ParkingEye claim form using DCB Legal - fine for waiting at a car park

Thorndorise

Car1980 said:

Woefully insufficient signage and demarcation. You can't nestle a private car park in the centre of a massive council one and expect people to know. There's a sign on the right, but all you can actually see is a massive P for parking sign. And it looks like it's for the car park enclosure behind, so they've added an afterthought arrow.

Why is 'PRIVATE CAR PARK' not marked on the road? Why aren't there two signposts either side of the actual road?

Did this happen at night? Zero chance of even seeing that if so.

Agreed, this is A greed(y) opportunity from this stretch of land between council car parks, designed with the sole intention of catching you out. Awful - I note from the other side ('24 pic) on the road that signage is equally poor, especially if you're pulling into that road from either side - almost impossible to spot the difference in car parks.

Given that you'd dropped folk at Tenpin and this is 'their' controlled car park for patrons, I would be going back to them to get it cancelled ASAP! Make a stink

Car1980

Too late for cancellation as it's a live claim.

Thorndorise

Car1980 said:

Too late for cancellation as it's a live claim.

Sorry, good point, damn...

mistake140

Coupon-mad said:

No worries. In para 3 of your defence, include the fact they know you weren't driving, never responded to the appeal 5 years ago and they didn't use the POFA so can't hold a registered keeper liable anyway.

Sorry, I didn't catch how it should be laid out, as my paragraph 3 is regarding Chan and Akande from the template, as below. What appeal 5 years ago do I reference and POFA?


3. Two recent persuasive appeal judgments in Civil Enforcement Limited v Chan (Ref. E7GM9W44) and Car Park Management Service Ltd v Akande (Ref. K0DP5J30) would indicate the POC fails to comply with Civil Procedure Rule 16.4(1)(e) and Practice Direction Part 16.7.5. On the 15th August 2023, in the Chan case, HHJ Murch held: 'the particulars of the claim as filed and served did not set out the conduct which amounted to the breach in reliance upon which the claimant would be able to bring a claim for breach of contract'. The same is true in this case and the Defendant trusts that the Court should strike out the extant claim, using its powers pursuant to CPR 3.4. 

Coupon-mad

Yep and ignore what I said that 'they can't hold you liable' etc. For some reason I thought your case was v Smart Parking from 5 years ago but it's not! I was replying to several cases tonight, that's my excuse. I've deleted that post.

Please change your thread title to

ParkingEye claim form using DCB Legal