Parking eye ticket

parkingticketbusters

Hi folks,

I have been given a letter to a mediated court hearing for £232 for a parking ticket. I was parked at my gym where I have been a member for 5 years. I enter my car registration details each day and did so on the alleged day too. I have evidence that I have been a gym member for 5 years and that on the alleged day and time I was at the gym. Not sure why I got a ticket and foolishly I ignored all previous mails from parking eye and DCB their solicitors. My defence will be that I am a gym member and was at the gym on the alleged date and I entered car details as per normal.

Do I have a strong case? and what else could I do to further strengthen my case.

I would appreciate any help

Gr1pr

You must have received a court claim then, and submitted a defence, and completed the N180 DQ document too , so is that the case. ?

If yes, and if the mediation service have given you a mediation appointment, study the advice in the defence template thread in announcements near the top of the forum, by following the 8 steps

Coupon-mad

"foolishly I ignored all previous mails from parking eye and DCB"

That isn't foolish!

Perfectly valid and sensible as long as the court claim was defended. We assume you did that already because you say you now have:

"a letter to a mediated court hearing"

If you just mean you are at Mediation stage, then you know this is nothing if you've read the 8 steps in the Template Defence thread. Mediation is NOT a hearing. Offer no money.

Read it now. No link provided or needed.

Then come back in a few months to triumphantly show us your NoD, as we are counting them.on Umkomaas' thread.

You will never have to attend a hearing.

You will pay nothing.

parkingticketbusters

It was a claim form from Civil National Business Centre I received requesting for £1.114 for parking violations between a from and to date period with no logical breakdown. The claim form is in the name of my wife as I was using her car. She received no letter before court and has acknowledged the claim but has not yet filed a defence. The company is parking eye and DCB

Defence will be

1. She was not the driver, her husband was
2. no letter before the court was ever received
3. My husband was visiting the gym and has held a gym membership for 5 years and has a letter from the gym as evidence
4. He has a letter from the gym to prove he was at the gym at the ticket date and time
5. witness statement from husband that he entered the car details as per normal and it may have been a technical glitch or communication error.
6. Evidence that husband visits gym 6 days a week and has been for 5 years so compliancy to the process can be proved as never before have I received a parking ticket at that location.

Does my defence sound strong or do I need to change it?

Gr1pr

Definitely needs changing

YOU haven't received anything. !

If she is named on the claim form, then she is the defendant, nothing to do with you, its NOT your defence, its HER defence, regardless of who was driving, only SHE can defend it, capiche. ?

Post a redacted picture of the claim form below after hiding certain details, see the example below

parkingticketbusters

parking ticket.jpg

what should be the defence considering I was the driver using my wife's car and she has been issued the ticket

Coupon-mad

She simply uses the prewritten defence already in the DCB Legal ParkingEye GN defence Group thread.

No link. Search and find it. 🙂

Then follow the 8 steps in the Template Defence thread.

parkingticketbusters

I have compiled my defence using ad edited the template. Can you please advise if this is satisfactory or does it need to be changed:

DEFENCE

1. The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to the relief claimed, or any amount at all.

2. The Defendant was the registered keeper of the vehicle at the material time but was not the driver on the date of the alleged parking event. The Defendant was not present at the location and has no first-hand knowledge of the alleged parking event. Given the substantial passage of time, approximately two years, the Defendant no longer retains the original parking correspondence and has limited knowledge of events beyond the matters set out below.

3. The vehicle was being driven by the Defendant's husband. He was a genuine and regular member of the gym served by the car park and was legitimately attending the gym on the material date. Evidence is available confirming both his gym membership and his attendance at the gym on that specific date.

4. The driver recalls entering the vehicle registration details into the parking registration system provided at the gym. The Defendant understands that the allegation concerns a failure to correctly register the vehicle details. In circumstances where the driver recalls using the registration system, any apparent failure to correctly record the vehicle may have resulted from an inadvertent keying error or a failure in the registration process. The Defendant does not assert that the terminal was defective because, given the passage of time, she cannot know the cause of the apparent failure.

5. The Defendant therefore puts the Claimant to strict proof of the alleged breach, including its contemporaneous records of the vehicle registration system relevant to the material date and the basis upon which it says that a valid parking contract was breached.

6. Further and importantly, the Defendant was not the driver. The Claimant is therefore put to strict proof of its legal entitlement to pursue the Defendant in her capacity as registered keeper, including strict proof of compliance with all applicable requirements of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 ("POFA").

Schedule 4 POFA provides the statutory mechanism by which, subject to the specified conditions, a creditor can potentially recover unpaid parking charges from a keeper.

7. In the absence of evidence demonstrating compliance with the requirements necessary to establish keeper liability under POFA, the Defendant denies that liability can simply be transferred from the unidentified liability of the driver to the Defendant merely because she was the vehicle's registered keeper.

8. The Claimant's case must also properly set out the basis upon which the claim is brought. CPR Part 16 requires particulars of claim to contain a concise statement of the facts on which the Claimant relies. The Defendant has been prejudiced by the substantial passage of time and the limited information available concerning an event of which she had no first-hand knowledge.

9. The existence of a valid parking contract and any breach thereof is denied unless proved. The Claimant is put to strict proof of the contractual terms displayed at the material time, including the wording, positioning, prominence and visibility of the signage and the parking charge said to arise from any failure to register a vehicle.

10. The Defendant further puts the Claimant to strict proof that it had sufficient authority from the relevant landowner at the material time to operate at the location and to enter into parking contracts and pursue parking charges through litigation in its own name.

11. The Defendant distinguishes the circumstances of this case from ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67. In that case, the Supreme Court considered an £85 charge where the motorist had parked at Riverside Retail Park and overstayed a clearly specified two-hour parking limit by almost an hour.

12. The circumstances alleged here are materially different. The vehicle was not being used by somebody with no connection to the premises. The driver was a bona fide gym member, was attending the gym for its intended purpose and has evidence demonstrating his attendance on the material date. Further, the driver recalls attempting to comply with the vehicle registration requirement by entering the vehicle details into the system provided.

13. Insofar as the Claimant seeks a sum exceeding the original parking charge, the Defendant disputes the recoverability of any additional amount that is not properly recoverable under the applicable contractual or statutory framework and requires the Claimant to identify and prove the legal basis for every additional sum claimed.

14. In particular, where keeper liability is relied upon, the Defendant relies upon paragraph 4(5) of Schedule 4 POFA, which provides that the maximum sum recoverable from the keeper by virtue of that paragraph is the amount specified in the Notice to Keeper, subject to the statutory wording.

15. The Defendant asks the Court to have regard to the fact that she was neither driving nor present and that the actual driver was a legitimate customer of the premises who recalls attempting to comply with the vehicle-registration procedure. The Claimant is accordingly required to prove both the underlying contractual breach and the separate statutory basis upon which the Defendant personally is said to be liable.

16. Should the Claimant fail to establish a reasonable legal basis for pursuing the Defendant, the Defendant respectfully invites the Court to dismiss the claim. The Court has case-management powers under CPR Part 3, including the power under CPR 3.4 to strike out a statement of case in the circumstances specified by that rule.

17. The Defendant respectfully requests her allowable costs. Should the Court find that the Claimant has behaved unreasonably in pursuing the litigation, the Defendant will also invite the Court to consider the costs provisions applicable to unreasonable behaviour on the small claims track under CPR 27.14. The small-claims regime restricts recoverable costs but CPR 27.14 provides the relevant small-claims costs framework.

Coupon-mad

No. use the one I said.

Jame4ters

The claim form refers to “various locations” over a range of dates across a c7 months period. They also state “various reasons”

Your defence talks about 1 specific location which isn’t correct. You should only defend what they are claiming so you need to adapt your defence accordingly and use the one at the top of the first page of this forum

parkingticketbusters

Thanks I am having difficulty finding the exact one you mentioned

is the template the one below?

1. The Claimant’s sparse case lacks specificity and does not comply with CPR 16.4, 16PD3 or 16PD7, failing to 'state all facts necessary for the purpose of formulating a complete cause of action'. Further, the Claimant has improperly added a false 'fee' or damages to the original Parking Charge (PC). This sum is not legally recoverable and constitutes an attempt at double recovery, which is unreasonable conduct under CPR 27.14(2)(g). The binding Supreme Court judgment in ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67 held that an £85 parking charge more than covered all the 'costs of enforcement' which HHJ Moloney had listed as the pre-action work of a DVLA look-up and a simple automated letter chain, including a LBC. The same heads of cost cannot lawfully be counted twice and interest should also be disallowed. Exaggerated claims for impermissible sums are good reason for judges to intervene and the court is invited to strike out the claim using its powers under CPR 3.4.

2. The allegation(s) are vague and liability is denied for the sum claimed, or at all. The delay in bringing proceedings lies with the Claimant, making retrieving material evidence difficult, which is highly prejudicial. The Defendant has little knowledge of events, save as set out below and to admit that they were the registered keeper.

^^ADD 'and driver' if admitting that.

if you were not driving and believe the NTK was non-POFA, add that fact.

Change 'registered keeper' to hirer or lessee if it's a company or lease/fleet car (you are not the rk in that case).





Except in cases with no breach specified (see link in post 1 above) paragraph 3 is yours to write and the finished defence is your own work.

3.  EITHER:

IF THE POC FAIL TO STATE THE BREACH (e.g. Civil Enforcement Ltd, Gladstones & Moorside cases currently all fail to specify an allegation) BRIEFLY REFER TO CEL v CHAN & CPMS v AKANDE. THE LINK TO SOME SUGGESTED WORDING IS ALREADY IN THE POST ABOVE. 

OR

If they DO state the breach in the POC (in-house ParkingEye claims, also BW Legal and most DCB Legal cases except for ParkingEye or CP Plus) then you must respond to the allegation.

Add BRIEF details as your para 3, e.g.

- if you didn't get any letters or it was years ago & you can't recall if you were driving, say that. ONLY IF TRUE


- you appealed and they refused it?


- the machines or app weren't working?

- was it a double dip ANPR error?

- or a keying error, were you staff/lived there with a right to park?

- saw no signs because they were sparsely placed or it was dark?

- was the driver disabled, elderly or pregnant and needed more time?

(BE CONCISE, OR YOUR DEFENCE WON'T FIT IN THE MCOL DEFENCE BOX - SO TEST IT, CHECK AND REDUCE YOUR LINE-COUNT!

IF YOU NEED TO, YOU CAN REMOVE PARA 10. NOT A PROBLEM AND ULTIMATELY, IT'S YOUR DECISION HOW TO DEFEND).

4. It is neither admitted nor denied that a term was breached but to form a contract, there must be an offer, acceptance, and valuable consideration (absent in this case). The Consumer Rights Act 2015 (s71) mandates a 'test of fairness' duty on Courts and sets a high bar for prominence of terms and 'consumer notices'. Paying regard to Sch2 (examples 6, 10, 14 & 18), also s62 and the duties of fair, open dealing/good faith, the Defendant notes that this Claimant reportedly uses unclear (unfair) terms/notices. On the limited information given, this case looks no different. The Claimant is put to strict proof with contemporaneous photographs.

5. DVLA keeper data is only supplied on the basis of prior written landowner authority. The Claimant (an agent) is put to strict proof of their standing to sue and the terms, scope and dates of the landowner agreement, including the contract, updates, schedules and a map of the site boundary set by the landowner (not an unverified Google Maps aerial view).

6. To impose a PC, as well as a breach, there must be: (i) a strong 'legitimate interest' extending beyond compensation for loss, and (ii) 'adequate notice' (prominence) of the PC and any relevant obligation(s). None of which have been demonstrated. This PC is a penalty arising as a result of a 'concealed pitfall or trap', poor signs and covert surveillance, thus it is fully distinguished from Beavis.

7. Attention is drawn to:

(i) paras 98, 100, 193, 198 of Beavis (an £85 PC covered all costs and generated a huge profit shared with the landowner); the court should also read paragraph 3.4 of the original judgment by HHJ Moloney in Beavis, confirming what that authority means by 'costs of the operation', and

(ii) the binding judgment in ParkingEye v Somerfield Stores ChD [2011] EWHC 4023(QB) which remains unaffected by Beavis and stands as the only parking case law that references costs abuse. HHJ Hegarty held in paras 419-428 (his judgment later ratified by the CoA) that 'costs' inflating a £75 PC (already increased from £37.50) to £135 were disproportionate to the very minor cost of a letter-chain and 'would appear to be penal'. The court should note that HHJ Moloney referenced this case in Beavis.

8. The Parking (Code of Practice) Act will curb rogue conduct by operators and debt recovery agents (DRAs). The Government launched a Public Consultation likely to herald a ban on double recovery 'fees', which the relevant 2022 Minister called ‘extorting money from motorists’. Both the previous and present Governments found that the high profits may be indicative of firms having too much control 'indicating that there is a market failure'.

9. Pursuant to Sch4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 ('POFA') the claim exceeds the maximum sum and is unrecoverable: see Explanatory Note 221: 'The creditor may not make a claim against the keeper ... for more than the amount of the unpaid parking related charges as they stood when the notice to the driver was issued (para 4(5))'. There is no keeper liability for added false fees and the POFA specifically states that 'double recovery' is not allowed if a creditor uses any other remedy.

10. The Defendant seeks fixed costs (CPR 27.14) and a finding of unreasonable conduct and further costs (CPR 46.5). Parking cases now make up a third of all small claims which has overburdened HMCTS, causing the most CCJs of all sectors yet almost invariably discontinuing defended cases before hearings, which indicates a deliberate business model of systemic abuse and makes Claimants liable for costs (r.38.6(1)). Whilst this does not 'normally' apply to the small claims track (r.38.6(3)) the White Book has this annotation: 'Note that the normal rule as to costs does not apply if a claimant in a case allocated to the small claims track serves a notice of discontinuance although it might be contended that costs should be awarded if a party has behaved unreasonably (r.27.14(2)(dg))'.