Parking Eye yet another Defence for County Claim

borkis

Firstly, let me express my gratitude for what your guys are doing for legally educating people, constantly updating and refining template, and making the country better. Especially @Coupon-mad and @KeithP.

I am at court claim stage (dated 3-Mar, AoS filed 11-Mar)

As per NEWBIE2 post I am using the latest defense template and only posting here my own parts (please see below in bold).

My story:

I visited remote city and found an electric charging point without parking restrictions through an "Electroverse" app. This app is usually is very good in warning about any parking restictions.

Upon arrival I charged my car in one of 3 charging bays, clearly marked as "Electric vehicle recharging points only", there was no clearly readable contractual signages. There was an unreadable "Parking notice" plate in small print.

It turned out that this land is managed by Parking Eye on behalf of Holiday inn hotel.

Claim defines that I used private land without authorisation.

I am building my defence based on the following:

1. Sinages were not clear and made in small prints
   
2. The incurred cost is exaggerated and there is no Precise calculation of the incurred loss
   
3. ANPR was not marked to be visible
   
4. Term "breach" is not specified
   

Particulars of Claim:

Claim for monies outstanding from the Defendant in relation to a Parking Charge (reference (...)) issued on (...). The signage clearly displayed throughout hotel (...) states that this is private land, managed by Parking Eye Ltd, and that it is subject to terms and conditions, including authorisation being required for parking, by which those who park agree to be bound (the contract). ParkingEye's ANPR system captured vehicle (...) entering and leaving the site on (...), and parking without authorisation. Pursuant to Sch 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, notice has been given to the registered keeper, making them liable for the Parking Charge payable upon breach.

Here is the paragraph 3 that AI Copilot generated based on the above story:

The Defendant asserts that their visit to the site was undertaken in good faith, having relied on the official "Electroverse" application, which is generally reliable in warning users about parking restrictions. Upon arrival, the Defendant found one of three clearly marked charging bays designated for "Electric Vehicle Recharging Points Only." The Defendant proceeded to use the charging point, observing no other visible signage that indicated additional terms or restrictions. A small "Parking Notice" plate was present, but its content was printed in small, inconspicuous lettering, failing to adequately convey any contractual terms. The Defendant maintains that no visible or sufficiently prominent signage alerted them to the need for specific authorization or additional conditions for using the land. Furthermore, the Defendant contends that the term alleged to have been "breached" was not specified, the incurred costs are disproportionate and unsupported by a precise calculation of loss, and the Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) system was not marked as visible to the public. Accordingly, the Defendant submits that no valid contract was formed due to the inadequate and unclear signage, and the claim should be dismissed.

I would really appreciate if someone could answer below two questions:

• Q1: I see that most users on this forum are quite wordy on what has happened and I only have managed to compile one short paragraph. Does this paragraph make sense and shall it be expanded to improve my chances?

• Q2: From the claim it seems that claimant did specify the breach - that "I used privte land without authorisation" Can you please confrim from Particulars of Claim that "breach" related defence points are relevant?

Coupon-mad

They did specify the breach so you are right to use the Template Defence that has para 3 as your facts.

However, because it's a PEye in-house claim, you need to add the extra paragraph about the random £25 they add on, as seen in other threads like this. Try searching for:

Claimant £25 new tactic defence

amoladakasth

I'd be interested in hearing about the outcome of your case OP, as I've just submitted an appeal myself.

Coupon-mad

amoladakasth said:

I'd be interested in hearing about the outcome of your case OP, as I've just submitted an appeal myself.

An 'appeal' and a defence are two very different things & this OP has only just defended and is months away from an outcome.

borkis

Here is an an update on the case:

I received two letters: 

1) the notice of allocation from local court (mid September)

2) document pack from PEye with intention to proceed and addressing all points in my defence, mainly with standard template, but some are tailored to my case.

Here is my speech draft for the hearing

" I confirm that the car was indeed in the location on the date in question, and used one of the clearly marked 'Electric Vehicle Recharging Points Only' bays. 

My core complaint is that no valid parking contract was formed because the signage was poorly lit, made in small print, and not visible for any person to assume a contract was in place. This is unlike the charging sign and the charger itself, which were clearly visible.

I believe this case needs to be considered in the specific context of electric vehicle charging. A reasonable person arriving at a service area for a specific task - be it a petrol station to refuel or a charging bay to recharge - would focus on that primary task. It is an absurd expectation to require a person to hunt for separate, inconspicuous signs to enter a parking contract when their sole intention is to use the service provided.

The clear designation of the bays as 'Electric vehicle recharging points only' created a reasonable expectation that the act of charging was the authorised use of the space, and no separate, unadvertised parking contract was required. There were no vending or ticket machines on the premises that would indicate parking needed to be paid for, which further supported this belief.

My view is that charging £60, £100, or £200 for a three-hour stay is grossly exaggerated and constitutes an unfair penalty, not a genuine pre-estimate of any loss.

I offered £20 during a mediation call as a fair price for the three hours, but it was rejected.

I would like to ask the other party this: What service did your company provide to me for the money you are claiming? What specific damage or financial loss did your company or your client (the hotel), incur due to my car occupying the parking bay for three hours while it was actively charging?"

Are there anything I could say or do better to maximise chances of winning?

Coupon-mad

What about your WS and evidence for the hearing?

That has to be filed & served first and you said you've received their bundle... so it sounds like they've complied with the Order.

Have you?

What's the deadline (Hearing Order page 2)?

It's a stage in the NEWBIES thread Post 2, detailed under the red capitals heading IMPORTANT: KNOW WHAT HAPPENS WHEN.

borkis

I am preparing the WS and evidences. Deadline for submitting is 3rd September (3wks ahead of the hearing)
It will be based on 
- Exaggerated Charges/Penalty
- Unclear Signage
- My view of reasonable use of the public electric vehicle charger

Would it help if I post the claimant responce here?
Would it be ok to post my WS here for checking?

Coupon-mad

Yes to seeing your WS draft but we don't need to see their entire template WS again.

You'll find lots of threads with it on (and example WS responses) if you search the forum for an unusual sentence from their dirge.

borkis

Thank you for your suggestion @Coupon-mad, I went over several latest examples, I found most are quite specific for own cases and not directly applicable. Please comment on the below.
I also add few key photos.
Shall I keep the "conclusion" section? The final paragraphs about "public interest" and "systemic abuse" are very well-argued, but they are arguments for the judge to consider, not facts from my direct experience?

1. Standard header and footer removed for this post

2. Facts and sequence of events

1. On the date xxx  the vehicle needed a recharging and nearest public car charger was found using the charging application (exhibit 1,2,3)

2. At XX:XX the vehicle was parked in the bay clearly designated for "Electric Vehicle Recharging Points Only." (exhibit 4). No other visible signage that indicated additional terms or restrictions were visible. A "Parking Notice" plate was present, but its content was printed in small lettering, and did not make me aware of any terms. No visible or sufficiently prominent signage alerted to the need for specific authorization or additional conditions for using the land.

3. Vehicle was left to charge for 3 hours and then left the bay

3. Observations Regarding Signage:

1. After receiving the CNBC letter I conducted a follow up investigation of the premises based on publically available sources (google map, users photos).

2. Street view from 2020 indeed shows the signages indicated by claimant (see exhibit 5). However, lighting conditions on the date of the event (late November evening) make the premises look closer to 2022 street view (exhibit 6,7). As can be seen the signage is not adequately lit or distinguishable.

3. The sign for 'Electric Vehicle Recharging Points Only' was brightly lit and clearly visible from my car. In stark contrast, the 'Parking Notice' plates was poorly lit and its text was unreadable. They were positioned in a way that I would have had to get out of my vehicle and walk to them to read them. This was not a reasonable expectation, especially on a dark evening.

4. Because the signs were not clearly visible, I did not believe I was entering into a legally binding contract. I deny entering into a legally binding contract. None of the essential elements necessary for the formation of a contract were present, rendering the alleged contract impossible. 

4. Context of electric vehicle charging:

1. A reasonable person arriving at a charging bay would assume they are there for the sole purpose of charging their car. The clear sign indicating 'Electric Vehicle Recharging Points Only' reinforced this assumption, leading me to believe no separate parking contract was required

2. There were no vending or ticket machines on the premises that would indicate parking needed to be paid for, which further supported this belief.

5. Exaggerated claim:

1. The alleged 'core debt' from any parking charge cannot have exceeded £100 (the industry cap set out in the applicable Code of Practice at the time). I have seen no evidence that the added damages/fees are genuine

2. Charging £60, £100, or £210 for a three-hour stay is grossly exaggerated and constitutes an unfair penalty, not a genuine pre-estimate of any loss.

3. I offered £20 during a mediation call as a fair price for the three hours parking, but it was rejected.

6. Conclusion

1. The claim is entirely without merit. I 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.

2. There is now ample evidence to support the view - long held by many District Judges - that these are knowingly exaggerated claims. The July 2023 DLUHC IA analysis surely makes that clear because it is now a matter of record that the industry has told the Government that 'debt recovery' costs eight times less than they have been claiming in almost every case

3. This claim is an utter waste of court resources and it is an indication of systemic abuse that parking cases now make up a third of all small claims

Exhibit 4: well lit and marked electric charging bay




Exhibit 5: Street view from 2020 showing the signages in day conditions 


Exhibit 6, 7: Street view from 2022 showing the signages in darker conditions 

Coupon-mad

Looks good but you are not allowed to mention offers made at mediation, until it comes to discussing costs at the end of the hearing.

Also, I'd suggest you leave in that last bit but also add paras 4-10 of the new short Template Defence, which is more up to date about DRA fees and and the new (current for August) MHCLG consultation plus it includes a challenge for them to prove landowner authority to issue parking charges.

In your case, when patrons are properly using an EV bay they have a reasonable expectation that the EV company leases (and offers) that bay, with different terms specifically inviting and allowing cars to remain there to be charged. That is an alternative contract, separate and distinct from any 'parking' terms that might apply to the general parking bays or indeed, to drivers misusing the EV bay.