Claim against Parkingeye, unsure of defense arguments.

BikingBud

1505grandad said:

fisherjim said:

As per usual with Parking Eye (if still the same as July 2019 but probably worse now) is abysmal and not conforming to The BPA COP either within the site or at the entrance.

Terms not even readable at arms length as such small print.

Also no notification that ANPR is in use or what it is intended for.

Check BPA COP on signage, ANPR use, minimum requirements etc etc here> https://www.britishparking.co.uk/write/Documents/AOS/AOS_Code_of_Practice_January_2020_v8(2).pdf

You needed photo evidence from the incident date to support you, but GSV and now (dated) would help as I doubt they have changed much.

PE will provide clear stock signage images as evidence which needs exposing.

Not forgetting PE mantra re signs:-

"There’s no sense in having rules on a site if there isn’t a way to inform people what they are. We’re taking a closer look at the critical role signs play in car park management."

https://www.parkingeye.co.uk/car-park-management/how-important-are-signs-for-car-park-management/#:~:text=Signs must be large enough, and easily understood&text=It's important that there are,have a parking charge appealed.

Wonderful site full of great advice such as:

"Our signage plans are always tailored to a given site, so each sign is designed by hand, and we take time to ensure that all signage accurately reflects the site’s parking terms and conditions"

or 

The smallest details can drive compliance, revenue and make site a success, and ensure users are happy.

Meanwhile back on planet earth......

Preinama

UncleThomasCobley said:

Just use the template defence but add the following after para #1, including the bold subheading:

Preliminary matter: The claim should be struck out

2. The Defendant draws to the attention of the allocating Judge that there is now a persuasive Appeal judgment to support striking out the claim (in these exact circumstances of typically poorly pleaded private parking claims, and the extant PoC seen here are far worse than the one seen on Appeal).  The Defendant believes that dismissing this meritless claim is the correct course, with the Overriding Objective in mind.  Bulk litigators (legal firms) should know better than to make little or no attempt to comply with the Practice Direction.  By continuing to plead cases with generic auto-fill unspecific wording, private parking firms should not be surprised when courts strike out their claims based in the following persuasive authority.

3. A recent persuasive appeal judgment in Civil Enforcement Limited v Chan (Ref. E7GM9W44) would indicate the POC fails to comply with Civil Procedure Rule 16.4 and Practice Direction Part 16. On the 15th August 2023, in the cited case, HHJ Murch held that 'the particulars of the claim as filed and served did not set out the conduct which amounted to the breach in reliance upon which the claimant would be able to bring a claim for breach of contract'. The same is true in this case and in view of the Chan judgment, the Court should strike out the claim, using its powers pursuant to CPR 3.4

I have used template using these 2 paragraphs, thank you for the advice.

Can I add another paragraph stating that I didn't receive any letters until 7 months after parking date (when penalty already £155) and later include evidence that I was redirecting my post (Royal Mail's Redirection service) until I got my V5c updated? 

or perhaps not necessary to add any thing else to the above paragraphs?

Le_Kirk

As you are using the "rubbish POC" argument, do not do the claimant's job for them by adding unnecessary words.  Receiving the PCN 7 months (or any time) later, does not make it OK to park there, i.e. it is not a defence point