Void Receipt, Wye Valley Visitor Centre, PCN Parking Eye

Coupon-mad

Doomswell said:

Now have a mediation appointment for October. 

Fine - three minute call. Phone down.

First, if you haven't done it yet: See this thread: - 11 July at 10:39AM<<<LINK 

Parking Code of Practice Consultation - now EXTENDED - closes Friday 26th September

Doomswell

I have completed the online response form for the consultation. 

Doomswell

Also...just received in the post Parking Eye's reply to my defence. 
The first paragraph states that my defence is a "standard and generic template distributed online to Defendants attempting to avoid paying Parking Charges..."
A bit rich from the senders of an automated series of demands for payment! 
Quite a lot of it is irrelevant. 
As an individual with no experience in this field I am going to make use of templates and online forums! 

kryten3000

This is a common scare tactic by the industry, most judges don't care.

Doomswell

Just need some help with Parking Eye's "reply to Defence"

There is a great deal of moaning at me in the reply, telling me not to waste the court's time or their time and not to change my defence or to contact them again unless I have completed form N244 and paid the appropriate fee.

1. They now say the extra £25 on top of the £100 Parking Charge is the fee for their Letter Before Action.
Previously it was for debt recovery.

2. The reply notes that I "implied that they were the driver of the vehicle" in my first appeal.  
This was because I had not heard of keeper liability.  I was not the driver and I have explained this and I thought they had accepted this, and indeed later on in the reply it states "the Defendant as Registered Keeper".
If they dispute my standing then is it enough for me to state the truth or do I need to now add evidence?

3. I asked for the contract between Parking Eye and the landowner, (this is mentioned in the Letter Before Count Court Claim as evidence that they may rely on) which they say is "commercially sensitive and largely not relevant...the document can be supplied at a later stage if required"
Firstly, this is an admission that it is relevant, and secondly, isn't this a breach of the pre-action conduct requirement?

4. In my reply to the Letter Before County Court Claim I asked for a data log for the payment machine, they do not mention this at all, and I believe it to be relevant.

Any thoughts?  Do I simply ask for clarification of 2, and 3 and 4 again?

kryten3000

Unless the court strikes out your defence the case will continue as normal whatever Parkingeye moan about.  Sit tight and wait

Point 1 - A Letter Before Claim is debt recovery but it doesn't make their £25 valid.

Point 2 - hopefully your defence stated "not the driver".  No need to expand on that.

Point 3 is definitely a breach of the rules, but almost all companies do this to make things difficult.  You can call them out on that later at the Witness Statement stage. 

Point 4 again they're being difficult, so call them out on it at the Witness Statement stage.

Ddraig11

Doomswell said:

Just need some help with Parking Eye's "reply to Defence"

There is a great deal of moaning at me in the reply, telling me not to waste the court's time or their time and not to change my defence or to contact them again unless I have completed form N244 and paid the appropriate fee.

1. They now say the extra £25 on top of the £100 Parking Charge is the fee for their Letter Before Action.
Previously it was for debt recovery.

2. The reply notes that I "implied that they were the driver of the vehicle" in my first appeal.  
This was because I had not heard of keeper liability.  I was not the driver and I have explained this and I thought they had accepted this, and indeed later on in the reply it states "the Defendant as Registered Keeper".
If they dispute my standing then is it enough for me to state the truth or do I need to now add evidence?

3. I asked for the contract between Parking Eye and the landowner, (this is mentioned in the Letter Before Count Court Claim as evidence that they may rely on) which they say is "commercially sensitive and largely not relevant...the document can be supplied at a later stage if required"
Firstly, this is an admission that it is relevant, and secondly, isn't this a breach of the pre-action conduct requirement?

4. In my reply to the Letter Before County Court Claim I asked for a data log for the payment machine, they do not mention this at all, and I believe it to be relevant.

Any thoughts?  Do I simply ask for clarification of 2, and 3 and 4 again?

Regarding point 4, we also requested the log, but weren't provided it. It then appeared in their Defence Pack, and helped us win the case. 

If you get it, it's worth studying carefully. The log only showed successful transactions on our date, but no errors, voids, etc.  There was a 30 minute gap between successful transactions at the time we were using the machine. We argued if the machine had an issue it could have lasted 5 mins, 30 mins or 3 days, but it's still a valid fault which prevented payment. 

Doomswell

Just had the following reply from Parking Eye after asking them again to supply me with the contract to operate the Wye Valley car park, a data log from the ticket machine and details of void tickets issued:

Good morning,

 

Thank you for your recent email.

 

Unfortunately, Parkingeye will not be supplying you will any date regarding the payment machines, as this would constitute a Freedom of Information request, and The Freedom of Information Act only applies to public sector organisations. As Parkingeye is a private company, the Freedom of Information Act does not apply.

 

You are able to make a Subject Access request (SAR) and should you wish to do so then you would be entitled to the following information:

 

•         a copy of the information which we hold about you;

•         information pertaining to what personal data is being processed; and

•         details of the source of that data

 

For the avoidance of doubt, this does not include technical information relating to the calibration of the Parkingeye system and payment machines.

 

Yours sincerely,

 

Parkingeye Enforcement Team

I think this is what m'learned friends call a "novel argument" in that it is complete nonsense.

How do I draw the judge's attention to the verdict in Parking Eye v Draig11 at Newport, and the fact that a transaction log was grudgingly produced for this case?

Car1980

That's what your witness statement is for. You can state that PE refused to send you the logs, bizarrely and irrelevantly citing that the Freedom of Information Act did not apply to private companies. And say that the onus is on them to make their claim and the full, unredacted, logs (in chronological order with no gaps) should be submitted in their own witness statement.

You can even include the entire court report in the other thread as an exhibit.

Coupon-mad

Doomswell said:

Just had the following reply from Parking Eye after asking them again to supply me with the contract to operate the Wye Valley car park, a data log from the ticket machine and details of void tickets issued:

Good morning,

 

Thank you for your recent email.

 

Unfortunately, Parkingeye will not be supplying you will any date regarding the payment machines, as this would constitute a Freedom of Information request, and The Freedom of Information Act only applies to public sector organisations. As Parkingeye is a private company, the Freedom of Information Act does not apply.

 

You are able to make a Subject Access request (SAR) and should you wish to do so then you would be entitled to the following information:

 

•         a copy of the information which we hold about you;

•         information pertaining to what personal data is being processed; and

•         details of the source of that data

 

For the avoidance of doubt, this does not include technical information relating to the calibration of the Parkingeye system and payment machines.

 

Yours sincerely,

 

Parkingeye Enforcement Team

I think this is what m'learned friends call a "novel argument" in that it is complete nonsense.

How do I draw the judge's attention to the verdict in Parking Eye v Draig11 at Newport, and the fact that a transaction log was grudgingly produced for this case?

And fairly similarly, in 07/03/2016 Case B7FC00H1 – ParkingEye v Mrs B, before District Judge McKinnell at St Albans, ParkingEye produced an ANPR full images log when required to do so by a parking campaigner:

https://parking-prankster.blogspot.com/2016/03/parkingeye-lose-in-court-accuse-drivers.html

"Mr Mustard recreated Mrs B's journey and then made a subject access request to ParkingEye. The results show he was detected 42 times by cameras as he traversed the site."

So, you can and should do a SAR now and tell them what you want to see, as long as it includes your data (VRM) or a close match that was in fact your input/payment.