ParkingEye Email Bounce Back When Sending N180 DQ Form

Drive_110011

Hi there, I am due to send in my witness statement, but just wanted to see if I could get any feedback please?

Where there are court cases used as evidence, should I add the transcripts in their entirety as exhibits or is it possible just to URL link to them?

Witness Statement:

IN THE COUNTY COURT AT [PLACE]

Claim No. [Redacted]

PARKINGEYE LIMITED (CLAIMANT)

-and-

[Redacted] (DEFENDANT)

Witness Statement of Defendant

Introduction

1.1 I, XXXXXX XXXXXX, of XXX XXX XXXXXXXXX, am the Defendant in this matter and the registered keeper of motor vehicle registration number XXX XXXXX.

1.2 The facts set out in this Witness Statement are true to the best of my knowledge and belief and are based upon my own personal knowledge and understanding.

Background

2.1 On [Date of Alleged Parking Charge], I took a group of [insert community group] to the [insert venue] (next to [name of other venue] of where the alleged parking charge took place) for an [event]. Having been in correspondence with the other team prior, they’d sent parking details for the venue (which have been attached as Exhibit 1).

2.2 It is important to note that the [name of venue where alleged parking charge happened] car park (where the alleged parking charge took place) and the [name of venue used] share an entrance/exit.

2.3 The Claimant mentions that several parking charges were sent to my address, which were not received. The first notice that I received was the Letter Before Claim (although not on the date that the Claimant mentioned, but about 6 weeks later at the beginning of [date]). When this was received, in the time taken to communicate with the original opposing team and advised to speak to the landowner, the Claim Form was received and thus began this process.

Defence

3.1 Exhibit 2 is a screenshot of the car parking area and the redline shows the journey in which I made around the car park. Using information provided in Exhibit 1 and the Claimant’s own witness statement (page XX), it is clear of what area of car park the Claimant can manage and which it can’t. 

3.2 The journey around the car park went across what I believe is the ANPR camera that captured the car on entrance and exit (see Exhibit 3), although where I parked for the duration I don’t believe is covered by the Claimant as I have mentioned before.

3.3 ANPR systems are known to be prone to this error whereby it can capture vehicles that aren’t using the specified land.

3.4 The British Parking Association’s Code of Practice requires operators to carry out manual checks to prevent such errors.

3.5 The Claimant has produced no evidence that any such manual checks were undertaken.

3.6 As a result of this failure, the Claimant obtained my personal data from the DVLA without reasonable cause.

3.7 The Claimant has therefore processed and shared my personal data unlawfully and has relied upon inaccurate data in bringing this claim.

No Evidence of a Lawful Contract

4.1 I deny that any lawful or enforceable contract was formed with the driver.

4.2 The Claimant has failed to demonstrate that the signage at the location was sufficiently prominent, legible from a moving vehicle, or capable of forming contractual terms. The Claimant’s own signage layout plan (page 19 of their witness statement) shows no signage around the area used.

4.3 In Vine v London Borough of Waltham Forest [2000] EWCA Civ 106 (Exhibit 4), the Court of Appeal confirmed that a driver cannot be bound by terms that were not adequately brought to their attention

Consumer Rights Act 2015

5.1 Pursuant to section 71 of the Consumer Rights Act 2015, the Court has a mandatory duty to assess the fairness and transparency of consumer terms and notices.

5.2 Given the lack of clarity, prominence, and evidence of fair and open dealing, any terms relied upon by the Claimant is unfair within the meaning of sections 62 and Schedule 2 of the Act and tis therefore unenforceable.

Landowner Authority and Standing

6.1 DVLA Keeper Data is supplied only on the basis of prior written landowner authority. The Claimant is put to strict proof of its standing to bring this claim.

6.2 The Claimant is required to produce a contemporaneous, unreacted contract with the landowner showing authority to issue parking charges, to litigate in its own name, together with the site boundary and dates of authority.

Unlawful Added Costs - Abuse of Process

7.1 The Claimant seeks to recover additional costs described as “Legal Representative’s Costs”.

7.2 On the Small Claims Track, such costs are recoverable only to the extent expressly permitted by CPR 27.14.

7.3 The Supreme Court in ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67 (Exhibit 5) and the High Court in ParkingEye Ltd v Somerfield Stores Ltd [2011] EWHC 4023 (QB) (Exhibit 6) confirmed that administrative, collection, or legal costs beyond the parking charge are not recoverable.

Unlawful Inflation of the Claimed Sum

8.1 The Claim Form pleads an “amount claimed” of £130 together with a £35 court fee and £50 legal representative’s costs, giving a total of £215.

8.2 The signage at [location of alleged parking charge] specifies a maximum parking charge of £100. No signage offers or permits any higher charge.

8.3 Schedule 4 paragraph 4(5) of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 limits keeper liability to the amount of the unpaid parking charge only. Accordingly, the additional £30 claimed above £100 is statutorily unrecoverable.

8.4 CPR 27.14 does not permit the recovery of invented sums described as “principle balance” or similar. The additional £30 is neither a court fee nor a recoverable fixed cost.

8.5 In Excel Parking Services Ltd v Wilkinson (G4QZ465V) (Exhibit 7), the court held that the addition of an arbitrary sum to a £100 parking charge constituted an abuse of process. The present claim is factually indistinguishable. 

8.6 The Claimant’s attempt to recover £130 as a purported parking charge is unlawful, non-compliant with statute, and constitutes an abuse of the court’s process. The inflated element must be struck out.

Inconsistencies within the Claimant’s Defence

9.1 Page XX of the Claimant’s witness statement show a table of Whitelist items. The start Date/Time shows vehicles registering with the college on [day before alleged offence date] at various times throughout the day (the day before the alleged parking charge took place). The end date is written for all vehicles as [date of alleged contravention] 23:59:59. I believe this document is shown to highlight cars that were registered to park in the college car park that from [date before] to [date of alleged offence]. The Input Date/Time however, is not the same time as the Start Date/Time but exactly 24 hours later (to the second). I believe this is an attempt to manipulate the data as these cars would’ve had to have been registered on their arrival time and not exactly 24 hours afterwards. The college facility and welcome area would’ve been closed on the [alleged date] and as such would’ve been unable to have people enter vehicle data on this day.

Conclusion

10.1 The claim is both vague and not factual, unsupported by evidence, inflated by unlawful additional sums, and discloses no proper cause of action. I respectfully invite the Court to dismiss the claim in it’s entirety.

Statement of Truth

11.1 I believe that the facts stated in this witness statement are true. I understand that proceedings for contempt of court may be brought against anyone who makes, or causes to be made, a false statement in a document verified by a statement of truth without an honest belief in its truth. 

Signed

Name

Date

Any help would be greatly appreciated. Thank you so much.

Coupon-mad

Is this about the same claim as your other two threads?

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6633508/parkingeye-reply-to-defence-mentioning-template-commonly-found-on-online-forums

And

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6629085/parkingeye-email-bounce-back-when-sending-n180-dq-form

Please hit 'REPORT' on your post and ask the Forum team to merge with the above.

Please don't start isolated new threads as we then have no context. All 3 need merging. No new threads.

Then please reply again telling us about your hearing date & deadlines. We'll help!

MSE_ForumTeam5

Threads merged as suggested

Coupon-mad

The above is a good WS. Only you cannot challenge the £50 like this:

7.1 The Claimant seeks to recover additional costs described as “Legal Representative’s Costs”.

No.

ONLY challenge the added £30 and point out that it is not on the signs so cannot be a contractual cost, nor is it a valid debt recovery fee, in fact it is an egregious attempt at double recovery of the same heads of cost (for a simple, automated letter-chain) that the Supreme Court found in ParkingEye v Beavis, were covered in full by the £85 PCN itself.

1505grandad

Is the following a correct para heading?:-

"Inconsistencies within the Claimant’s Defence"

Coupon-mad

No. Well spotted again!