ParkingEye overstay by 11 minutes ANPR- WS stage

Malami81

Hi,
I have a small claim by ParkingEye; I was hoping to submit my WS bundle on Monday (deadline 26th January 2024). I followed the Newbies thread. I was hoping it will get struck without hearing but after reading some other threads it sounds like I will likely meet them in court. I had their witness statement. Would anyone be happy to look at my WS? I am starting to panic English is my second language so a little bit overwhelmed by all the jargon, and I have to say I did not use that many 'example cases' as did not think many applied to my case. I have been given a clear breech reason (overstay).

Malami81

* breach not breech...
I forgot to say that one of the accusations from ParkinEye is that my Defence was based on a template from the online forum so I was hesitant to post here, and might delete the statement just in case....

Coupon-mad

Malami81 said:

Hi,
I have a small claim by ParkingEye; I was hoping to submit my WS bundle on Monday (deadline 26th January 2024). I followed the Newbies thread. I was hoping it will get struck without hearing but after reading some other threads it sounds like I will likely meet them in court. I had their witness statement. Would anyone be happy to look at my WS? I am starting to panic English is my second language so a little bit overwhelmed by all the jargon, and I have to say I did not use that many 'example cases' as did not think many applied to my case. I have been given a clear breech reason (overstay).

Please show us the Claim form (redacted) and the exact defence you put in.

Malami81

Thank you! 

Malami81

Please note, since submitting the Defence I received SAR which stated that my alleged overstay was actually 11 minutes. Here is the defence (it might not be the most up to date version as these templates change all the time and I was a complete novice at forum searching then!)....

DEFENCE (I took the fancy heading out for the purpose of this post... and please be understanding re: minor grammar etc, thank you!)

Background

1. The Defendant is the registered keeper of the vehicle in question. The Claim relates to an alleged debt in damages arising from a driver's alleged breach of contract, when parking at Eastgate Retail Park on 04/04/2023, during Easter Holiday period.

1.1. Any breach is denied, and it is further denied that there was any agreement to pay the Claimant's £190 'Parking Charge Notice ('PCN')' for the lawful conduct described below.

2. No payment for parking was required at Eastgate Retail Park as this is advertised as ‘free’ on their website, and there is no ticket machine or ticketing system in operation at this car park. The signs informing of ‘4 hours free carpark’ allowance do not provide clear explanation how the free period is measured and does not advise about the use and placement of the ANPR system.  To their knowledge, the Defendant made all reasonable efforts to abide by the terms and conditions of the car park and was using the parking facilities at this time whilst shopping.

2.1 The allegation appears to be that the 'motorist overstayed the max stay period’ (4 hours) by 14 minutes based on images by their ANPR camera at the entrance and exit to the site. This is merely an image of the vehicle in transit, entering and leaving the car park in question and is not evidence of the registered keeper ‘overstaying the parking period’ or of the defendant not being a patron of the Eastgate Retail Park.

3. The Defendant was visiting the Eastgate Retail Park over Easter Holiday period, with main purpose of visiting the Park Furnishers to plan the refurbishment of her kitchen. The Defendant was aware of parking being limited to 4-hour period, but unaware how the 4 hours is measured due to lack of the ticketing machine or clear information how the rules are applied.

3.1 The adjoining IKEA carpark, easily accessed by a pedestrian passage, has a large number of free, convenient and unlimited parking spaces. There was no reason for the Defendant not to use the IKEA carpark, other than the genuine intention of using the Eastgate Retail Park for shopping.

4. Following the Court Claim received on 14/07/2023 the Defendant Contacted the Park Furnishers Store at Eastgate Retail Park. The manager of the Park Furnishers apologised for any inconvenience and confirmed in writing they wish to cancel the parking charge notice. The Defendant has received a copy of the written response from the Claimant’s representative to the shop manager, stating that they are not willing to cancel this fine despite such a request.

Premature Claim

5. The Defendant was an occupant of the car and can prove that she and her family were patrons of the Eastgate Retail Park. However, the Defendant was unaware any ANPR surveillance and received no official letters of the breach of contract or Parking Notice Charge. All correspondence received from the Claimant was addressed using misspelled name and were taken as junk letters, hence no appeal has been made to POPLA.

5.1 The Defendant has made a Subject Access Request (SAR) under GDPR obligation on 14/07/2023, to establish the details of this claim, but no correspondence was received from the Claimant at the time of writing this defence (01/08/2023). Therefore this Claimant afforded the Defendant no opportunity to take stock, obtain data, copy letters and images of the contract on signage. There has been no chance to even understand the allegation, let alone discuss or dispute it prior to court action, as should have been the case under the October 2017 pre-action protocol for debt claims.

6. The Defendant avers that the claim was premature and the Claimant is put to strict proof of the letters they say were sent and where they were posted with correct name, and evidence from their case status data that a Letter before Claim and attachments required under the Protocol, were issued, and when/where they were sent.

No standing or authority to form contracts and/or litigate

7. The Claimant is put to strict proof that it has sufficient proprietary interest in the land, or that it has the necessary authorisation from the landowner to issue parking charge notices, and to pursue payment by means of litigation against patrons of the Eastgate Retail Park.

7.1. The Defendant has a written proof that the Park Furnishers store manager wished to cancel the fine and therefore the Claimant has no longer necessary authorisation to pursue this court claim as no proprietary loss has been acknowledged.

8. The Defendant requires a copy of the contract (the signage terms on the material date) and a full and detailed explanation of the cause of action and on what basis they purport to hold the Defendant liable. 

Denial of contract and denial of any breach, or liability

9. Its is denied that the Claimant's signage sets out the terms in a sufficiently clear manner which would be capable of binding any reasonable person reading them.

10. It is denied that the Defendant, or any driver of the vehicle breached any contractual agreement with the Claimant, whether express, implied, or by conduct.

11. The Defendant will expand upon the denial of breach in the witness statement and evidence, once the Defendant has seen the details from the SAR and/or in the event that the Court orders the Claimant to file & serve better particulars.

Unclear signage -ParkingEye Ltd s Beavis (2015) distinguished

12. The Claimant will have some difficulty in justifying their hidden and unexpected terms at a site. The online website advertising the Eastgate Retail Park advertises ‘Free Carpark’ without any explanation that it might be limited to 4 hours and how these rules are applied. The ‘4 hour Max’ signs displayed in the carpark do not provide clear information about ANPR monitoring. This means that Claimant is not transparent regarding the'4hr max stay' rule. 

13. The bar for clear parking terms on signage was set by Denning LJ in J Spurling Ltd v Bradshaw [1956] referring to the well-known 'Red Hand Rule' where hidden/unknown terms were held to be unenforceable: “Some clauses which I have seen would need to be printed in red ink, and or, with a red hand pointing to it before the notice could be held to be sufficient.”

13.1 The Defendant avers that both the online advert of the Eastgate Retail Park and the signage at the site in question is woefully inadequate and extremely confusing. The ParkingEye signs within the parking area provide no information of how the ‘free parking period’ is measured. With the lack of ticketing machine it is impossible for anyone to know the start of the ‘free parking period’.

14. Therefore these are not the 'brief, simple and prominently proclaimed' terms that convinced the Supreme Court in ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67 to bend the penalty rule in that unique, fact-specific case only.

Overstay explained- ‘Grace period’ 

15. The Eastgate Shopping Retail Park consists of several shops merged into a large complex with Tesco and Ikea. The carpark of Eastgate Retail Park exits onto a busy, 5 exit roundabout before joining the Eastgate road, which imposes additional challenges to exiting the carpark in a timely and safe manner, regardless the time and day but especially over the Easter Holiday period.

16. Kelvin Reynolds of the British Parking Association (BPA) says there is a difference between grace periods and observation periods in parking and that good practice allows for this: “The BPA’s guidance specifically says that there must be sufficient time for the motorist to find the space, park their car, observe the signs, decide whether they want to comply with the operator’s conditions and either drive away or pay for a ticket … No time limit is specified. This is because it might take one person five minutes, but another person 10 minutes depending on various factors, not limited to disability.” britishparking.co.uk News good-car-parking-practice-includes-grace-periods

17. A similar scenario has been tested in the County Court before, namely (3JD08399) ParkingEye v Ms X at Altrincham 17/03/2014, where it was held that driving around the car park was not classed as parking.

18. The penalty levied by the Claimant is unreasonable given the claimed total time in the car park was 4 hours and 14 minutes – this being within the 4-hour permitted free stay period and reasonable Grace Period of 14 minutes to find the space, park the car and exit the carpark safely.

'Data Protection Code of Practice for Surveillance Cameras and Personal Information' (the ICO Code),

19. The Defendant avers that a breach of the DPA and failure to comply with ICO rules regarding data captured by ANPR, also transgresses the tests of fairness and transparency of consumer contracts, as set out in the Consumer Rights Act 2015 (enacted after the final hearing in Beavis and not considered in that case).

20. The excessive, inappropriate and unjustified use of ANPR by this claimant is both unfair and lacking in transparency for an average consumer and as such, this claim must fail.

Unconscionable, punitive 'parking charge' 

21. This claim inflates the total charges in a clear attempt at double recovery. 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.

22. In addition to the original penalty, the Claimants have artificially inflated the value of the Claim by adding purported legal costs of £50, which have not actually been incurred by the Claimant. 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' robo-claims per annum. No genuine legal costs arise, per case, and their in-house Solicitors cannot possibly be believed to be paid in the millions per annum for their services.

23. The added 'legal' cost is in fact an artificially invented figure, which represents a cynical attempt to circumvent the Small Claims costs rules and achieve double recovery. 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.

24. In summary 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 this Claim.

Malami81

Here is my Witness Statement which I am planning to submit.......

1. I am xxxxxxxx, residing at xxxxxxxxxxxx and I am the defendant against whom this claim is made. 

The facts below are true to the best of my belief and my account has been prepared based upon my own knowledge.

I will represent myself in Court, with no experience of Court procedures. If I do not set out documents in the correct way or make any minor grammar errors, I trust the Court will excuse my inexperience and consider that English is my second language.

2. In my statement, I shall refer to Exhibits 1-11 within the evidence supplied with this statement, referring to numbers where appropriate. My defence is repeated and I will say as follows:

Facts and Sequence of events

3. It is admitted that on the material date, I was the registered keeper and driver of the vehicle xxxxxxxx.

4. I admit to visiting the Eastgate Retail Park on 4th April 2023, over Easter Holiday period in 2023 with my family, with main purpose of visiting the Park Furnishers to plan the refurbishment of my kitchen. 

5. The Claimant alleged that 'motorist overstayed the max stay period’ (4 hours) by 

11 minutes based on images of a vehicle entering and leaving site captured by their ANPR system. This is merely an image of the vehicle in transit and is not evidence of the driver ‘overstaying the parking period’. 

Please note that at the time of submitting my defence (01/08/2023) the Claimant has not yet issued a SAR (released 09/08/2023). This forced me to calculate the alleged overstay period based on my shopping receipts. I stated in my defence that I have been accused for overstaying the free time by 14 minutes, when in fact it was only 11 minutes. This just shows how difficult it is to estimate the true parking time without the use of ticketing machines.

6. I was aware of parking being limited to free 4-hour period and intended to leave the carpark by the designated time. I did not know how the stay was measured, how the site was surveilled and where the ANPR camera was positioned. Without a ticketing machine or clear information how the rules are applied, it was impossible for me to know when the ‘free 4 hour period’ has started or how it was calculated.

7. There are no parking regulations listed on the Eastgate Retail Park website, which simply advertises the parking as ‘Free’ without 4 hours mentioned or how these would be measured (Exhibit 1, screenshot of the website).

8. There is no information anywhere at the carpark informing visitors how the ‘free 4 hour’ period is measured.

9. Fairness and clarity of terms and notices are paramount in the statutory Code and this is supported by the BPA & IPC Trade Bodies.  In November 2020's Parking Review, solicitor Will Hurley, CEO of the IPC, observed: ‘Any regulation or instruction either has clarity or it doesn’t. If it’s clear to one person but not another, there is no clarity. The same is true for fairness. Something that is fair, by definition, has to be all-inclusive of all parties involved – it’s either fair or it isn’t. The introduction of a new ‘Code of Practice for Parking’ provides a wonderful opportunity to provide clarity and fairness for motorists and landowners alike.’ 

10. The BPA Code of Practice (version 8 – January 2020) Section 19, Paragraph 19.2 states that “(operators) must use signs to make it easy for (drivers) them to find out what your terms and conditions are.” 

• Exhibit 2 demonstrates that there is no clear information about the placement of ANPR cameras provided upon driving to the site.

• Exhibits 3 & 4 show the photograph of the signs on the Eastgate Retail site. 

The terms and conditions on the signs are difficult, if not impossible, to read even at a close distance; there is a small picture of ANPR system, but the signs do not advise about the exact location of the cameras and how the time is measured. 

• Exhibit 5 demonstrates example of the sign from the Eastgate site provided in the Claimants response to my defence, letter dated 02/11/2023 (page 35) The terms and conditions at the lower part of the sign are impossible to read, including the ANPR sign at the bottom, even after zooming into the picture.

11. The Claimant heavily cites the The ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67 case in their letter, dated 02.11.2023. 

I would like to point out that the signs in the said case (exhibit 6) included an additional sign informing about the ANPR cameras, and these signs missing from the Eastgate Retail Park site.

12. In their response to my defence, letter dated 02.11.2023, the Claimant accuses the Defendant of ignoring their correspondence.

I recall receiving some unusual correspondence in April/May 2023, however I would like to point out to the court that all the letters were and continue to be addressed using a misspelled name (‘xxxxxx xxxxxx’ instead of ‘xxxxxxx xxxxxx’) and were therefore taken as junk mail, and discarded without opening. 

I did not choose to ignore the Claimants early correspondence, as accused by the Claimant, as there was no reason for me to do so.

13. Following the Court Claim received on 14/07/2023, I promptly contacted the Park Furnishers Store at Eastgate Retail Park, where on 04/04/2023 I spend significant amount of time discussing the refurb of my kitchen. The manager of the Park Furnishers apologised for any inconvenience and confirmed in writing that they wish to cancel the parking charge notice, as shown in Exhibit 7. Upon receiving an email from the Park Furnishers manager, the Claimant has no longer necessary authorisation or legitimate interest to pursue this court claim, thus this case is fully distinguished from The ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67.

14. The Claimant’s representative chose to ignore such a request form the store manager. Exhibit 8 demonstrates a copy of the written response from the Claimant’s representative to the shop manager, stating that they are not willing to cancel this fine, despite their request.  

15. To my knowledge, I made all reasonable efforts to abide by the terms and conditions of the car park facilities as a genuine Eastgate Shopping Centre Customer, and the very minimal overstay period calculated by the Claimant clearly demonstrates my intentions to leave the premises within 4 hour period.

16. The adjoining IKEA carpark, easily accessed by a pedestrian passage, has a large number of free, convenient and unrestricted parking spaces. There was no reason for my family not to use the unrestricted IKEA carpark, other than my genuine intention of using the Eastgate Retail Park for shopping and leaving the carpark within designated ‘4 hour’ time.

17. The Eastgate Shopping Retail Park consists of several shops merged into a large complex with Tesco and Ikea. The carpark of Eastgate Retail Park has one egress point with 9 side lanes joining it. It exits onto a busy, 5 exit roundabout before joining the Eastgate road (B4669) leading to M32 motorway (Exhibit 9 a,b). This imposes additional challenges to exiting the carpark in a timely and safe manner, regardless the time and day, but especially over the Easter Holiday period.

18. Kelvin Reynolds of the British Parking Association (BPA) says there is a difference between grace periods and observation periods in parking and that good practice allows for this: “The BPA’s guidance specifically says that there must be sufficient time for the motorist to find the space, park their car, observe the signs, decide whether they want to comply with the operator’s conditions and either drive away or pay for a ticket. No time limit is specified. This is because it might take one person five minutes, but another person 10 minutes depending on various factors, not limited to disability.” (Exhibit 10).

19. The Claimant states in their letter, dated 02.11.2023, that they operate a grace period on all sites and that they are at no obligation to disclose the grace period to the defendant in case it is shared with the rest of the public. 

20. This lack of transparency, together with lack of ticketing machines and clear indication of the ANPR system and where it is positioned, leaves the operating system open to abuse and greatly disadvantages customers of the Eastgate Retail park.

21. The Claimant cites Clause 13.3 BPA code of practice (Exhibit 10) which states ‘a Grace Period of at least 10 minutes must be added to the end of a parking event before you issue a PCN’. The Claimant accuses me to overstay by 11 minutes, and the ANPR images present the vehicle in transit, and are not evidence of the driver ‘overstaying the parking period’.  

22. I would also like to highlight the inappropriate use of ANPR by this claimant which breaches the DPA and fails to comply with ICO rules regarding data captured by ANPR ('Data Protection Code of Practice for Surveillance Cameras and Personal Information' (the ICO Code). This kind of practice transgresses the tests of fairness and transparency of consumer contracts, as set out in the Consumer Rights Act 2015 (enacted after the final hearing in Beavis and not considered in that case). 

‘In keeping with the principle of fairness and transparency, it is important that you inform individuals you are processing their personal data. The way to do this is through clear and visible signage explaining that ANPR recording is taking place and, if possible to do so, the name of the controller collecting the information. While it is a challenge to inform motorists that they are being overtly monitored, there are methods you can use, such as physical signs at entrances, posts on official websites and social media.’ (link).

I refer again to Exhibits 2,3,4 picturing the signs on the Eastgate Retail park site.

23. In their response to my defence, letter dated 02/11/2023, the Claimant accuses the Defendant that she uses a generic template distributed on online forums. 

I would like to point out that all letters received from the Claimant are created using generic, auto-fill templates used for bulk claims by this parking firm. Exhibit 11 demonstrates photographs of the Claimant’s letter with repeated paragraphs (11a) and unfilled gaps (Exhibit 11b), which confirm that this firm uses autofill templates.

Exaggerated Claim and 'market failure' currently examined by the Government

24. The Claimant has not provided any evidence of the additional charges. 

The Claimant has at no time provided an explanation of how the sum has been calculated, the conduct that gave rise to it or how the amount has climbed from £85 to £190. The Claimant has inexplicitly added ‘costs or damages’ bolted onto the alleged PCNs, despite using a solicitor to file the claim, who must be well aware that the CPR 27.14 does not permit such ‘admin’ charged to be recovered in the Small Claims Court.

25. The heavily quoted case of ParkingEye v Beavis (Ref: UKSC67) confirmed that a parking firm not in possession cannot plead their case in damages and could only collect the already inflated parking charge (in that case, £85) which more than covered the very minimal costs of running an automated/template letter parking regime. The Claimant is put to strict proof to show how any alleged costs/damages have been incurred and that it formed a prominent, legible part of any terms on signage, and that it was in fact, expended. To add vague damages plus alleged 'legal costs' on top is a wholly disingenuous attempt at double recovery, and I am very alarmed by this gross abuse of process.

26. This Claimant routinely pursues a disproportionate additional fixed sum (inexplicably added per PCN) despite knowing that the will of Parliament is to ban or substantially reduce the disproportionate 'Debt Fees'. This case is a classic example where the unjust enrichment of exaggerated fees encourages the 'numbers game' of inappropriate and out of control bulk litigation of weak/archive parking cases. No pre-action checks and balances are likely to have been made to ensure facts, merit, position of signs/the vehicle, or a proper cause of action.

27. The Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (the DLUHC) first published its statutory Parking Code of Practice on 7th February 2022, here: 

(link)

‘Private firms issue roughly 22,000 parking tickets every day, often adopting a labyrinthine system of misleading and confusing signage, opaque appeals services, aggressive debt collection and unreasonable fees designed to extort money from motorists.’

28. Despite legal challenges delaying the Code's implementation (marking it as temporarily 'withdrawn' as shown in the link above) a draft Impact Assessment (IA) to finalise the DLUHC Code was recently published on 30th July 2023, which has exposed some industry-gleaned facts about supposed 'Debt Fees'. This is revealed in the Government's analysis, found here: 

(link)

Malami81

Cont......

29. Paragraphs 4.31 and 5.19 in the above document reveal that the parking industry has informed the DLUHC that the true minor cost of what the parking industry likes to call debt recovery or 'enforcement' (pre-action) stage totals a mere £8.42 per recovery case.

With that sum in mind, it is clear that the extant claim has been enhanced by an excessive amount, disingenuously added as an extra 'fee'. This is believed to be routinely retained by the litigating legal team and has been claimed in addition to the intended 'legal representatives fees' cap set within the small claims track rules. This conduct has been examined and found - including in a notably detailed judgment by Her Honour Judge Jackson, now a specialist Civil High Court Judge on the Leeds/Bradford circuit - to constitute 'double recovery'.

Conclusion

30. The Supreme Court Hearing in the The ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67 

Stated ‘The intention cannot be to punish a driver, nor to present them with hidden terms, unexpected/cumbersome obligations nor any 'concealed pitfalls or traps'. Nor can a firm claim an unconscionable sum. 

In the present case, the Claimant has fallen foul of those tests.

31. The claim is entirely without merit and the Claimant is urged to discontinue now, to void wasting the court's time and that of the Defendant.

32. To my knowledge, I made all reasonable efforts to abide by the terms and conditions of the car park and was using the parking facilities whilst shopping, with a full intention to leave before ‘4 free hours’ was up.

33. With the DLUHC's ban on the false 'costs' there is ample evidence to support the view - long held by many District Judges - that these are knowingly exaggerated claims.  For HMCTS to only disallow those costs in the tiny percentage of cases that reach hearings whilst other claims to continue to flood the courts unabated, is to fail hundreds of thousands of consumers who suffer CCJs or pay inflated amounts, in fear of the intimidating pre-action demands. 

I, the defendant, believe that it is in the public interest that claims like this should be struck out because knowingly enhanced parking claims like this one cause consumer harm on a grand scale.

34. In the matter of costs, the Defendant asks:

(a) witness costs for attendance at Court, pursuant to CPR 27.14, and

(b) for a finding of unreasonable conduct by this Claimant, seeking costs pursuant to CPR 46.5. 

35. Attention is drawn specifically to the (often-seen from this industry) possibility of an unreasonably late Notice of Discontinuance. Whilst CPR r.38.6 states that the Claimant is liable for the Defendant's costs after discontinuance (r.38.6(1)) this does not normally apply to claims allocated to the small claims track (r.38.6(3)). However, the White Book states (annotation 38.6.1): "Note that the normal rule as to costs does not apply if a claimant in a case allocated to the small claims track serves a notice of discontinuance although it might be contended that costs should be awarded if a party has behaved unreasonably (r.27.14(2)(dg))."

 

Statement of truth:

I believe that the facts stated in this witness statement are true. I understand that proceedings for contempt of court may be brought against anyone who makes, or causes to be made, a false statement in a document verified by a statement of truth without an honest belief in its truth.

DEFENDANT’S COST ASSESSMENT

Ordinary costs:

Loss of earnings through attendance at court hearing: xxxxxxxxx (based on net earnings)

Further costs:

Travel to attend court: xxxx miles x£0.55= xxxxx

Research, preparation and drafting documents: xxxx (xxxxxxxxx based on net earnings)

Total costs occurred: £413.70

(payslip included)

Le_Kirk

All your paragraphs require a number.  Don't worry about claimants who state "the defendant has used an internet based defence" as there are occasions in court where a judge, faced with exactly that phrase, has remarked "so what" meaning they gave no importance to the fact. Everyone is entitled to get help from wherever they can!

Malami81

Will change that, thank you!

patient_dream

As Le_Kirk says about an "Internet based defence" .......Amazing that Parking Eye has stooped so low using such tactics, they have picked this up from the low life legals who float around this parking scam.

Your defence is unique to you
Wish these companies would grow up to be adults

Coupon-mad

Make it clear that you were only in fact 'parked' in a bay for less than 4 hours, and the BPA CoP requires a Grace period of 'at least ten minutes' after the parking period, to leave premises.  Even if a flat '10 minutes' was being strictly applied - harsh and unfair in a large retail park, especially in the busy Easter holidays when finding a space takes longer - this means ParkingEye are (ludicrously) asking the court to believe that zero minutes to find a space and park on arrival is fair.  

Just because the outgoing BPA Code (written by/for the parking firms) was disingenuously changed in 2020 - during the DLUHC's creation of the new Code - to astonishingly 'pull the rug' so that in the parking industry's invented and self-serving 'rules', consideration periods fall away when a shopper opts to stay, doesn't make this a fair term.  And nor is that onerous term even on the signs. 

The court is reminded of its mandatory duty under s71 of the Consumer Rights Act 2015 ('the CRA') : the fairness test.

The court is also reminded that 'terms' and the new CRA concept: 'consumer notices' must both be fair and prominent.  The signs do not create a contract to pay £105 plus court fees.  The sign that this Claimant relies upon only states £85.  This issue alone - exaggerating the quantum and pretending (according to the POC as pleaded) that the sum of £105 was on the contract when it wasn't - I trust could be enough in itself to persuade the court to dismiss the claim. It cannot pass the CRA fairness test to offer an alleged contract at £85 then try to claim it at £105.

Further, the DLUHC's new Code of Practice, which sailed through Parliament in Spring 2022, would be law (a creature of statute) by now, if it wasn't for greedy ANPR 'PCN machine' firms like ParkingEye blocking it and forcing the Government to draft the IA linked in this statement at para xx.  The DLUHC are pressing ahead to push the Code through in 2024 and it includes helpful definitions and best/ fair practice rules, known to ParkingEye for two years, including:

- definition of a parking period (quote it)

- detailed information about mandatory Consideration and Grace Periods (which apply together) and mandate at least 15 minutes extra in a large car park, a total allowance covering either side of the actual parking period (quote the DLUHC's info and Annex about Consideration and Grace periods both being mandatory).