Missed the appeal and given 14 days to pay up

Diaz13

I parked at the Range, which have an agreement with my child's local school that we can park for drop off and pick up. I've had a lot on my plate and genuinely forgot my car was parked there and had walked back home. It was only at lunchtime I remembered I had driven up as it was raining that morning. So I had stayed there more than 2 hours the allowed time. 

Received a letter from PE and another both which I never got round to dealing with due to other serious problems going on in my life. Yesterday I received a 3rd letter saying appeal has passed. I have 14 days to pay £100. 

What should I do? Is it too late now? I don't want the stress of this hanging over me. Should I reply and say I never received the first 2 letters? We do tend to have a lot of post go missing due to 3 streets with similar addresses in my area. 

Please help! 

Fruitcake

Plan A is always a complaint from the keeper to the landowner and the keeper's MP.

You could try an appeal to PE by post, but it no doubt will be rejected.

Ignore powerless debt collectors.

UncleThomasCobley

Also, a thorough read of the Newbies/FAQ thread is de rigueur.

Diaz13

Hi after ignoring all letters from PE I received a claim form from them today. It was issued on 8th Jan 2024. I completed the AOS today 12th Jan. 

What's the best way to claim defence? I was in the wrong for ignoring the letters but could I say that I never received them? Surely the burden of proof is on them to confirm they sent the letters. Its not like they were sent via recorded post. If they were to agree to this I could then challenge via appeal.

If the above won't work then what's the basis for my defence? 

Also if I lose this will it mean I have to pay even more then the current claim of £205?

Apologies if this info is all in the threads. I don't post on forums very often so kind of new to all this. I see there is tons of info but it's all so confusing as I'm struggling with the stress of everything at the moment. 

Please be kind.

Many thanks
 

Diaz13

In addition to the above I should have said I have sent PE an email today asking them to send me the pcn along with all the proof, basically saying this is all new to me. Yes I know I am lying to them about this but wasn't really sure what else to do. I also requested a SAR as I read this in one of the posts too. Hopefully I haven't done anything wrong. 

KeithP

Diaz13 said:

I received a claim form from them today. It was issued on 8th Jan 2024. I completed the AOS today 12th Jan. 

With a Claim Issue Date of 8th January, and having filed an Acknowledgment of Service on 12th January, you have until 4pm on Friday 9th February 2024 to file your Defence.

That's four 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

Also if I lose this will it mean I have to pay even more then the current claim of £205?

No. Less.  Dead easy to defend anyway.

Show us the Particulars of Claim (on the left).

Diaz13

What would be the best defence here? Do i just use the template?

Coupon-mad

Yes just use the template defence plus the wording seen in other PEye defences in 2023 about them suddenly adding a random £20 that's not on their signs.

Diaz13

I have prepared my defence and would be really grateful if someone could have a look over it and let me know if this is ok. I used the template and the edited parts are in italics and highlighted which I took from another similar defence claim. I couldnt copy and paste it all in but edited part is all there.

 

1.  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 in breach of any term.  Further, it is denied that this Claimant (understood to have a bare licence as agents) 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 boilerplate text in the Particulars of Claim ('the POC').

 

The facts known to the Defendant:

2. The facts in this defence come from the Defendant's own knowledge and honest belief.  Conversely, the Claimant sets out a cut-and-paste incoherent and sparse statement of case. The POC appear to be in breach of CPR 16.4, 16PD3 and 16PD7, and fail to "state all facts necessary for the purpose of formulating a complete cause of action". The Defendant is unable, on the basis of the POC, to understand with certainty what case, allegation(s) and what heads of cost are being pursued, making it difficult to respond. However, whilst the vehicle is recognised and it is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper, the Defendant does know who was driving the vehicle.

 

3. The Claimant has not complied with the pre-court protocol (as outlined in the new Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims, 1 October 2017) and as an example as to why this prevents a full defence being filed at this time, a parking charge can be for trespass, breach of contract, or a contractual charge. Each of these actions are treated differently in law and require a different defence. By failing to adequately explain on what grounds action is being sought the Claimant has prevented a full defence from being produced.

4. No Letter before Claim has been received by the Defendant, the first notification of any action by the Claimant was the receipt of a County Court Claim Form by the Defendant.

5. A copy of the contract under which the alleged breach has occurred has not been supplied by the Claimant, as the wording of such a contract will be a key element in this matter a full defence cannot be completed until a copy of the contract is provided.

6. The claim form particulars were extremely sparse and divulged no cause of action nor sufficient detail. The Defendant has been provided with no detail of the claim, why the charge arose or what the alleged contract was.

7. The claim form did not provide any evidence of the alleged breach, nor any photographs or images which prove the alleged overstay, despite the Claimant indicating that such images had been captured by their ANPR system.

8. The Letter Before Claim and documents supporting the claim should have been produced, pursuant to paragraph 6 of the Practice Direction; Pre-Action Conduct and failure to do so constitutes a deliberate attempt to prevent the claim being defended, or to understand the claim, pursuant to paragraph 12 of the Practice Direction. This contradicts the guidance outlined in the new Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims (2017), the aims of which are:

·       Early engagement and communication between the parties, including early exchange of sufficient information about the matter to help clarify whether there are any issues in dispute.

·       Enable the parties to resolve the matter without the need to start court proceedings, including agreeing a reasonable repayment plan or considering using an Alternative Dispute Resolution Procedure.

·       Encourage Parties to act in a reasonable and proportionate manner in all dealings with one another (for example avoiding running up costs which do not bear a reasonable relationship to the sums in issue) and

·       Support the efficient management of proceedings that cannot be avoided

9. The Defendant submits that he was not afforded any method to appeal, nor any information about complaints procedures, to the landowner. This omission prevented the Defendant from being able to appeal to the Retailer and/or Landowner and also prevented the Defendant from being able to lodge an appeal with POPLA. If these options had been made available, the Defendant would have undertaken them.

10. On 12th January 2024 the Defendant contacted ParkingEye to attempt establish details of the claim and requested the following:

·       An explanation of the cause of action.

·       Confirmation of whether ParkingEye intended to pursue the Defendant as driver or keeper.

·       Confirmation that ParkingEye were relying on the provisions of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012.

·       What the details of the claim are (where it is claimed the car was parked, for how long, how the monies being claimed arose and have been calculated, what contractual breach (if any) is being claimed).

·       A copy of the contract with the landowner under which ParkingEye assert authority to bring the claim.

·       A copy of any alleged contract with the driver.

·       A plan showing where any signs were displayed.

·       Details of the signs displayed (size of sign, size of font, height at which displayed).

·       Details of whether ParkingEye added anything on to the original charge and if so, what the additional charge(s) represents and how it has been calculated.

To date the Claimant has failed to respond to these requests for information.

The Defendant therefore asks the Court to strike out the claim as disclosing no cause of action and having no reasonable prospect of success.

Failure to meet the Notice to Keeper obligations of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012

11. The Claimant indicated on their County Court Claim form that they intend to rely on the provisions of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 to transfer liability for the Parking Charge Notice to the registered keeper of vehicle [XX}.

12. A copy of the Parking Charge Notice and evidence that this was correctly served has been requested from ParkingEye on 12th January 2024, however to date the Claimant has not responded to this request.

13. In order to rely on the provisions of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, a Parking Charge Notice must arrive by day 14 after the alleged offence. However, no such notice was provided by ParkingEye, the first notification the Defendant received was the County Claim form, with an issue date of 8th January 2024, almost four months after the alleged breach.

14. The Claimant is therefore unable to hold the Defendant liable under the strict liability keeper provisions

15. The Claimant did not comply with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 and give the registered keeper the opportunity, at any point, to identify the driver.

16. A Notice to Keeper can be served by ordinary post and the Protection of Freedoms Act requires that for the Notice, to be valid, must be delivered no later than 14 days after the vehicle was parked. No notice was left on the windscreen and no notice to keeper was sent within the 14 days required to comply with Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, the first indication of the alleged incident that the Defendant received was the County Court Claim form, dated 8th January 2024 . This would exclude the registered keeper being liable for any charges.

17. Schedule 4 also states that the only sum a keeper can be pursued for (if Schedule 4 is fully complied with, which it was not, and if there was a 'relevant obligation' and relevant contract' fairly and adequately communicated, which there was not) is the sum on the Notice to Keeper. The Claimant cannot add further sums when neither the signs nor the Notice to Keeper mention them. The additional costs, which the defendant contests have not been incurred, are none of its concern.

 

18. 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.

19. The Defendant denies (i) or (ii) have been met. The charge imposed, in all the circumstances is a penalty, not saved by ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC67 ('the Beavis case'), which is fully distinguished.

Exaggerated Claim and 'market failure' currently being addressed by UK Government

20. The alleged 'core debt' from any parking charge cannot exceed £100 (the industry cap).  It is denied that any 'Debt Fees' or damages were actually paid or incurred.  It is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper 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.

21. This claim is unfair and inflated and it is denied that any sum is due in debt or damages. This Claimant routinely pursues an unconscionable fixed sum added per PCN, despite knowing that the will of Parliament is to ban it.

Coupon-mad

I think attacking the POC and pre-action letters is the wrong approach for ParkingEye.

I'd be surprised if 3, 4, 6 and 7 are correct. ParkingEye claims do state the breach and they always send a LBCCC first.

Did you miss out the word 'not' here?  And whatever you mean, is this true?

"However, whilst the vehicle is recognised and it is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper, the Defendant does know who was driving the vehicle."