ParkingEye county court claim - please help

RedRaccoon

Hi everyone, I'm assisting a family member with a parking charge issue. They recently received a county court claim from the Civil National Business Centre, and we would greatly appreciate any help or advice.

Background:

This situation follows a similar pattern to many others. The vehicle was in the car park for longer than the permitted time. The car park allowed free parking for 90 mins but the car was in the car park for almost 120 mins. This incident occurred in a Starbucks car park managed by ParkingEye. The reason for the overstay was a genuine error - simply losing track of time, something that can happen to anyone.

Unfortunately, the RK initially made the mistake of following outdated advice and ignored the letters from the parking company, thinking that the issue would eventually resolve itself. We now understand that this hasn't been the case since 2012.

The RK was prepared to pay the charge and be done with it. However, I convinced them that this would only contribute to the problem (the scourge that these parking companies represent). Especially since they've kept inflating the initial charge and adding imaginary charges, going from £60 to £205. What a scam!

Since receiving the court claim letter, I have spent several days on this forum learning about the process and exploring possible ways to fight this situation.

On Sept 8, 2023, we filed an Acknowledgment of Service on the MCOL website.

The next step is to prepare the defense and submit it. Concurrently, we're also attempting 'Plan A', which involves complaining to the retailer and writing to the local MP. I know it might be too late, and there's a slim chance of this working, but I reckon it's worth a shot.

Claim details:

Issue date: 29 Aug 2023

Particulars of Claim:

Claim for monies outstanding from the Defendant in relation to a Parking Charge (reference XXXXXX) issued on 30/05/2023. The signage clearly displayed throughout Euro Garages Starbucks/KFC, XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX states that this is private land, managed by ParkingEye Ltd, and that it is subject to terms and conditions, including a max stay period, by which those who park agree to be bound (the contract). ParkingEye's ANPR system captured vehicle XXXXXXX entering and leaving the site on 26/05/2023, and overstaying the max stay period. Pursuant to Sch 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, notice has been given to the registered keeper, making them liable for the Parking Charge payable upon breach.

Amount claimed: 120.00

Court fee: 35.00

Legal representative's costs: 50.00

Total amount: 205.00

Signed: Jayne Leonard (Claimants Legal Representative)

KeithP

RedRaccoon said:

On August 8, 2023, we filed an Acknowledgment of Service on the MCOL website.

Claim details:

Issue date: 29 Aug 2023

Sorry... does not compute.
You cannot file an Acknowledgment of Service before a Claim has been Issued.  


What is the Issue Date on your Claim Form?

Upon what date did you file an Acknowledgment of Service?
Your MCOL Claim History will have the definitive answer to that.

RedRaccoon

Sorry thats a typo, I meant 8 Sept 2023 (last Fri).

KeithP

With a Claim Issue Date of 29th August, and having filed an Acknowledgment of Service in a timely manner, you have until 4pm on Monday 2nd October 2023 to file your Defence.

That's almost three weeks away. Plenty of time to produce a Defence but please don't leave 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'.

Coupon-mad

Copy another ParkingEye defence from the past 2 months that has the extra paragraph about PE adding £20 that wasn't on the signs.

RedRaccoon

Kindly review this defense, and feel free to provide any recommended alterations or suggestions.

The facts known to the Defendant:

2. It is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper and driver of the vehicle. 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.

3. The Defendant visited Euro Garages Starbucks/KFC [Location] on [Date of the alleged offense]. The defendant was a genuine customer of the Starbucks coffee shop, and remained on the site throughout the visit. The Defendant does not possess a detailed recollection of the specific circumstances surrounding the alleged offense on that particular day.

Le_Kirk

It is not an offense offence. Refer to it as an event.

RedRaccoon

After copy and pasting the rest of the template into a word document, do I need to change any formatting? like change font size, types, etc

Coupon-mad

Swap your paras 2 and 3 round and it will read so much better. 

Isn't this phrase already in the template's next paragraph or two?

"and the Claimant will concede that no financial loss has arisen."

If I'm right, remove the repetition.

Times New Roman 11 or 12 with 1.25 line spacing is traditional. Judges like tradition.

RedRaccoon

ok thanks, the defence now reads as follows. If this is ok, I'll submit it tomorrow.

The facts known to the Defendant:

2. The Defendant visited Euro Garages Starbucks/KFC [Location] on [Date of the alleged event]. The defendant was a genuine customer of the Starbucks coffee shop, and remained on the site throughout the visit. The Defendant does not possess a detailed recollection of the specific circumstances surrounding the alleged event on that particular day.

3. It is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper and driver of the vehicle. It must be common ground that the terms have been complied with or substantially complied with. 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.

4. The Claimant will concede that no financial loss has arisen and that in order to impose an inflated parking charge, as well as proving a term was breached, there must be:

(i). a strong 'legitimate interest' extending beyond mere compensation for loss, and

(Ii). 'adequate notice' of the 'penalty clause' charge which, in the case of a car park, requires prominent signs and lines.

Coupon-mad

I'd just add here:

... The Defendant does not possess a detailed recollection of the specific circumstances surrounding the alleged event on that particular day, but believes that the signage was inadequate and not sufficiently prominent either in the place where the car was parked, or when walking into Starbucks. Having parked properly in a bay, nothing was drawn to the Defendant's attention - inside or outside - thus, there were no 'relevant obligations' and no breach.  This honest belief is based on the fact that the Defendant knew nothing about any alleged contractual time limit for users of the cafe and the Parking Charge Notice invoice arriving out of the blue (several weeks later) was a huge shock. The Claimant is put to strict proof of where the car was parked in relation to signs with conspicuous terms, which they must show were visible and bound to be seen on the material date.