ParkingEye County Court Claim - Genuine Patron of Hotel - ANPR

Suntanmandan

1505grandad said:

Does the POC not give any breach details at all?  -  also just checking  -  has claim been filed by PE i.e. no solicitors involved?

"13. This is a classic example where adding exaggerated fees funds bulk litigation of weak and/or archive parking cases. No checks and balances are likely to have been made to ensure facts, merit or a cause of action (given away by the woefully inadequate POC)."

POC details state:

Claim for monies outstanding from the Defendant in relation to a Parking Charge (Reference xxxxx) issued on the [Date]. The signage clearly displayed throughout the  [Name of Hotel], [Address], 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 xxxx entering and leaving the site on [Date], and parking without a valid paid parking ticket. The Defendant had the opportunity to appeal to POPLA, the independent appeals service for parking on private land, but has not been taken.

Point 13 is part of the template and whilst they have given details in the POC it doesn't quite tally up with the fact I was exempted by number plate entry into the keypad provided and no obligation to obtain a parking ticket - so I have left this section in (along with all other sections from the template from point 9 onwards).

From looking at the claim form the Claimant is ParkingEye Ltd and whilst I cannot see any solicitors that are involved, there is a legal representative cost of 50.00 indicated on the claim form.

Coupon-mad

Yep but that's allowed.

Suntanmandan

Coupon-mad said:

Yep but that's allowed.

As in the mention of claiming costs back?

Umkomaas

Basic costs allowed for a winning claimant:

£35 claim filing fee (for up to a £300 claim)
£27 hearing fee
£50 (capped) solicitor/legal fee

Suntanmandan

I just wanted to check a couple of things with my defence before I submit it:

In point 9 I have:

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

I do not remember what the signs at the hotel were like, so not sure if this should be used in my defence (this and a couple of other points that reference signs) - or should this stay as it covers a generic point about Parkingeye signage? From google mapping the hotel I can see that they are not yellow and black warning signs.

In point 30 I have:

30. DVLA data is only supplied if there is an agreement flowing from the landholder (ref: KADOE rules). It is not accepted that this Claimant (an agent of a principal) has authority to form contracts at this site in their name. The Claimant is put to strict proof of their standing to litigate.

On what basis should I not accept that the claimant has authority - I was told my the Hotel that Parkingeye was the operator of the car park.

In point 32, I have:

32. The Claimant failed to offer a genuinely independent Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR).

When Parkingeye rejected my appeal, they gave me 28 days to lodge a further appeal to POPLA - I would have thought this is a genuine ADR route?


Thanks for the help, just wanted to clarify before send my defence off.

Coupon-mad

Nope leave it all in.  Everything there applies.  POPLA is not an independent ADR.

Suntanmandan

A quick update of whats happened since filing my defense before Christmas. Happy New Year btw!

I received a letter from HM Courts and Tribunals Service, 2nd Jan acknowledging receipt of my defense and that a copy is being served to the claimant. Also informing me that if the claimant cannot resolve the dispute with me then the court will inform me of what will happen. The Claimant it says, has 28 days to advice that they will proceed.

Today, i received a letter from Parking eye (dated 23rd Jan) offering me a reduced offer to settle the matter of £150 (from original £205 claimed). It states I have 14 days to pay otherwise the claim will remain if I do not.

I have gone this far and don't think I should pay as I believe in my defense - a good decision?

Coupon-mad

Quite right. Sit tight. No need to reply. That's a template letter everyone gets.

Suntanmandan

OK, I haven't updated this thread for a while but here's what's happened since:

I received a defence for my case from parking eye in January, with responses back to my defence.

I received a notice of proposed allocation to the small claims track back in February and filled in the Small Claims Directions Questionnaire (Form N180) and filed it to the court office. I did this via email to ccbcaq@hmcts.gsi.gov.uk and ccing in parking eye.

I then eventually received back a court date which was scheduled for September.

And then, a couple of weeks ago I received a letter from Parking eye saying that they have notified the court that they no longer with to proceed with the claim and so they consider the matter closed!

I consider this a win! So my advice for others is to hold your nerve and sit tight.

It's a shame that these companies can proceed in the manor which they do and causing all this worry and stress on motorists just trying to go about their day - shame on you whoever works for these crooks.

Thank you all that have helped me with this.

Coupon-mad

Yay well done for seeing it off!

ANOTHER ONE BITES THE DUST!