County Court Defence - ParkingEye ANPR - KFC Carpark
Firstly a huge thanks for all the work you do here. It amazing the community of people you’ve helped.
Background from me;
At the time I was 8 months pregnant and had gone to KFC (please don’t judge, pregnancy hormones do crazy things to you). The KFC is located in a large retail centre. I arrived, realised the KFC was closed and left the car park.
I then received the PCN from ParkingEye, which made it clear that this small area of parking outside the KFC is now controlled by them and they only allow parking during the hours the restaurant is open. The ANPR captured my stay at 10 minutes.
I did appeal the original ticket but at the time I was very heavily pregnant and didn’t do my reading. The appeal was rejected, and I subsequently missed the POPLA appeal due to the birth of my child.
The original PCN was for £100 however in the court claim Parking Eye are now claiming £120, £35 court fee and £50 legal representative’s costs amounting to £205.
After receiving claim I have submitted the AOS via the MCOL.
A claim was issued against you on 03/07/2023
Your acknowledgment of service was submitted on 10/07/2023 at 10:49:11
Your acknowledgment of service was received on 10/07/2023 at 14:05:15
My defence is below and I would highly appreciate
some feedback. As the cost of the original fine has increased, i used the standard template in the Newbies post. I have only amended up to paragraph 13. The rest is as per the template.
IN THE COUNTY COURT
Claim No.: xxxxxx
- and -
1. The parking charges referred to in this claim did not arise from any agreement of terms. The charge and the claim was an unexpected shock. The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to relief in the sum claimed, or at all. It is denied that any conduct by the driver was a breach of any prominent term and it is denied that this Claimant (understood to have a bare licence as managers) has standing to sue or form contracts in their own name. Liability is denied, whether or not the Claimant is claiming 'keeper liability', which is unclear from the Particulars.
The facts as known to the Defendant:
2. It is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper of the vehicle and driver.
3. Any breach is denied, and it is further denied that there was any agreement to pay the Claimant's £100 'Parking Charge Notice ('PCN')'.
4. At the time of this accusation, the Defendant was 8 months pregnant and was visiting the KFC restaurant to eat. The Defendant arrived at the KFC, realised the restaurant was closed and subsequently left the car park.
5. The Defendant states that they visit the BLANK shopping Centre frequently and this area of the wider carpark controlled by the Parking Eye is not clearly defined and there is no obvious signage to indicate the distinction of the adjacent, free car park. Evidential photograph provided.
6. 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.
7. 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.
8. The allegation appears to be based on images by their ANPR camera at the KFC restaurant. 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 abiding by the Terms and Conditions or authorisation outlined by Parking Eye.
9. The allegation appears to be based on the claim that “the signage clearly displayed throughout BLANK ADDRESS states that this is private land, managed by ParkingEye Ltd”. This allegation is denied by the defendant.
10. 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.
11. 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.
12. The Claimant states that the Defendants vehicle was in the car park for 10 minutes. Based on the information provided in points 4-7, 10 & 11 this is a fair amount of time required to take those actions.
13. The facts in this defence come from the Defendant's own knowledge and honest belief. To pre-empt the usual template responses from this serial litigator: the court process is outside of the Defendant's life experience and they cannot be criticised for using, in part, pre-written wording suggested by a reliable online help resource. The Claimant is urged not to patronise the Defendant with (ironically template) unfounded accusations of not understanding their defence.
- All Categories
- 338.8K Banking & Borrowing
- 248.6K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 447.5K Spending & Discounts
- 230.7K Work, Benefits & Business
- 600.8K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 171K Life & Family
- 244K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 15.9K Discuss & Feedback
- 15.1K Coronavirus Support Boards