Summoned to court by parkingeye, please help im so confused!

sweetdaisynova

Coupon-mad said:

Are you sure £125 is right? Isn't the claim in the first column £130?

Remove all this (BELOW) and replace it with the Consumer Rights Act 2015 paragraphs from much lower down in the template defence:

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 are nothing like the yellow & black warnings seen in Beavis, nor do they even meet the basic signage requirements in the current BPA & IPC Joint Code of Practice, which reflects the already statutory requirement for 'prominence' (Consumer Rights Act 2015 - the 'CRA').

 

"Private firms issue roughly 22,000 parking tickets every day, often adopting a labyrinthine system of misleading and confusing signage, opaque appeals services, aggressive debt collection and unreasonable fees designed to extort money from motorists."

4. Despite legal challenges delaying the Code's implementation (marking it as temporarily 'withdrawn' as shown in the link above) a draft Impact Assessment (IA) to finalise the DLUHC Code was recently published on 30th July 2023, which has exposed some industry-gleaned facts about supposed 'Debt Fees'. This is revealed in the Government's analysis, found here: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1171438/Draft_IA_-_Private_Parking_Code_of_Practice_.pdf

5. Paragraphs 4.31 and 5.19 reveal that the parking industry has informed the DLUHC that the true minor cost of what the parking industry likes to call debt recovery or 'enforcement' (pre-action) stage totals a mere £8.42 per recovery case.

6. With that sum in mind, it is clear that the extant claim has been enhanced by an excessive amount, disingenuously added as an extra 'fee'. This is believed to be routinely retained by the litigating legal team and has been claimed in addition to the intended 'legal representatives fees' cap set within the small claims track rules. This conduct has been examined and found - including in a notably detailed judgment by Her Honour Judge Jackson, now a specialist Civil High Court Judge on the Leeds/Bradford circuit - to constitute 'double recovery' and the Defendant takes that position.

7. The new draft IA now demonstrates that the unnecessarily intimidating stage of pre-action letter-chains actually costs 'eight times less' (says the DLUHC analysis) than the price-fixed £70 per PCN routinely added. This has caused consumer harm in the form of hundreds of thousands of inflated CCJs each year that District Judges have been powerless to prevent. This abusively enhanced 'industry standard' Debt Fee was enabled only by virtue of the self- serving Codes of Practice of the rival parking Trade Bodies, influenced by a Board of parking operators and debt firms who stood to gain from it.

Thank you the amount claimed is 125 pounds , 35 pound court fee and 50 pound solicitor cost. Do i need to change any of the numbers?





This is the final defense:

1. 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.

2. The Defendant tried multiple methods to pay for their parking. The sole machine on site was not working and displayed the error message “no payment method available, please use another kiosk”. The Defendant then called twice to pay the parking fee but ParkingEye did not answer. The Defendant has photographic, timestamped evidence for both of these instances. The Defendant submitted an appeal with this evidence on 14/03/2024 once they received a £60 Parking Charge Notice (PCN) via letter. The Defendant did not hear back from Parkingeye until 10/05/24 via letter, stating that the Defendants  initial appeal was declined and the Defendant could not appeal again. This is a breach of the Defendants right to appeal to POPLA within 28 days of their initial claim being rejected, since they were never told that their initial appeal was rejected. This contradicts the claimants statement “The Defendant had the opportunity to appeal to POPLA” stated in their POC.

3. The Claimant will concede that no financial loss has arisen and that in order to impose an inflated parking charge, as well as proving a term was breached, there must be:

(i). a strong 'legitimate interest' extending beyond mere compensation for loss, and

(Ii). 'adequate notice' of the 'penalty clause' charge which, in the case of a car park, requires prominent signs and lines.

5. The Defendant denies (i) or (ii) have been met. The charge imposed, in all the circumstances is a penalty, not saved by ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC67 ('the Beavis case'), which is fully distinguished.

6. In support of the defendant’s contention that the sum sought is unconscionably exaggerated and thus unrecoverable, attention is drawn to paras 98, 100, 193, 198 of ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC67 ('the Beavis case'). Also ParkingEye Ltd v Somerfield Stores Ltd ChD [2011] EWHC 4023(QB) where the parking charge was £75, discounted to £37.50 for prompt payment. Whilst £75 was reasonable, HHJ Hegarty (decision later ratified by the CoA) held in paras 419-428 that unspecified 'admin costs' inflating a parking charge to £135 was not a true reflection of the cost of a template letter and 'would appear to be penal.

7. This claim is unfair and inflated and the defendant has seen no evidence that any 'parking charge' or additional imaginary sum is due in debt or damages. This Claimant now routinely pursues an unconscionable fixed sum added per PCN, despite knowing that the will of Parliament is to ban it. In a new tactic only seen from this Claimant in Summer 2023, the sum claimed under purported 'contract' has been suddenly and disproportionately exaggerated by £25. The defendant believes that sum was unlikely to have been part of the alleged contract on the signs. The defendant takes the point that enhancing their claim with a disproportionate and impermissible sum, is double recovery (given they are also claiming 'legal fees') and is reason enough to disallow the claim. The signage could not have formed a contract for a £125 parking charge, as this exceeds the maximum amount allowed by trade bodies, which is capped at £100. The defendant has no knowledge of any contract to pay £100, let alone the inflated sum of £125 and the defendant puts the Claimant to strict proof of all their allegations.

8. Section 71 CRA creates a statutory duty upon Courts to consider the test of fairness whether a party raises it or not.

9. The CRA introduced new requirements for 'prominence' of both terms and 'consumer notices'. In a parking context, this includes a test of fairness and clarity of 'signs & lines' and all communications (written or otherwise). Signs must be prominent (lit in hours of darkness/dusk and adequately positioned where terms are bound to be seen) and all terms must be unambiguous and contractual obligations clear.

10.  The Defendant avers that the CRA has been breached due to unfair/unclear terms and notices, pursuant to s62 and paying regard to examples 6, 10, 14 & 18 of Schedule 2 and the duties of fair/open dealing and good faith (NB: this does not necessarily mean there has to be a finding of bad faith).

Coupon-mad

That's good except I see no paragraph 4!

1505grandad

Just checking:-

"2. The Defendant tried multiple methods to pay for their parking."

Does that mean that the following should be stated?:-

"3. The Claimant will concede that no financial loss has arisen .................."

ChirpyChicken

If you have any errors submitting you have to get rid of things like ( 
.
The defence may be to long for mcol..not 100% sure

Coupon-mad

Yep, needs changing to:

3. The Claimant will concede that no financial loss has arisen over and above the fee that their system made it impossible to pay, and that...

Coupon-mad

I mean you have no para 4.

sweetdaisynova

Coupon-mad said:

I mean you have no para 4.

Thank you i’ve submitted the defense now! What will the next steps be? Im assuming it’ll be slightly different than the 12 steps on the newbie thread since i submitted by defense via mcol?

thanks again for all the help!

Gr1pr

Its the same 12 steps , in your case everything after the defendant has emailed the defence and received the auto response email 

So in your case,  everything after the defence is logged on MCOL    ( which you did on the portal,  instead of the CNBC staff doing it   )