Face a £210 trial or accept a £135 settlement? Parking claim filed against a MoveGB member.

Car1980

Where's your defence? This was asked for on 9th January 

Askmywhy

ChirpyChicken said:

No you don't settle 

Can you please expand on that a little more: do you have experience with similar cases? Have you seen others successfully contest claims even with weaker evidence?

Askmywhy

Car1980 said:

Where's your defence? This was asked for on 9th January 

Please can you explain your question, thanks.

ChirpyChicken

Askmywhy said:

Car1980 said:

Where's your defence? This was asked for on 9th January 

Please can you explain your question, thanks.

You were asked to post up your defence. You can't get further help on here until we know what you put.

Coupon-mad

Askmywhy said:

ChirpyChicken said:

No you don't settle 

Can you please expand on that a little more: do you have experience with similar cases? Have you seen others successfully contest claims even with weaker evidence?

Every day... 

Askmywhy

ChirpyChicken said:

Askmywhy said:

Car1980 said:

Where's your defence? This was asked for on 9th January 

Please can you explain your question, thanks.

You were asked to post up your defence. You can't get further help on here until we know what you put.

The abstract of the defense is provided here, followed by the full text. One sticking point is that ParkingEye has evidence that I overstayed the allowed time by 40 mins, while I cannot demonstrate the contrary. Please advise on the course of action !

ABSTRACT: 
The Defendant, Maxx, disputes the full claim from ParkingEye Ltd, asserting compliance with MoveGB’s terms, which grant two hours of free parking for members. The Defendant registered their membership upon entry and did not exceed the permitted time. The claim arises from miscommunication between MoveGB, the hotel, and ParkingEye. The Defendant argues that liability should not be imposed due to a lack of evidence of breach and requests dismissal of the claim. If payment is necessary, the Defendant contends that MoveGB, not themselves, should be held responsible.

FULL:
Claimant ParkingEye Ltd Defendant Mr Maxx How much of the claim do you dispute? I dispute the full amount claimed as shown on the claim form. Do you dispute this claim because you have already paid it? No, for other reasons. Defence Defence to the Claim 1. Introduction I, Maxx, the Defendant, submit this defence in response to the claim raised by ParkingEye Ltd. I deny that I am liable to pay the claimed amount for the following reasons. 2. Facts of the Case The Defendant used the parking facilities at the Hotel on 00/00/2024. The Defendant is a member of the MoveGB service, which provides gym access at the hotel, and according to the terms of that service, MoveGB members are entitled to two hours of free parking. Upon entering the site, the Defendant provided the relevant membership information to the hotel staff. The vehicle was parked for less than the two-hour free parking period. 3. Contractual Terms and Conditions The Defendant entered the car park under the understanding, based on the terms and conditions of MoveGB, that parking for up to two hours would be free for members. These terms were not breached, as the Defendant did not exceed the allowed two-hour period. 4. Miscommunication Between Parties It appears that there has been a failure of communication between the service provider (MoveGB), the hotel, and the Claimant (ParkingEye Ltd). The Defendant complied with all relevant terms, having notified the hotel of the MoveGB membership, and the Claimant should have obtained payment directly from the service provider (MoveGB) if necessary. 5. Notice and Pursuant to the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 The Claimant relies on the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 to hold the Defendant liable as the registered keeper of the vehicle. However, this is contested because the Defendant adhered to the terms set out by the parking provider (MoveGB). The Defendant was not in breach of any parking terms that would justify the issuance of a Parking Charge Notice (PCN). 6. Lack of Adequate Evidence The Claimant has failed to provide sufficient evidence that any breach occurred. The ANPR system may have recorded the vehicle’s entry and exit, but there is no evidence that the Defendant overstayed the allotted free time provided under the MoveGB membership. 7. Mitigating Circumstances Any misunderstanding between the hotel, service provider, and the Claimant is outside the Defendant’s control. It is unreasonable to expect the Defendant to be penalised for a failure of internal communication between the Claimant and the hotel/service provider. 8. Conclusion The Defendant kindly requests that the Court dismiss this claim as the Defendant was fully compliant with the parking terms provided by the hotel and MoveGB, and any breach alleged by the Claimant was due to a lack of communication or error between the service provider and the Claimant. If the Court deems the Parking Charge valid, the Defendant respectfully requests that the Claimant contacts MoveGB directly for payment, as the Defendant should not be held liable for this misunderstanding. Statement of Truth. I believe that the facts stated in this defence are true. Signed Maxx 00/00/2024 I am the Defendant - I believe that the facts stated in this form are true Defendant's date of birth 00/00/1900

Coupon-mad

Not a bad defence overall. Covers what you need. Great start.

Could you please edit your thread title because there's zero 'impact on credit rating' risked as long as you do everything the court requires. It might mislead newbies to see that thread title.

Show us the Particulars of Claim. We need to see how they pleaded the claim on the left of the Claim form.

And have you got (or can you get) a pic of the sign?

I don't think this is an accusation of overstay.

I suspect it's that you either didn't input your VRM into the exempting keypad, or made a VRM typo, or the system failed.

Askmywhy

Coupon-mad said:

Not a bad defence overall. Covers what you need. Great start.

Could you please edit your thread title because there's zero 'impact on credit rating' risked as long as you do everything the court requires. It might mislead newbies to see that thread title.

Show us the Particulars of Claim. We need to see how they pleaded the claim on the left of the Claim form.

And have you got (or can you get) a pic of the sign?

I don't think this is an accusation of overstay.

I suspect it's that you either didn't input your VRM into the exempting keypad, or made a VRM typo, or the system failed.

Ok thank you. Here's the Claimant's Reply to Defence.

ABSTRACT OF MAIN POINTS: 

The claimant states that the defendant’s vehicle overstayed the two-hour free parking limit by 37 minutes without making a tariff payment, breaching the parking terms. While the defendant claims MoveGB membership entitled them to free parking, ParkingEye argues they had no way of knowing this due to a lack of appeal or prior contact. ANPR camera evidence confirms the overstay, and proper notices were issued. ParkingEye insists clear signage was displayed and denies any communication failure. They argue that legal proceedings were necessary due to the defendant’s non-engagement, leading to additional costs that could have been avoided through early resolution.

FULL TEXT (ending was reduced) : 

I'm a claims handler. The claimant can confirm that the vehicle with registration XXYYXXX was captured by our automatic number plate recognition cameras entering the car park at asks on *** March 2024 at 18.45 PM and subsequently leaving that evening at 21.22 PM the ample signage displayed at the entrance to call my aunt throughout the side, clearly states. The motorist remained on site for a total duration of two hours and 37 minutes without making a tariff payment following the free stay. And the motorist was therefore found to be in breach of the terms in conditions of parking this resulted in a parking charge of £100 being issued new line the defendant contents that they are a member of the move GB service which provides gym access at the hotel and are entitled to two hours free parking parking. ParkingEye would stress that in the absence of an appeal, there is no possible way we could have known the defendant was using the gym facilities on site. Had the defendant contractors as does prior tuition in legal proceedings and provided evidence to support this submission, it would have been taken into consideration by right by our dedicated appeals team. In any event parking I can confirm that all motorists are entitled to a 2 hour free stay. however the defendant vehicle remain on site for two hours and 37 minutes, so they were therefore required to make a tariff payment when they remain on site in excess of the two free hours. As they failed to make the relevant payment, they were in clear breach of the terms and conditions and the park in charge was issued correctly. Parking I would also clarify that that has not being a failure of communication between the service providing Clement, as we have already mentioned that all motorists are entitled to a 2 hour free stay. As per terms and conditions for using the car park.

The defendant contends that the claimant has failed to provide sufficient evidence that any breach occurred. ParkingEye would clarify that Notice to keeper and the Reminder notice both included time stamped images taken by the A&PR cameras, showing the defendants vehicle was on site for two hours and 37 minutes. Therefore, as they failed to make a tariff payment they were in breach of the terms and conditions.

ParkingEye would also like to add that on the reverse of the correspondents and to defendant parking has stated that all appeals should be put in writing and sent to ParkingEye within 28 days. Parking and I believe that the Defendant broke the terms and conditions of parking and therefore the outstanding charges payable. However, had the defendant corresponded with us initially, as requested, ParkingEye believes it could have and answered many of the defendants points directly and resolve the matter without having to issue court proceedings however full, as we have had no correspondence whatsoever from defendant, we have had no choice but to enter into legal proceedings, and have incurred further costs in pursuing this matter.

The purpose of the small court small claims court is to mitigate costs wherever possible. It is not appropriate for a defendant to be at liberty to submit further supplementary defences unchecked which must then be responded to by the Claimant, etc, etc, If the Defendant wish to amend the Defence, they must pay the relevant fees etc, etc.

THANK YOU GUYS FOR YOUR GUIDANCE IN EVALUATING MY POSTION AND ANSWERING THE QUESTION ASKED IN THE THREAD TITLE !

Coupon-mad

Are you sure that using the gym only gives you 2 hours free parking? Not an extended 3 hours? You may be best to make an offer, if gym users only get 2 hours free, because this IS an overstay case then?