Parking Eye Claim Form

Thanks for all the replies, it was compliant with the POFA, sent within the time period.

Heres what the NTK states:
The signage, which is clearly displayed at the entrance to and throughout the car park, states that this is private land and that the car park is managed by ParkingEye Ltd. In addition the signage states that, as a paid parking car park, a Parking Charge is applicable if the motorist fails to make the appropriate tariff payment. The signage also contains further terms and conditions associated with this car park by which those who park in the car park agree to be bound.

By either not purchasing the appropriate parking time or by remaining at the car park for longer than permitted, in accordance with the terms and conditions set out in the signage, the Parking Charge is now payable to ParkingEye Ltd (as the Creditor).

PROTECTION OF FREEDOMS ACT
You are notified under paragraph 9(2)(b) of schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 that the driver of the motor vehicle is required to pay this parking charge in full. As we do not know the driver's name or current postal address, if you were not the driver at the time, you should tell us the name and current postal address of the driver and pass this notice to them.

You are warned that if, after 29 days from the date given (which is presumed to be the second working day after the Date Issued), the parking charge has not been paid in full and we do not know both the name and current address of the driver, we have the right to recover any unpaid part of the parking charge from you. This warning is given to you under Paragraph 9(2)(f) of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 and is subject to our complying with the applicable conditions under Schedule 4 of that Act.

Should you provide an incorrect address for service, we will pursue you for any Parking Charge amount that remains unpaid.

Should you identify someone, who denies they were the driver, we will pursue you for any Parking Charge amount that remains unpaid.

So I should now defend as the driver?

I, XXX, am the defendant in this matter and it is admitted that I was the driver of the vehicle on the day of this event. I do not admit any part of this claim and put the Claimant to strict proof of every element of the claim for each of the following reasons:

1. This Claimant has not complied with pre-court protocol (as outlined in the new Pre Action Protocol for Debt Claims, 1 October 2017). As an example as to why this prevents a full defence being filed at this time, a parking charge can be for trespass, breach of contract or a contractual charge. All these are treated differently in law and require a different defence. The wording of any contract will naturally be a key element in this matter, and a copy of the alleged contract has never been provided to the Defendant.
a) There was no compliant ‘Letter before County Court Claim’, under the Practice Direction.
b) This is a speculative serial litigant, issuing a large number of identical 'draft particulars'.
i. HM Courts Service have identified over 1000 similar sparse claims. I believe the term for such behaviour is ‘roboclaims’ and as such is against the public interest. Practice Direction 3A which references Civil Procedure Rule 3.4 illustrates this point;
“ 1.4 The following are examples of cases where the court may conclude that particulars of claim (whether contained in a claim form or filed separately) fall within rule 3.4(2)(a):
i. those which set out no facts indicating what the claim is about, for example ‘Money owed £5000’,
ii. those which are incoherent and make no sense,
iii. those which contain a coherent set of facts but those facts, even if true, do not disclose any legally recognisable claim against the defendant ”
c) The Schedule of information is sparse of detailed information.
d) The Claim Form Particulars do not meet the requirements of Practice Direction 16 7.5, it’s extremely sparse and divulged no cause of action nor sufficient detail, not clear and concise as is required by CPR 16.4 1(a). The Defendant has no idea what the claim is about, nothing which specifies how the terms were breached - why the charge arose, what the alleged contract was; nothing that could be considered a fair exchange of information. The Claim Form Particulars did not contain any evidence of contravention or photographs. These documents, and the ‘Letter before County Court Claim’ should have been produced, pursuant to paragraph 6 of the Practice Direction – Pre Action Conduct. This constitutes a deliberate attempt to thwart any efforts to defend the claim or to “take stock”, pursuant to paragraph 12 of the Practice Direction. Again, this totally contradicts the guidance outlined in the new Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims (2017), the aims of which are:
i. ‘early engagement and communication between the parties, including early exchange of sufficient information about the matter to help clarify whether there are any issues in dispute
ii. enable the parties to resolve the matter without the need to start court proceedings, including agreeing a reasonable repayment plan or considering using an Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) procedure
iii. encourage the parties to act in a reasonable and proportionate manner in all dealings with one another (for example, avoiding running up costs which do not bear a reasonable relationship to the sums in issue) and
iv. support the efficient management of proceedings that cannot be avoided.’
e) The Defence therefore asks the Court to strike out the claim as disclosing no cause of action and having no reasonable prospect of success as currently drafted.
f) Alternatively, the Defendant asks that the Claimant is required to file Particulars which comply with Practice Directions and include at least the following information;
i. Whether the matter is being brought for trespass, breach of contract or a contractual charge, and an explanation as to the exact nature of the charge
ii. A copy of any contract it is alleged was in place (e.g. copies of signage)
iii. How any contract was concluded (if by performance, then copies of signage maps in place at the time)
iv. Whether keeper liability is being claimed, and if so copies of any Notice to Driver / Notice to Keeper
v. Whether the Claimant is acting as Agent or Principal, together with a list of documents they will rely on in this matter
vi. If charges over and above the initial charge are being claimed, the basis on which this is being claimed
vii. If Interest charges are being claimed, the basis on which this is being claimed.
g) Once these Particulars have been filed, the Defendant asks for reasonable time to file another defence.

2. In the absence of any proof of adequate signage that contractually bound the Defendant then there can have been no contract and the Claimant has no case.
a) The Claimant is put to strict proof that at the time of the alleged event they had both advertisement consent and the permission from the site owner to display the signs.
b) In the absence of strict proof I submit that the Claimant was committing an offence by displaying their signs and therefore no contract could have been entered into between the Defendant and the Claimant.
c) The Defendant relies upon ParkingEye Ltd v Barry Beavis (2015) UKSC 67 insofar as the Court were willing to impose a penalty in the context of a site of commercial value and where the signage regarding the penalties imposed for any breach of parking terms were clear - both upon entry to the site and throughout.
i. The Defendant avers that the parking signage in this matter was, without prejudice to his/her primary defence above, woefully inadequate.
ii. At the time of the material events the signage was deficient in number, distribution, wording and lighting to reasonably convey a contractual obligation;
iii. The signage did not comply with the requirements of the Code of Practice of the British Parking Association ("BPA") Accredited Operators Scheme, an organisation to which the Claimant was a signatory;
iv. the sum pursued exceeds £100.
v. there is / was no compliant landowner contract.
vi. The signage contained particularly onerous terms not sufficiently drawn to the attention of the visitor as set out in the leading judgment of Denning MR in J Spurling v Bradshaw [1956] EWCA Civ 3
vii. The signage were unclear and ambiguous. It was the Defendant’s honest belief that this was a free car park, shared between two buildings, the bingo (xxx location) and the gym (xxx location). At the car park entrance signs states free but apparently only for the bingo members. If it's free for one side, why wasn't the other clearly and unambiguously separated/signed or delineated differently and prominently, also in line with Lord Denning's ''red hand rule''.
viii. It is believed the signage and any terms were not transparent or legible; this is an unfair contract, not agreed by the Defendant and contrary to the Consumer Rights Act 2015 in requiring a huge inflated sum as 'compensation' from by an authorised party using the premises as intended.
ix. No promise was made by the Defendant that could constitute consideration because there was no offer known nor accepted. No consideration flowed from the Claimant.

3. The Beavis case confirmed the fact that, if it is a matter of trespass (not breach of any contract), a parking firm has no standing as a non-landowner to pursue even nominal damages.

4. The charge is an unenforceable penalty based upon a lack of commercial justification. The Beavis case confirmed that the penalty rule is certainly engaged in any case of a private parking charge and was only disengaged due to the unique circumstances of that case, which do not resemble this claim.

5. The claimant failed to include a copy of their written contract as per Practice Direction 16 7.3(1) and Practice Direction 7C 1.4(3A). No indication is given as to the Claimants contractual authority to operate there as required by the Claimants Trade Association's Code of Practice B1.1 which says;
“If you operate parking management activities on land which is not owned by you, you must supply us with written authority from the land owner sufficient to establish you as the ‘Creditor’ within the meaning of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (where applicable) and in any event to establish you as a person who is able to recover parking charges. There is no prescribed form for such agreement and it need not necessarily be as part of a contract but it must include the express ability for an operator to recover parking charges on the landowner’s behalf or provide sufficient right to occupy the land in question so that charges can be recovered by the operator directly. This applies whether or not you intend to use the keeper liability provisions.”

6. Parking Eye Ltd are not the lawful occupier of the land. I have the reasonable belief that they do not have the authority to issue charges on this land in their own name and that they have no rights to bring action regarding this claim.
a) The Claimant is not the landowner and is merely an agent acting on behalf of the landowner and has failed to demonstrate their legal standing to form a contract.
b) The claimant is not the landowner and suffers no loss whatsoever as a result of a vehicle parking at the location in question
c) The Claimant is put to proof that it has sufficient interest in the land or that there are specific terms in its contract to bring an action on its own behalf. As a third party agent, the Claimant may not pursue any charge

7. The Claimant has at no time provided an explanation how the ‘parking charge’ has been calculated, the conduct that gave rise to it or how the amount has escalated from £100 to £175. This appears to be an added cost with apparently no qualification and an attempt at double recovery, which the POFA Schedule 4 specifically disallows.
a) The Protection of Freedom Act Para 4(5) states that the maximum sum that may be recovered from the keeper is the charge stated on the Notice to Keeper.

8. The Defendant also disputes that the Claimant has incurred £50 solicitor costs.
b) The Defendant has the reasonable belief that the Claimant has not incurred £50 costs to pursue an alleged £100 debt.
c) Not withstanding the Defendant's belief, the costs are in any case not recoverable.
d) The Claimant described the charge of £50.00 "legal representative’s costs" not "contractual costs". CPR 27.14 does not permit these to be recovered in the Small Claims Court.
e) The £50 was also struck out by DJ Sparrow on 19 August 2015 in ParkingEye v Mrs S, claim number B9FC508F.

9. It is submitted that the conduct of the Claimant in pursuing this claim is wholly unreasonable and vexatious. As such, the Defendant is keeping careful note of all wasted time/costs in dealing with this matter and should the case continue to trial (or in the event of the Claimant filing a Notice of Discontinuance) the Defendant will seek further costs, pursuant to Civil Procedure Rule 27.14(2)(g).

10. The Defendant denies the claim in its entirety, voiding any liability to the Claimant for all amounts due to the aforementioned reasons. The Defendant asks that the court gives consideration to exercise its discretion to order the case to be struck out under CPR Rule 3.4, for want of a detailed cause of action and/or for the claim having no realistic prospects of success.

11. If the court is not minded to make such an order, then when Directions are given, the Defendant asks that there is an order for sequential service of witness evidence (rather than exchange) because it is expected that the Claimant will use its witness statement to provide the sort of detail which should have been disclosed much earlier, and the Defendant should have the opportunity to consider it, prior to serving evidence and witness statements in support of this defence.

12. The Defendant invites the court to strike out the claim for the above grounds.

I confirm that the above facts and statements are true to the best of my knowledge and recollection.

Thank for the reply I am really grateful. Let me know how this one is now.

Went back to the car park to take a picture of the sign, never actually realised it said this.
I really don't know what happened on the day and why I didn't pay. Maybe I just saw "Free Parking".
Advice on this please.

Apologies, as it was really my fault for not reading the whole sign.

https://imgur.com/a/3ZC6O