ParkingEye Court Claim - Evidence submission

badmedicine

(Image removed by Forum Team)
(Image removed by Forum Team)

Hi all

I’ve recently been claimed against by parking eye for a parking ticket. I went through the usual process of appealing to parking eye and then to POPLA. But this was rejected. I was subsequently issued a County Court claim by parking eye for the disputed amount.

My main defence was that I felt the signage was inadequate and I could not see a code for the parking app. The machine also only accepted cash not card. My issue was that the code was not displayed very clearly on the signage as the code was written in very small writing which was elevated and several metres back. I was only able to realise retrospectively that the code was indeed here when parkingeye sent me a PDF copy of it as part of their reply to my defence. Also the parking machine did not have the code on it either. 

When writing my defence to the CCBC I emailed copies of screenshots of the app at the time with a timestamp and also a screenshot of my history using the parking app showing that I was a regular paying user. The GPS screenshot showed that the location did not show up on the screen either, and this was the secondary method of me trying to find the code to try and pay.

ParkingEye responded to my defence by saying that I was not able to submit new articles of defence at this late stage. They claimed that they had never received this in my original appeal to them and therefore would require their permission to submit further evidence. The wording of their response is copied in the attachment below. However, from my point of view, I submitted this at the same time as my official defence to the court, and this was my first correspondence with the court. Also I submitted these articles to the court via email as you cannot attach files to their online response. This was done at the same time and I would consider that part of my defence and not a late addition.

My question to the forum is: is my defence still recognised and can I bring this up at the date of court hearing? I also have new evidence. I have collected since by returning to the car park site and taking photographs. Can this be brought up on the day of the hearing or does this need to be submitted prior to the hearing? I do not believe they have yet requested a witness statement however parkingeye seem to believe that this may contain no further evidence.

It seems that parkingEye are trying to remove my ability to defend myself using technicalities, which I do not necessarily believe are the case. Equally now that they have also provided me with a PDF of their signs, I would like to submit further evidence to the court to show how these look in reality as parkingeye have not provided actual photos of the signs. I believe the show that the signs are set very high and set very far back which makes the small print of the contractual signage virtually unreadable. How can I respond to this as I believe using their own evidence they have helped me prove one of my points. 

Any help would be greatly appreciated as to how to proceed from this point.

Coupon-mad

My main defence was that I felt the signage was inadequate and I could not see a code for the parking app. The machine also only accepted cash not card. My issue was that the code was not displayed very clearly on the signage as the code was written in very small writing which was elevated and several metres back.

I was only able to realise retrospectively that the code was indeed here when parkingeye sent me a PDF copy of it as part of their reply to my defence.

What makes you think that Location Code was on the sign on the day? Was it "indeed there"? Probably your answer is in fact: No?

Maybe it was a new site for pay & display and PEye had not yet added that sticker.  Private parking signs are changed by stickers (we have evidence). Seems more than likely that could have been added later, especially as the site did not come up on the app either.

This is their claim to prove with dated photos of the signs in situ.  Not a PDF impression of "here's a sign we made earlier".

That letter doesn't quite say what you think it does. Your defence stands (whatever you submitted to the CCBC is your defence).

It is not for a Claimant to dictate what is or is not a valid defence and they are not actually saying that it "adds things that were not in your appeal".  In any event, you can certainly defend with new stuff not mentioned in an appeal.  The court will be fine with your submission.

The court has accepted your defence and presumably you have been sent your DQ now, so it is progressing normally?

PEye are just using a template whinging paragraph lecturing you that you can't add new defence points at WS stage, which is true.  Presumably you are not yet at WS and evidence stage, which is when you attach 'files' (exhibits).

Have you read 'IMPORTANT: KNOW WHAT HAPPENS WHEN' in the 2nd post of the NEWBIES thread? Ready to do your WS and exhibits bundle?

Please show us the POC from the left of the Claim Form. Cover your VRM.  Do not show us the whole Claim Form page.

badmedicine

Thanks @Coupon-mad

Yes, that's what I was thinking (and arguing) that they have not yet produced any evidence that these signs actually displayed the code on the day. They have some circumstantial evidence about others paying on the day. Their signs are certainly unclear and the text for the code on the PDF is tiny when considering the size and location of that sign. 

Anyway that's all part of my Defence, and thanks for confirming that additional exhibits can still be added. I misunderstood that part, even though NEWBIES thread says that's where it goes. I'm not changing the overall defence. 

I'll have to request the PoC as I must have gotten rid of this after I acknowledged. I do have another MET parking one from 2019 that I did use the PoC argument (and the whole template). Crazy how after years of never having an issue, I'm suddenly getting these thick and fast. It's very interesting to see that they go all the way to the finish line and drop a NoD. Surely this will hack off the courts something rotten

This case is now awaiting a court date (WS not yet requested). I'll keep the forum updated as to how successful I am. 

Coupon-mad

Ring the CNBC at Northampton and ask them to email you a copy of the POC. They will.  They take ages to answer though.

badmedicine

Thanks, I'll give them a call tomorrow. I did email but it might be faster to get them on the phone.

Annoyingly I found this forum after I submitted my defence. So it didn't have all the excellent detail of the template. Just the facts, and my argument about poor signage. 

I suppose I can now fall back on the WS template to get the additional further points/legal precedent across if it comes to that. 

I'll post the POC, but is there realistically anything that I can do about it now I've already delivered my Defence?

Coupon-mad

Yep. You can expend on things in your WS. But no you can't amend the defence.

Please copy & paste the defence you submitted so that we know what you can expand on.  This plus the POC will help us to help you at WS stage.

badmedicine

My defence was:

Defence

As identified, I entered the car park at 9:14am on 18/10/22 where
I greeted other users trying to park. Together we identified that
the parking machine was not usable and signage (even though was
visible) did not display a location code. They did state a
telephone number and an app for use, but without a code, was not
possible. I then attempted to use the location finder using the
App’s GPS. A screenshot with digital timestamp of this at 9:18am
shows it was not showing despite good signal. As a frequent user of
this App, I was familiar with how it worked, but still could not
pay.
I then had to leave for my hospital visit, assuming that for
whatever reason, parking payment was out of order.
Parking Eye later sent me a PCN, where I dutifully informed them
of the issue at their site, and offered to pay the fee of £4.40
due, to avoid any loss of revenue. They rejected this, as did
POPLA, however I don’t feel their judgment was independent, and
they were also not in receipt of the time-stamped screenshot of
the App which I had forgotten about.
They also did not provide photographic evidence of the condition
of the signage in close proximity to the date. They also did not
check the CCTV of their client to confirm my report that we did
indeed look for a way to pay. They only provided circumstantial
evidence that others paid (however this may be confounded by local
knowledge which allowed them to circumvent the issue, and omitted
users that drove away when they saw it impossible to pay).
Nonetheless, this was my experience. I believe my screenshot of
the app combined with my log of previous uses of the parking app,
supports my account of events. It shows both regular use of
parking sites that shows avoidance of paying was out of character
with my history, and also confirms I was searching for at least 4
minutes after arrival for a way to pay. This verifies my account
of the situation that I had a will to pay, but was not able to
find a method. ParkignEye feel that I have wilfully avoided
paying, which clearly is note the case.
Furthermore, no loss of revenue was driven by me, as I offered to
pay upon report of the issue, despite the site not making
engagement into a contract easy and possible.
I also would challenge ParkingEye as to whether that have
inspected the site since, and made any changes.
I regret not taking further photos, but quite simply did not
expect ParkingEye to be in such denial about the quality of their
service, or to pursue such tactics on motorists just trying to
attend the hospital.
I thank the Court for their time, and hope you find my evidence to
support my account helpful. I am still willing to pay the £4.40 to
avoid loss of revenue, but so far have not been afforded this
quite sensible solution to the situation.

NB - there is no way to attach evidence documents, and so I have
emailed them to your inbox under the Claim ref. number. I hope
this is acceptable.

 

I’m still waiting on a copy of the POC 

Coupon-mad

You can get a copy of the POC by email the same day from the CNBC. Phone them again.

badmedicine

CLAIM FOR MONIES OUTSTANDING FROM THE DEFENDANT IN RELATION TO A PARKING CHARGE (REFERENCE 016270/994803) ISSUED ON 24/10/2022. THE SIGNAGE CLEARLY DISPLAYED THROUGHOUT ST. FRANCIS SPORTS AND SOCIAL CLUB, HAYWARDS HEATH, ST. FRANCIS SPORTS & SOCIAL CLUB, SOUTHDOWNS PARK, HAYWARDS HEALTH, WEST SUSSEX, RH16 4ST STATES THAT THIS IS PRIVATE LAND, MANAGED BY PARKINGEYE LTD, AND THAT IT IS SUBJECT TO TERMS AND CONDITIONS, INCLUDING THE PAYMENT OF PARKING TARIFFS, BY WHICH THOSE WHO PARK AGREE TO BE BOUND (THE CONTRACT). PARKINGEYE'S ANPR SYSTEM CAPTURED VEHICLE -reg plate-  ENTERING AND LEAVING THE SITE ON 18/10/2022, AND PARKING WITHOUT A VALID PAID PARKING TICKET. THE DEFENDANT APPEALED TO POPLA, THE INDEPENDENT APPEALS SERVICE FOR PARKING ON PRIVATE LAND, AND THIS WAS REJECTED.

Finally got the PoC. CCBC took over an hour to answer the phone. 

It seems pretty detailed unlike the vague ones from PCL etc. but they haven’t really detailed why the claim is the amount it is. I can reference this in the WS. 

Coupon-mad

Have you got a hearing date yet?  

badmedicine

Not yet. It’s with my local Court. I can’t imagine it’ll be high priority. They’ve not even asked for a WS yet.