Your browser isn't supported
It looks like you're using an old web browser. To get the most out of the site and to ensure guides display correctly, we suggest upgrading your browser now. Download the latest:

Welcome to the MSE Forums

We're home to a fantastic community of MoneySavers but anyone can post. Please exercise caution & report spam, illegal, offensive or libellous posts/messages: click "report" or email forumteam@.

    • Frank Exchange
    • By Frank Exchange 13th Apr 17, 7:37 PM
    • 17Posts
    • 3Thanks
    Frank Exchange
    Parking Eye contract not with Land Owner
    • #1
    • 13th Apr 17, 7:37 PM
    Parking Eye contract not with Land Owner 13th Apr 17 at 7:37 PM
    Hi All.

    Parking eye are taking me to court and I asked for the copy of contract. I found the freehold land owner is the local council not the hotel company who signed the contract with parking eye.

    There are several leaseholders but still none are the company who signed the contract.

    I assume this means Parking Eye have no claim. Should I tell them now or wait till trial?
Page 2
    • HO87
    • By HO87 18th Apr 17, 12:20 AM
    • 4,192 Posts
    • 7,514 Thanks
    Sorry template defence from pepoo. Sorry have to be a bit cagey as they used postings in pepoo in arbitration hearing
    Originally posted by Frank Exchange
    Firing off this number of questions in this way is not really very user friendly and suggests that you are not reading that widely.

    Without our being able to critique your defence then you are frankly chancing to luck that you have one that is relevant (given things change in this field on a weekly basis). Print-outs do occasionally get produced in court but provided there is nothing inconsistent between what you have set out here and reality then there isn't a problem.

    Parking companies did at one point (probably now 8-10 years ago) try to belittle those who took advice from online fora but judges have long taken the view that people are entitled to take advice from wherever they can get it.

    Good idea re signage needing planning permission but isnt that a seperate offensive by the company unrelated to my alleged contract.
    Originally posted by Frank Exchange
    I think you mean separate offence and whilst that is true it remains highly relevant. ParkingEye are members of the British Parking Association Approved Operator Scheme and its Code of Practice. That Code of Practice says:

    2.4 When there is relevant legislation and related guidance, this will define the overall standard of conduct for all
    AOS members. All AOS members must be aware of their legal obligations and implement the relevant legislation and guidance when operating their businesses.Examples of relevant law and guidance within this sector
    contract law
    tort of trespass
    data protection law
    consumer protection law
    Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (POFA), including
    Schedule 4 (included as Appendix C to the Code)
    DVLA Guidelines for Accredited Trade Associations
    equalities law.
    Of all the parking companies ParklingEye should be well aware of the words of the judge (or one of them) in their case against Barry Beavis (ParkingEye Ltd -v- Beavis (2015) UKSC 67). These were actually the words of the President of the Supreme Court, Lord Neuburger:

    (at para 111 of the judgment)
    And, while the Code of Practice is not a contractual document, it is in practice binding on the operator since its existence and observance is a condition of his ability to obtain details of the registered keeper from the DVLA. In assessing the fairness of a term, it cannot be right to ignore the regulatory framework which determines how and in what circumstances it may be enforced.
    In other words PE must adhere to the law ("relevant legislation when operating their business"). Given that the very basis of their allegedly contractual offer is their signage is it unreasonable to expect the signs to have been placed lawfully?

    "That being said, it remains for PE to bring evidence in support of the facts that surround the case but they will only do so if they are put to proof (asked to produce evidence to support their assertions" That is my thought of how courts work. If I raise an objection and ask for evidence, if the judge over rules it gives grounds for appeal as judge not following correct proceedure. Spot the newbie.
    Originally posted by Frank Exchange
    The idea of putting PE to proof (that is the legal expression) in your defence ahead of any hearing is that they should then produce that evidence at the hearing. If the evidence is not forthcoming then you can quite properly assert that they have failed to prove the particular point.

    I work in operational control/ internal audit. In this field if there is no evidence it didnt happen. Does this not extend to law?
    Originally posted by Frank Exchange
    Not quite and the maxim "absence of evidence does not equate to evidence of absence". Also keep in mind that in a small claims court the burden of proof is the balance of probabilities. ParkingEye must prove their case and it is not for you, necessarily, to disprove it. That said unless their evidence is challenged by - putting them to proof - then they will win on the basis of little more than assertion. It iust therefore important that you challenge every aspect of their case. Just because you weren't present when the car was parked does not mean that you cannot comment on the signage - bear in mind that there requirements as far as that is concerned (both in the Code of Practice and in case law)

    "It would be entirely normal for companies to formulate a set of limits of authority setting out what and how directors and officers may make decisions and what value they may commit the company to/for. Without this the board meetings would be crowded out with requests for permission to buy a carton of teabags for the restroom or toilet paper." Yup and that would need a board resolution to set the limits. It does for my company and it is my job to identify when they have exceeded this.
    Originally posted by Frank Exchange
    Keep in mind the above. A judge is likely to suggest that given the company have operated successfully for many years it is not unreasonable to draw the conclusion that they have a normal set of limits of authority. More importantly, without going into reams of legalese, the fact that a director was not actually authorised by the company to enter into a contract is unlikely to invalidate it. This not a avenue that is likely to be productive.

    Nest time please formulate you questions in one block.
    My very sincere apologies for those hoping to request off-board assistance but I am now so inundated with requests that in order to do justice to those "already in the system" I am no longer accepting PM's and am unlikely to do so for the foreseeable future (August 2016).

    For those seeking more detailed advice and guidance regarding small claims cases arising from private parking issues I recommend that you visit the Private Parking forum on
    • Frank Exchange
    • By Frank Exchange 18th Apr 17, 2:03 PM
    • 17 Posts
    • 3 Thanks
    Frank Exchange
    Ok understood. Sorry for being a newbie. Council have confirmed its their land. Asked for by laws undet freedom of information. Also asked if planning for signage approved.

    A side note pe seemed to be bothered about not signing the court request. Is that important?

    Also is it worth rejecting request for person to be there in person?

    Finally I note in the signage a whole paragraph about usage of ANPR that I am bound to its use as I cross the threshold. Nothing about this before I cross. Is this allowed. If not does that blow away their anpr evidence?
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 19th Apr 17, 7:31 PM
    • 56,085 Posts
    • 69,753 Thanks
    A side note pe seemed to be bothered about not signing the court request. Is that important?

    Also is it worth rejecting request for person to be there in person?
    What do you mean?
    PRIVATE PCN? DON'T PAY BUT DO NOT IGNORE IT TWO Clicks needed for advice:
    Top of the page: Home>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking - read the 'NEWBIES' FAQS thread!
    Advice to ignore is WRONG, unless in Scotland/NI.

Welcome to our new Forum!

Our aim is to save you money quickly and easily. We hope you like it!

Forum Team Contact us

Live Stats

406Posts Today

5,339Users online

Martin's Twitter
  • I've decided my weekend starts here while the sun's glow is still baskable. So I'm signing off. Have a great weeke?

  • No not correct. The big six do, but you can get fixed tariffs guaranteed not to rise and about 25% cheaper. Just tr?

  • Baaaa! Scottish Power has bleated and followed the herd, today announcing it's putting up energy prices by 5.5%. R?

  • Follow Martin