Parking Eye are Proceeding with Court Claim - HELP!

legolady88

I received a parking fine from Parking Eye nearly 4 years ago in 2019.  I've ignored the letters for years until they recently served court papers.  I filed my defence based on the information I'd found out on other threads on here.  They've tried to get me to pay a lesser amount, now I've received this and I'm worried it will actually go to court.

Good morning

Having reviewed the content of your defence, we write to inform you that our client intends to proceed with the claim.In due course, the Court will direct both parties to each file a directions questionnaire. In preparation for that, please find attached a copy of the Claimant's, which we confirm has been filed with the Court.
Without Prejudice to the above, in order to assist the Court in achieving its overriding objective, our client may be prepared to settle this case - in the event you wish to discuss settlement, please call us on 0203 434 0433 within 7 days and make immediate reference to this correspondence.
If you have provided an email address within your Defence, we intend to use it for service of documents (usually in PDF format) hereon in pursuant to PD 6A (4.1)(2)(c). Please advise whether there are any limitations to this (for example, the format in which documents are to be sent and the maximum size of attachments that may be received). Unless you advise otherwise, we will assume not.

Coupon-mad

Depends whether you have a winnable case.  For example, if it was an overstay in a clearly signed retail park (with no mitigation/disabled person in the car) that has a low chance of you succeeding at a hearing.

Please show us the Particulars of Claim (minus your VRM) and the facts section of your defence.

legolady88

This is the particulars of claim

legolady88

My defence:

1. The Defendant was the registered keeper of the vehicle in

question on 22nd October 2019. The Claim relates to an alleged

debt arising from an alleged breach of contract, which is denied.

It is further denied that there was any agreement to pay the

Claimant a 'parking charge notice' (PCN).  The alleged breach of

contract occurred on 22nd October 2019.  At the time of writing

this defence, it is some 3 years and 10 months since the alleged

breach occurred.

 

2. On 22nd October 2019 the Defendant was on a family break

visiting friends, the defendant and her husband shared the

driving.  The defendant does not recall who was driving on this

particular day.  The defendant recalls visiting Watergate Bay

Beach and purchasing a parking ticket.  The defendant also recalls

issues with the ticket machine, a regular occurrence it

appears, corroborated by numerous reviews on en.parkopedia.co.uk

 

3. The defendant does not recall appropriate signage to warn

drivers of the punitive PCN imposed should the driver fail to make

the appropriate tariff payment.  As the location is 344 miles away

from the defendant’s home address and a 12 hour round trip, it has

not been possible to revisit the car park to clarify signage.  The

Claimant is put to strict proof that the appropriate signage was

displayed on 22nd October 2019.

 

4. Since the date of the alleged breach of contract to date, the

defendant recalls receiving various letters from various debt

collection agencies regarding the PCN issued by the Claimant.  The

only route offered was an 'appeal' to ParkingEye themselves, but

the Defendant maintains that no offence has occurred and no 

agreement made to pay the Claimant a PCN.  The Defendant believes 

from initial research, that private parking charges and the 

appeals systems were unlikely to be fairly weighted in favour of

consumers.

 

5. This fact is 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.

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.

 

6. The Claimant is put to strict proof that it has sufficient

proprietary interest in the land, Watergate Bay Beach, Newquay.

Or that it has the necessary authorisation from the landowner to

issue PCNs, and to pursue payment in the court, in their own name.

Even if they hold such authority, the Claimant is put to strict

proof that this authorisation expressly allows litigation against

visitors to the car park.

 

7. If the Claimant is able to produce such a landowner contract,

it is averred that there can be no legitimate interest arguable by

the Claimant in this case.  Even if the alleged breach of contract

was upheld, a court claim totalling £298.88 nearly 4 years after

the alleged event, is totally unreasonable and excessive.  The

claimant is put to strict proof of damages occurred.

 

8. Parking charges would have amounted to less than £10.  This

claim falsely inflates the total charges. 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.

 

9. In addition to the original penalty, the Claimants have

artificially inflated the value of the Claim by adding purported

legal costs of £50.  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'  court claims per

annum. No genuine legal costs arise.  The added 'legal' cost is in

fact an artificially invented figure, 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.

 

10. The Claimant uses ANPR camera systems to process data but

fails to comply with the Information Commissioner's 'Data

Protection Code of Practice for Surveillance Cameras and Personal

Information' (the ICO Code). This is both a specific Data

Protection and BPA Code of Practice breach. The Supreme Court

Judges in Beavis held that a Code of Practice is effectively

'regulation' for this blatantly rogue industry, full compliance

with which is both mandatory and binding upon any parking

operator.

 

11. The ICO Code applies to all ANPR systems, and states that the

private sector is required to follow it, in order to meet its

legal obligations as a data processor. Members of the BPA are

required to comply fully with the Data Protection Act (DPA) and

all ICO rules and guidelines, as a pre-requisite of being able to

use the DVLA KADOE system and in order to enforce parking charges

on private land. The Claimant is therefore put to strict proof of 

compliance of the ICO code.

 

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 confirm that the facts in this defence are true to the best of

my knowledge and belief.

B789

Has PE made the claim themselves or have they uses a solicitor? Possibly DCB Legal or another?

legolady88

On the court claim form The Claimant is ParkingEye Ltd, but the address for sending documents/payments to is DCB Legal Ltd

B789

OK, reading back and looking at your defence... please answer this: What terms do the PoC on the claim form actually state you allegedly breached? Please find a single accusation in there that you can respond to.

Your defence reads like War & Peace. You are answering those woefully inadequate PoC so please stop doing their job for them. You only need state that you were or were not at the location, possibly mentioning for what purpose.

Also, you add to the template defence the very recent judgment made on appeal by HHJ Murch at Luton, asking for the claim to be thrown out at allocation stage for blatantly failing to comply with Civil Procedure Rule 16.4 and the Practice Direction to Part 16.

legolady88

I have posted a photo of the claim form showing Parking Eye's PoC.  They just say I have breached them.  I think the initial fine letter stated that "insufficient time purchased"

I am not a legal person so I wrote my defence based on the advice found on this forum - I'm not sure what you mean by "doing their job for them" who's job?? 

B789

Have a read of this appeal judgment that I mention above and try and understand exactly why the judge threw the claim out:

https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/xy54utt9djv55xitfp7lk/CEL-appeal-transcript.pdf?rlkey=304syf9czf5arl3i1u1ircjln&dl=0

legolady88

Coupon-mad said:

legolady88 said:

I have posted a photo of the claim form showing Parking Eye's PoC.  They just say I have breached them.  I think the initial fine letter stated that "insufficient time purchased"

I am not a legal person so I wrote my defence based on the advice found on this forum 

That's not based on the Template Defence.  Please use the template.

Where do I find the Template Defence??  I filled it in on line 

legolady88

B789 said:

Have a read of this appeal judgment that I mention above and try and understand exactly why the judge threw the claim out:

https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/xy54utt9djv55xitfp7lk/CEL-appeal-transcript.pdf?rlkey=304syf9czf5arl3i1u1ircjln&dl=0

Thanks, that's really helpful.  I'm still finding all of this really confusing.  Its my first time reaching out on this forum, so please be kind.  I tried to make sense of all of the other posts and threads about parking eye so please forgive my ignorance if I have gone wrong.  Just trying to get a little help in what to do next, I am prepared to go to hearing on this because what PE do is an injustice