Parking Charge Notice: Parkingeye, Sainsburys Eltham

Coupon-mad

busymerchbee73 said:

Many thanks @KeithP and @Coupon-mad.
AoS submitted.  Currently working on the Defence.
Please can I ask - what is the reason/recommendation for NOT filing Defence via MCOL please?

It's in bargepole's court procedures thread (be aware that is a very old thread).

Coupon-mad

The template defence never had Chan or Akande! 

CEL v Chan appears (and there's no need to search for the transcript) in an alternative version only, for cases where the POC are poorly pleaded.

Not relevant for an in-house PEye claim.

busymerchbee73

Thank you Coupon-Mad.... 

My defence seems so basic - I parked, downloaded app, which took ages, tried to pay, it didn't go through, app didn't work........  it seems weak.

Their claim mentions that I had an opportunity to appeal with POPLA but didn't - do I need to be prepared with a defence for why not?

Coupon-mad

No you don't.

Copy a £25 ParkingEye Defence

busymerchbee73

Searching by both newest and most relevant threads doesn't show any £25 parkingeye defence threads for me....  please advise what I'm doing wrong.  Aware that this will be annoying to you.

Coupon-mad

No it's not annoying at all - I am here to help - and I'm aware that I know what I'm looking for. ParkingEye started adding £20 at LBCCC stage a year ago then upped it to £25 but it's not on their signs.

Try this search instead:

Summer 2023, sum claimed under purported 'contract' is disproportionately exaggerated 

busymerchbee73

Thank you so much for clarifying.... off I go to read. Many thanks.

Le_Kirk

busymerchbee73 said:

My defence seems so basic - I parked, downloaded app, which took ages, tried to pay, it didn't go through, app didn't work........  it seems weak.

If these are the facts, that is your defence.However the POC state that you did not display a ticket.  Assuming the app had worked, would it have printed a ticket somewhere?  Just a thought!  You had no control over a third party app.

busymerchbee73

Thank you all again, as always, great advice.

I hope I've got this right. I've attempted to write a defence - please would anyone kindly be able to have a read and see what they think.  I'm subject to waffle and worry this is a bit weak.

I follow the template for all points apart from 3 and 7, which I have redacted and pasted below.

=================================================================

3A. The defendant parked the car on DATE at ***** Passey Place, Eltham.  The defendant had only 40minutes to spare before having to leave to pick child up from football training at nearby football ground. On arrival to the car park, the defendant, not having any cash or cards to pay for the stay, attempted to use online PayByPhone app.  However, the app needed updating before use, so the defendant sat and waited in the car whilst the app updated.  Reception and service was very slow in the car park and this took until approximately 9:38am for PayByPhone app to update. At 9:39am, the defendant, now in a hurry to get back for her child, applied for parking payment at #808698 location Passey Place Eltham, using PayByPhone app to cover one hour’s parking at a total cost of £1.80 and paid for £1.80 using ApplePay with her phone.  The app showed that this payment was “processing”. The defendant left the car and headed into Sainsburys PLC Eltham.  At 9:41am, the defendant checked the app and noticed “processing” payment still showed and took a screenshot.  At 9:45 the defendant left Sainsburys and ANPR shows the defendant left the carpark at *****am.

3B. The total recorded duration of the visit from entry to exit according to Parking Eye Ltd was 39minutes. The driver of the vehicle was there as a genuine customer of Sainsburys Eltham and has successfully parked here on previous occasions paying using PayByPhone.

3C. The defendant made all reasonable efforts to make payment for parking using an approved payment channel and by following the signage in the car park.  The online payment system showed that it was processing a payment of parking for £1.80 for one hour parking.  ParkingEye’s photographs show the defendant’s car leaving the car park at 9:46am which is less than 21 minutes later than the finish time of the parking session attempted to purchase online and within any reasonable grace period. Thus, it is clear that the defendant made every attempt to make appropriate payment using the means advertised by ParkingEye, and returned to the car at the time specified by ParkingEye’s online parking system.

3D. It is not reasonable in these circumstances for the driver to assume any more obligations for making the payment. In Jolley V Carmel LTD (2000) 2-EGLR-154; it was held that a party who makes reasonable endeavours to comply with contractual terms, should not be penalised for breach when unable to comply with the terms.

3E. The defendant remained on site during the event. The allegation in the POC is denied "parking without a valid paid parking ticket" because the Defendant's vehicle was exempted by the PayByPhone app. There was no relevant obligation to obtain a 'parking ticket'.  The Claimant has failed to explain what went wrong with the PayByPhone app nor even tell the Defendant if it is their position that there was perhaps a minor 'error' with PayByPhone at that time. This is clearly an error down to the app, and the defendant has history of having paid at this car park using this app, and clearly made all efforts to pay for parking using PayByPhone on this occasion.

=====================================================================

7. 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.

Further to this, in a new tactic only seen from this Claimant in Summer 2023, the sum claimed under purported 'contract' is disproportionately exaggerated by £25 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.

The signage could not have formed a valid contract for a £125 parking charge, as this exceeds the maximum amount allowed by trade bodies, which is capped at £100. There was no contract to pay £100, let alone the inflated sum of £125.

=======================================================================

MANY THANKS IN ADVANCE.

Coupon-mad

Yep very good.  Wordy but I think you need a bit of detail for this one. Then the rest of the template defence.