Parkingeye Gravel Beacon Road Bournemouth

Potmat4

I've edited the template to add my bits in para 2 and 3 as follow:

The facts known to the Defendant:

2. It is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper of the vehicle. However, the Defendant was not the driver and has never been to Bournemouth. 

3.  The Defendant has spoken to the driver who denies any breach of contract and states that on 11 April, they had intended to visit the beach and after searching for a parking place on Beacon Road for a while, they remained inside the car trying to decide if it was worth parking up and getting out as it was very busy. The driver decided it was too busy and left without leaving the car. The driver states it was not clear that they had entered private land or that they agreed to any sort of contract by entering the car park. Had this been clear and understood, the driver would not have entered or returned on 19 April. The driver states that they did not understand that the car park in question was a separate car park from the council car park next to it (also called Beacon Road car park). The council car park clearly displays instructions on how to pay for a parking ticket via Park & Pay with PayByPhone. The driver paid for a parking ticket with PayByPhone and believed they had followed the correct procedure. 

Coupon-mad

Yes that's a fair summary.

But - assuming PEye filed this claim and they didn't outsource it to DCBLegal - add in the paragraph about Parking Eye adding £20 and it being common ground there was no loss.

It's in 3 or 4 ParkingEye threads right near yours now.  Don't write your own words about no loss as that's not the main point (the added £20 is) and 'no loss' can be worthless as an argument if not expressed properly.

Once your defence is in, your case will go quiet.

Please help the evidence photos campaign during August. I need more evidence:
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6463361/dluhc-private-parking-code-government-launches-call-for-evidence-discussion-thread#latest

Potmat4

So I did see this text from another thread for para 2:

"2. It is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper and driver of the vehicle but they are none the wiser as to the specific alleged breach, which is denied.  Whatever the allegation turns out to be, it must be common ground that the terms have been complied with or substantially complied with, and the Claimant will concede that no financial loss has arisen.  The charge imposed, in all the circumstances is a penalty (not saved by the ParkingEye v Beavis Supreme Court case, which is fully distinguished).  Further, in a new tactic only seen from this Claimant in Summer 2023, the sum claimed under purported 'contract' is disproportionately exaggerated by £20 which was not on the signs.  The Defendant takes the point that enhancing their claim on either impermissible sums or on an incorrect basis, is reason enough to disallow the claim."

Some of this I don't understand (English is not my first language), and I didn't want to copy and paste something I didn't understand. Is all of this relevant to me (bar the keeper being the driver) or only some of it?

Coupon-mad

It is all relevant to you - except maybe this sentence:

"But they are none the wiser as to the specific alleged breach"

Is it true, in your case, to say that you don't know why you got the PCN?

That's what that sentence means, so if that sentence isn't true for you, just remove that sentence.

DO use the rest of that paragraph.  It's basically saying PEye has added twenty quid that they can't add.

Potmat4

Just wanted to say that I received my court date and was in the middle of finalising all my documents, but have today received a letter in the post from the courts to say that my case will be struck out as ParkingEye have not paid the court fee. Feels like a huge relief as I believe this means they'd have to start over from the beginning if they want to take this any further. Am I correct in thinking this might be the end of it? 

Coupon-mad

Potmat4 said:

Just wanted to say that I received my court date and was in the middle of finalising all my documents, but have today received a letter in the post from the courts to say that my case will be struck out as ParkingEye have not paid the court fee. Feels like a huge relief as I believe this means they'd have to start over from the beginning if they want to take this any further. Am I correct in thinking this might be the end of it? 

Yes, as long as PEye don't come back to the court and prove they did (which has happened). They wouldn't have to start again, it would be resurrected and you'd be back at WS & evidence stage.

Keep ALL the paperwork over the Summer just in case, but I will tentatively add -Yay!

ANOTHER ONE BITES THE DUST!