ParkingEye - Hotel Indigo Newcastle stay, CNBC claim, but did nothing wrong

FoxScully

Hi everyone, forum newbie here. As the post title states, I received a claim form from the CNBC with ParkingEye as the Claimant and DCBL representing. The claim relates to parking at a hotel car park back in 2022 where I did everything correctly (i.e. did not overstay, I input my VRN, etc.). I have not received PCNs and the first notice is this claim form. I've moved house in that time, so it's possible they were sent out but I never received them.

I have also been in touch with the general manager of the hotel in question, who has been helpful - but there's a problem: the hotel ditched ParkingEye a while ago (hooray!) and now use a different operator, so they no longer have access to an admin portal to cancel a penalty (boooo). They still have a contact at PE, which they have reached out to... but I am not holding my breath.

In the meantime I filed my Acknoledgement of Service right away and have been working on my defence since. I have 5 days left to get my defence filed and acknolwedged, so I would really appreciate feedback on the draft below and a few questions I have about what to include/no include from the template defence in my case.

My case summary:

• I stayed for one night at the hotel. The hotel offers guests a discounted rate for parking in their underground car park of £14 for 24 hours.
• The "parking" page on their website stated this and their FAQs stated "Park when you arrive and pay and register at hotel reception." (this is current, and also in previous versions via archive.org)
• Three signs outside the car park entrance also stated the "pay and register at reception" term. I cannot remember the signs in the car park itself, as I had no reason to pay at the machine.
• I checked-in late afternoon, paid the parking fee to the hotel, and used a tablet on the reception desk to enter my VRN.
• I checked out early the following morning (i.e. less than 24 hours) and received an invoice for parking made out in my name. I have a scan of the invoice.
• I had stayed at the hotel earlier in that year and followed all the same steps above - no PCNs or claim.

Particulars of Claim (VRN obfuscated):

1. The Defendent (D) is indebted to the Claimant (C) for a Parking Charge(s) issued to vehicle AB12ABC at Hotel Indigo Newcastle Underground.
2. The PCN(s) were issued on 11/10/2022
3. The defendant is pursued as the driver of the vehicle for breach of the terms on the signs (the contract). Reason: Vehicle Remained On Private Property In Breach Of The Prominently Displayed Terms And Conditions.
4. In the alternative the defenant is pursued as the keeper pursuant to POFA 2012, Schedule 4.

AND THE CLAIMANT CLAIMS

1. £170 being the total of the PCN(s) and damages.
2. Interest at a rate of 8% per annum pursuant to s.69 of the County Courts Act 1984 from the date hereof at a daiuly rate of £.03 until judgement or sooner payment.
3. Costs and court fees.

Defence Points and Questions

• In my defence, I've acknoledged I am the driver and registered keeper, as I thought it would otherwise make my defence nonsensical, i.e. "I don't acknowledge I'm the driver, but I parked my car..." - if anyone here thinks I shouldn't do that then please yell!
• The POC provided by DCBL is vague and non-specific, so I have included the recommend paragraphs and CEL vs Chan images.
  
• I've been thinking of the ways my defence could be challenged. The fact I paid the appropriate amount for parking as a hotel guest (I have a confirmed booking e-mail and a scan of the paper invoice for parking they gave me when I checked out) feels robust, but my main thought is that they could challenge along the lines of a VRN keying error on the tablet in the hotel reception, or failing to enter my VRN at all. I have not referred to this in my defence - should I? As far as I can remember I entered my VRN correctly and followed the steps on screen - but this is a while ago now! Version 8 (2020) of the BPA was in effect at the time and states keying errors should be dealt with at the first appeals stage (which I cannot engage with now).
  
• Is MY para 19 relevant? I'm trying to say here "I've parked at this hotel before, under the same terms, in the same way, with no issue, and no the process/terms."
• Is there any specific term to include concerning having not received PCN(s) prior to this claim?
• Is there anything in the template defence I shouldn't include? For example, para 19 "The Defendant avers that there was no agreement to pay a parking charge or added 'damages' which were not even incurred, let alone quantified in bold, prominent text. This Claimant's lack of large, readable signs..." I've referred in my defence to readable signs at the car park entrance because of the specific term to pay in the hotel reception.
  

DEFENCE

IN THE COUNTY COURT

Claim No.:  xxxxxx

Between

PARKINGEYE LTD

(Claimant)

- and -

JOSEPH BLOGGS

(Defendant)

  

DEFENCE

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').

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 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(1)(e) and Practice Direction Part 16.7.5. 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 (transcript below) the Court should strike out the claim, using its powers pursuant to CPR 3.4.

4.      >> CHAN TRANSCRIPT IMAGES HERE <<

The facts known to the Defendant:

5.      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, the vehicle is recognised and it is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper and driver.

6.      The Defendant was a guest of Hotel Indigo Newcastle (hereinafter referred to as “hotel”) for one night from 10th October 2022 to 11th October. As part of their overnight stay at the hotel, the Defendant parked their vehicle with registration AA12ABC in the hotel car park (identified in the POC as “Hotel Indigo Newcastle Underground” and hereinafter referred to as “car park” or “hotel car park”). Due to the time that has elapsed since the stay at the hotel, the Defendant cannot say precisely what time of day they arrived at the hotel, other than it was in the late afternoon of 10th October 2022.

7.      Prior to travelling to the hotel, the Defendant read and understood the information published on the hotel’s website concerning parking at the hotel, which stated at the time, and continues to state, that guests of the hotel can park their vehicle in the car park for up to 24 hours at a discounted rate of £14.00. Furthermore, prior to travel the Defendant read and understood the Frequently Asked Questions document published on the website of the hotel which stated at the time, and continues to state, that guests should park in any available space when they arrive, and then come into the hotel to register and pay at the hotel reception.

8.      Upon arrival at the hotel in the late afternoon of the 10th October 2022 and prior to parking their vehicle in the car park, the Defendant read and understood the content of the three prominently displayed signs adjacent to the entrance to the car park, all of which included the specific term: “For guests staying at the hotel, please register and pay at the hotel reception.”

9.      The Defendant parked their vehicle correctly and appropriately in a space in the car park and immediately proceeded to the hotel reception to check-in. During the check-in process the Defendant remitted £14.00 to the hotel via a debit card payment to cover the required fee for 24-hours of parking in the hotel car park, and the hotel reception staff subsequently directed the Defendant to register their vehicle using a digital terminal on the reception desk. The Defendant registered their vehicle AA12ABC using the digital terminal as per the directions of the reception staff and the on-screen instructions.

10.  The Defendant checked out of the hotel and drove their vehicle AB12ABC out of the car park at a time no later than 09:30 on the morning of 11th October 2022, considerably less than 24 hours after arrival. During check-out the hotel provided the Defendant with a paper invoice made out in the Defendant’s name, clearly detailing the sum of £14.00 paid for parking their vehicle in the hotel car park. The sum paid and confirmed by invoice is commensurate with a guest of the hotel parking their vehicle for less than 24 hours. The Defendant has in their possession a digital facsimile of this invoice and is prepared to submit this as evidence to support the defence of this claim.

11.  This sequence of events is identical to those the Defendant experienced and undertook when staying at the hotel and parking in the hotel car park at a previous one-night stay on the 20th July 2022, for which no PCN(s) were issued or claims made by the Claimant.

12. >> REMAINING PARAS FROM TEMPLATE DEFENCE GO HERE <<

FoxScully

Update: The hotel manager got back to me and shared correspondence they had with ParkingEye. PE are saying "the charge cannot be cancelled" without explaining why, and that it has been passed to DCBL. 

KeithP

Hello and welcome.

What is the Issue Date on your Claim Form?

Upon what date did you file an Acknowledgment of Service?
Your MCOL Claim History will have the definitive answer to that.

FoxScully

KeithP said:

Hello and welcome.

What is the Issue Date on your Claim Form?

Upon what date did you file an Acknowledgment of Service?
Your MCOL Claim History will have the definitive answer to that.

Hi KeithP,

The issue date is 19 MAR 2024. From what I have read, that puts deemed DOS as 5 days later, and the end of the 28-day AOS window as Sun 21 Apr - but I plan to file the defence in the new few days.

MCOL Claim History:

• A claim was issued against you on 19/03/2024
• Your acknowledgment of service was submitted on 23/03/2024 at 16:30:31
• Your acknowledgment of service was received on 25/03/2024 at 01:06:19

KeithP

FoxScully said:

KeithP said:

Hello and welcome.

What is the Issue Date on your Claim Form?

Upon what date did you file an Acknowledgment of Service?
Your MCOL Claim History will have the definitive answer to that.

Hi KeithP,

The issue date is 19 MAR 2024. From what I have read, that puts deemed DOS as 5 days later, and the end of the 28-day AOS window as Sun 21 Apr - but I plan to file the defence in the new few days.

MCOL Claim History:

• A claim was issued against you on 19/03/2024
• Your acknowledgment of service was submitted on 23/03/2024 at 16:30:31
• Your acknowledgment of service was received on 25/03/2024 at 01:06:19

With a Claim Issue Date of 19th March, and having filed an Acknowledgment of Service in a timely manner, you have until 4pm on Monday 22nd April 2024 to file your Defence.

That's a whole week away. Plenty of time to produce a Defence and it is good to see that you are not leaving 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'.

DE_612183

This is of course DCBL....https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6377263/dcb-legal-record-of-private-parking-court-claim-discontinuations/p67

67 pages on discontinuations should give you some confidence....

FoxScully

DE_612183 said:

This is of course DCBL....https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6377263/dcb-legal-record-of-private-parking-court-claim-discontinuations/p67

67 pages on discontinuations should give you some confidence....

Indeed - I saw that. It does give me confidence, but I'm taking nothing for granted! 

Coupon-mad

Your defence is solid. Crack on!

FoxScully

Coupon-mad said:

Your defence is solid. Crack on!

Thanks @Coupon-mad! Does that mean the questions above are all answered? i.e.

• Acknowledging I am driver & keeper is fine
  
• Don't refer to potential keying errors (or omitting to enter my VRN) in my defence
  
• My para 19 is relevant - so keep it in
• There's no specific term to include regarding not receiving PCNs
• Keep the rest of the template defence as is in completeness

Coupon-mad

Yes.      

Half_way

FoxScully said:

Update: The hotel manager got back to me and shared correspondence they had with ParkingEye. PE are saying "the charge cannot be cancelled" without explaining why, and that it has been passed to DCBL. 

Rubbish, get back to the Hotel manager and tell them that the charge can be cancelled by the claimant- ie parking eye discontinuing the claim