - the length of time that a vehicle has been parked, i.e. left stationary otherwise than in the course of driving, after any relevant consideration period has expired (excluding instances where the driver has stopped to enable passengers to leave or enter the vehicle). This is not the period between a vehicle being recorded as entering and departing controlled land."

6. In calculating the time duration of the alleged contract breach, the Claimant has recorded the duration of the parking event as the time between the Defendant’s vehicle entering and exiting the car park, as captured by ANPR cameras. It is denied that this is an accurate representation of the parking event, the contract between the Defendant and the Claimant only began when the Defendant paid for the parking using “paybyphone app”, which will be much later than the time the Defendant’s vehicle entered the car park. This is supported by National Car Parks Ltd v Revenue And Customs [2019] EWCA Civ 854 (20 May 2019) “The best analysis would seem to be that the contract was brought into being when the green button was pressed. On that basis, the pressing of the green button would represent acceptance by the customer of an offer by NCP to provide an hour's parking in return for the coins that the customer had by then paid into the machine.”

7. Defendant knew that no offence or mischief had occurred and honestly believed from initial research, that private parking charges and the appeals systems were unlikely to be fairly weighted in favour of consumers.

8. This fact was later confirmed in all readings of the Private Parking Code of Practice Bill, from February 2018 to date, where MPs universally condemned the entire industry as operating 'an outrageous scam' typically relying upon hidden, punitive terms that purposely rely on drivers not seeing an unexpected obligation. Both the British Parking Association ('BPA') Trade Body and indeed, ParkingEye themselves were specifically named and shamed more than once in Parliament and the Bill was introduced purely because the industry is out of control, self regulation has failed, and in many cases any 'appeal' is futile.

 

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

9. 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.

10. 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.

11. 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.

12. 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, and to allow such Defendant's costs as are permissible under Civil Procedure Rule 27.14.

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.


Name/signature


Date

B789

That's more like a Witness Statement. Why haven't you use the template defence?

Your defence is a series of "hooks" that you will later hang your WS on.

Also, a lot of that is irrelevant at this stage and out of date anyway.

easytry16

B789 said:

That's more like a Witness Statement. Why haven't you use the template defence?

Your defence is a series of "hooks" that you will later hang your WS on.

Also, a lot of that is irrelevant at this stage and out of date anyway.

B789 thanks but it is based on the defence template on Newbies thread for parkingeye claims and also as per the above reference Coupon-mad provided. Anything in particular you think that looks like a witness statement that I need to revisit?