IMPORTANT: Please make sure your posts do not contain any personally identifiable information (both your own and that of others). When uploading images, please take care that you have redacted all personal information including QR codes, number plates and reference numbers.

Parking Eye - Defence

24

Comments

  • easytry16
    easytry16 Posts: 62
    First Anniversary Name Dropper First Post
    Forumite
    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

    Hi @Coupon-mad see attached POC as requested.
  • Coupon-mad
    Coupon-mad Posts: 129,041
    Name Dropper First Post Photogenic First Anniversary
    Forumite
    edited 25 June 2023 at 6:47PM
    easytry16 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

    Hi @Coupon-mad see attached POC as requested.

    That makes zero sense because the maximum PCN is £100 (BPA Code of Practice) and that doesn't even say how much!

    Can you also show the boxes on the right?  Trying to work out what PEye are playing at, with £120 out of the blue.

    You may have to remove this stuff but I can't tell yet:

    Inflation of the parking charge and double recovery - an abuse of process
    PRIVATE 'PCN'? DON'T PAY BUT DON'T IGNORE IT (except N.Ireland).
    CLICK at the top of this/any page where it says:
    Forum Home»Motoring»Parking Tickets Fines & Parking - read the NEWBIES THREAD
  • Umkomaas
    Umkomaas Posts: 41,115
    First Anniversary Name Dropper First Post Photogenic
    Forumite
    Is the claim issued by PE themselves, or are DCB Legal representing them?
    Please note, we are not a legal advice forum. I personally don't get involved in critiquing court case Defences/Witness Statements, so unable to help on that front. Please don't ask. .

    I provide only my personal opinion, it is not a legal opinion, it is simply a personal one. I am not a lawyer.

    Give a man a fish, and you feed him for a day; show him how to catch fish, and you feed him for a lifetime.

    Private Parking Firms - Killing the High Street
  • easytry16
    easytry16 Posts: 62
    First Anniversary Name Dropper First Post
    Forumite
    easytry16 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

    Hi @Coupon-mad see attached POC as requested.

    That makes zero sense because the maximum PCN is £100 (BPA Code of Practice) and that doesn't even say how much!

    Can you also show the boxes on the right?  Trying to work out what PEye are playing at, with £120 out of the blue.

    You may have to remove this stuff but I can't tell yet:

    Inflation of the parking charge and double recovery - an abuse of process
    On the right it has the following:

    Amount claimed - £120
    Court Fee - £35
    Legal Representative's costs - £50
    Total Amount - £205
  • easytry16
    easytry16 Posts: 62
    First Anniversary Name Dropper First Post
    Forumite
    Umkomaas said:
    Is the claim issued by PE themselves, or are DCB Legal representing them?
    @umkoma yes the claimant is parking eye itself not seen anything from DCB Legal on this 
  • easytry16
    easytry16 Posts: 62
    First Anniversary Name Dropper First Post
    Forumite
    easytry16 said:
    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


    @Coupon-mad I have added the abuse of process in the defence above
  • Coupon-mad
    Coupon-mad Posts: 129,041
    Name Dropper First Post Photogenic First Anniversary
    Forumite
    edited 25 June 2023 at 8:15PM
    Remove paras 10, 11 and 12. Not used any more and they can add £50 legal costs.

    What they CAN'T do is just claim £120 when PCNs are capped at £100 under the BPA CoP and £120 did not appear in the signs.

    They can't just make up numbers!

    Was the PCN for £100?

    Or less?  £70? Do you have the PCN?

    The POC don't even say how much the PCN was for!  You need to state this instead of your 10 - 12.

    Please can you show a photo of the right hand side boxes (cover your password just above it) as I want to show these images to the Government...please.
    PRIVATE 'PCN'? DON'T PAY BUT DON'T IGNORE IT (except N.Ireland).
    CLICK at the top of this/any page where it says:
    Forum Home»Motoring»Parking Tickets Fines & Parking - read the NEWBIES THREAD
  • easytry16
    easytry16 Posts: 62
    First Anniversary Name Dropper First Post
    Forumite
    Remove paras 10, 11 and 12. Not used any more and they can add £50 legal costs.

    What they CAN'T do is just claim £120 when PCNs are capped at £100 under the BPA CoP and £120 did not appear in the signs.

    They can't just make up numbers!

    Was the PCN for £100?

    Or less?  £70? Do you have the PCN?

    The POC don't even say how much the PCN was for!  You need to state this instead of your 10 - 12.

    Please can you show a photo of the right hand side boxes (cover your password just above it) as I want to show these images to the Government...please.
    coupon-mad thanks see the table on the claim form
  • easytry16
    easytry16 Posts: 62
    First Anniversary Name Dropper First Post
    Forumite
    PCN was for £120 and £60 if paid within some days. 
  • easytry16
    easytry16 Posts: 62
    First Anniversary Name Dropper First Post
    Forumite
    Do you have any specific wording I can use regarding the POC and £120 that I can use instead of items 10-12? I need to submit the defence tomorrow. 
Meet your Ambassadors

Categories

  • All Categories
  • 341.6K Banking & Borrowing
  • 249.6K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
  • 449K Spending & Discounts
  • 233.5K Work, Benefits & Business
  • 605.8K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
  • 172.3K Life & Family
  • 246.5K Travel & Transport
  • 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
  • 15.8K Discuss & Feedback
  • 15.1K Coronavirus Support Boards