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@.

Search
  • FIRST POST
    • DaveJones74
    • By DaveJones74 18th Oct 17, 1:05 PM
    • 9Posts
    • 3Thanks
    DaveJones74
    ParkingEye County Court Claim
    • #1
    • 18th Oct 17, 1:05 PM
    ParkingEye County Court Claim 18th Oct 17 at 1:05 PM
    Apologies for the vagueness but having read a number of posts and the advice on the newbies thread we!!!8217;re at the point where we have just submitted Acknowledgement of Service.

    Case centres around !!!8216;non-payment!!!8217; at a station car park for two consecutive days where the drivers car was recorded entering and exiting via ANPR cameras for a short amount of time (minutes)

    Day 1 payment was inserted into the machine, but the machine did not work and no ticket was given and no refund was able to be obtained from the machine. With no more change available there was no other option to pay. Photographic evidence was taken of machine. Day two, machine still not working, phone flat, unable to take photographic evidence.

    Defence really centres around two things:-
    1.A fee was paid, so the PCN is invalid

    2a. Initial appeal to ParkingEye was unsuccessful !!!8211; no reason given and no direct response to the circumstances given.

    2b All correspondence has been by post, other than details of how to appeal to POPLA and the POPLA code, which came as an attachment to an email with the unsuccessful ParkingEye appeal information. This attachment was missed, and consequently the time limit for POPLA appeal passed before action could be taken.
    As no postal correspondence was received stating ParkingEye appeal had been unsuccessful, and no POPLA code received by post, vehicle owner assumed that the matter was not being taken any further !!!8211; email simply said appeal had been rejected, but no instruction of what to do next was given (other than in the easily missed attachment), and no further postal demands for payment received.


    2c. Letter Before County Court claim arrived when we were out of the country on holiday and we were unable to respond in the 14 days given

    I know most of the above is witness statement rather than defence, but it does hopefully allow those in the know, and who can hopefully help, to understand why we feel compelled to fight the extortionate £275 being requested by ParkingEye for parking which was either paid for, or unable to be paid for, and in total, over the two days in question, is less than 30 minutes!

    I intended to spend a couple of days searching the forums and preparing a defence, but any help or advice in the meantime would be gratefully received.

    At this stage is it still worth pursuing the land owner or is it too late?

    And finally, thanks in advance for any help!
    Last edited by DaveJones74; 18-10-2017 at 4:05 PM.
Page 1
    • Loadsofchildren123
    • By Loadsofchildren123 18th Oct 17, 2:09 PM
    • 1,996 Posts
    • 3,327 Thanks
    Loadsofchildren123
    • #2
    • 18th Oct 17, 2:09 PM
    • #2
    • 18th Oct 17, 2:09 PM
    Doesn't the fact that it was a station car park mean that byelaws apply and so any action is for the landowner to take within 6 months by way of magistrates court proceedings? I'm experienced in defending claims but don't focus on the byelaws issue so can't confidently advise on this. Do a search on the forum for railway byelaws, there are lots of threads about it.


    If byelaws don't apply, the main defence would be contractual terms (if any) offered and accepted were not capable of performance because the machine was not working (and in any event you did pay). However, were there other machines which were, and the driver just didn't look for them? If there were, this argument probably won't work.


    There may be other defences - inadequate signage, POFA not complied with.


    2a, b and c aren't defences.


    People aren't going to help via PM. You need to post details here. If you are going to tell the truth, then you're not prejudicing yourself in the slightest by putting the facts on here, even if the PPC sees them - they'll see them in the end anyway in your defence/evidence. The point of this forum is that you gain knowledge and help from other threads/post, and subsequent visitors will do the same, including from your thread. The only thing we sometimes say is not to identify the driver and to distinguish between driver and keeper in the language you use.
    • Redx
    • By Redx 18th Oct 17, 2:21 PM
    • 17,818 Posts
    • 22,465 Thanks
    Redx
    • #3
    • 18th Oct 17, 2:21 PM
    • #3
    • 18th Oct 17, 2:21 PM
    as above , remove any hint of who was driving

    use THE DRIVER and THE KEEPER only

    and if its a station car park it is very likely that bylaws apply and only the TOC can take the owner to MAGISTRATES court within 6 months

    the pm issue is against forum rules and no regular would engage in doing that

    I am surprised that PE are involved with a station car park, so better to find out who the landowner is, because if its Network Rail then the byalwas apply and the private contractual point seems to be null and void

    lastlt , edit post #1 and split it into readable paragraphs, so you get more help rather than less
    Newbies !!
    Private Parking ticket? check the 2 sticky threads by coupon-mad and crabman in the Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking Board forum for the latest advice or maybe try pepipoo or C.A.G. or legal beagles forums if you need legal advice as well because this parking forum is not about debt collectors or legal matters per se
    • DaveJones74
    • By DaveJones74 18th Oct 17, 4:10 PM
    • 9 Posts
    • 3 Thanks
    DaveJones74
    • #4
    • 18th Oct 17, 4:10 PM
    • #4
    • 18th Oct 17, 4:10 PM
    Edited as requested, apologies as it was in paragraphs when I typed it in Word and removed the references to PMs. This is all new, and trying to learn on the go!

    Just to be clear, it's a private car park, adjacent to and adjoined to the station in question


    The times in question were 12 minutes between entry and exit on day 1 and 19 minutes on day 2


    Having read up on grace periods in the BPA Code of Practice after reading advice on here, could the two times above simply be regarded as in a grace period and be non enforceable anyway? i.e. 10 mins to read signs and then 10 mins to leave, or can they not be added in that way. At the minute I'm not sure if there is a minimum 'free parking time' at the site in question, I need to visit and take photographs of the signage
    Last edited by DaveJones74; 18-10-2017 at 4:34 PM.
    • Redx
    • By Redx 18th Oct 17, 4:41 PM
    • 17,818 Posts
    • 22,465 Thanks
    Redx
    • #5
    • 18th Oct 17, 4:41 PM
    • #5
    • 18th Oct 17, 4:41 PM
    this admin thread warns you about copying from word

    http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=5706338

    the PPC has signed up to that code of practice , its non-negotiable

    clause #13 exists and they signed up to it - end of

    as for the previous advice by LOC123 , SHE IS A LAWYER so bear in mind what she said , with the caveats about the fact that bylaws may apply and if they do they supercede this civil matter

    the fact is that if bylaws are in place and enforced by the TOC or by Network Rail or the B.T.P. , then this contract is a no-contract

    they want thewir cake and eat it , doesnt work that way as others like INDIGO and CARE PARKING and APCOA and VCS are finding out

    if you are correct and it is a private car park, then the fact it is next to a station (or a Wetherspoons , or a doctors) is irrelevant and so its a civil matter like the Beavis case was

    YOU said its a station car park, so either it is and owned by network rail and subject to bylaws, or its not and is privately owned and civil contract laws apply , it cannot be both
    Last edited by Redx; 18-10-2017 at 4:43 PM.
    Newbies !!
    Private Parking ticket? check the 2 sticky threads by coupon-mad and crabman in the Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking Board forum for the latest advice or maybe try pepipoo or C.A.G. or legal beagles forums if you need legal advice as well because this parking forum is not about debt collectors or legal matters per se
    • DaveJones74
    • By DaveJones74 10th Nov 17, 12:27 PM
    • 9 Posts
    • 3 Thanks
    DaveJones74
    • #6
    • 10th Nov 17, 12:27 PM
    • #6
    • 10th Nov 17, 12:27 PM
    Apologies for the delay, but have been studying the forums and have prepared the following defence. I have tried to obtain information as to who the land owner is but have been unsuccessful so far, as such I have not mentioned the bye-laws issue. I’ve not attached the photo evidence but am happy to do so if people think this will help.

    I would appreciate and gladly receive any comments. Thanks in advance



    I am ******, the defendant in this matter, or alleged parking infringement at ***** Station, ****** on xx/xx/17 and yy/yy/17, and I assert that the claimant has no cause for action for the following reasons.

    1. The Notice to Keeper/PCN was not compliant with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (POFA) due to the wording used.

    Right to Claim Unpaid Parking Charges from the Keeper of Vehicle – Schedule 4 Paragraph 4 (sub-paragraph 9 (2) (f)) of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (POFA)

    Under schedule 4, paragraph 4 of the POFA, an operator can only establish the right to recover any unpaid parking charges from the keeper of a vehicle if certain conditions must be met. The Notice to Keeper does not warn the keeper that, if after a period of 28 days, ParkingEye Ltd. has the right to claim unpaid parking charges as specified under sub-paragraph 9 (2) (f) of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (POFA). The paperwork sent in this case does not comply with this requirement.

    2. The PCN also fails to identify the facts that caused a charge to arise and fails to describe the alleged unpaid parking charges.

    Right to Claim Unpaid Parking Charges from the Keeper of Vehicle – Schedule 4 Paragraph 7 (2) of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (POFA)

    Paragraph 7(2) of schedule 4 of POFA 2012 states:

    ’’The notice must - (b) inform the driver of the requirement to pay parking charges in respect of the specified period of parking and describe those charges, the circumstances in which the requirement arose…and the other facts that made those charges payable…’’

    This NTK stated that -

    “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” (neither of which is a ‘fact’).

    A parking ticket had been purchased for the period of parking, of which no evidence was given in the PCN, and thus the receiver of the PCN did not understand the reason for the notice.

    3. ParkingEye clearly relies on contract law, but does not do enough to make clear what the terms and conditions of the contract are, making it far too easy for people to unwittingly fall outside the terms of contract.

    The signage at the site in question is woefully inadequate and extremely confusing. The car park itself is located within another car park (see attached sketch). The signs for the ParkingEye area are both unremarkable and therefore misleading. On entering the main site, signs can clearly be seen displaying 30 minutes free parking for users of the station. It is not clear that you are leaving the area for which the 30 minute free parking period is available and entering into another area for which a charge is payable. Photographic evidence for all signage is attached

    It is the responsibility of ParkingEye to ensure that the terms and conditions are prominently displayed around the site. By contrast these terms and conditions are in very small print, contrary to Lord Denning’s ‘Red hand rule’ and contrary to the requirements of the Consumer Rights Act 2015, and in agreement to the parking charge there was no agreement to pay additional sums, which in any case are unsupported by the Beavis case and unsupported for cases on the small claims track

    4. The defendant made all reasonable efforts to make payment for parking using an approved payment channel and by following the signage in the car park.

    A. On xx/xx/17 an appropriate amount was entered into the parking machine but no ticket was issued. No attempt was made to use the pay by phone instructions as an appropriate amount had already been entered into the machine. Photographic evidence of the machine in question is attached.

    B. On yy/yy/17 the machine was still in operable and as the defendants mobile phone was flat they were unable to use the pay by phone instructions.

    C. On xx/xx/17 ParkingEye’s photographs show the defendant’s car entering the car park at **:** and leaving the car park at **:**. This duration of 12 minutes, falls well within any grace period to find a parking space and read the terms and conditions and then any reasonable grace period to leave the car park after parking. These two separate grace periods are as described in Para 13 of the BPA Code of Practice:-

    13.2 You should allow the driver a reasonable ‘grace period’ in which to decide if they are going to stay or go. If the driver is on your land without permission you should still allow them a grace period to read your signs and leave before you take enforcement action

    13.4 You should allow the driver a reasonable period to leave the private car park after the parking contract has ended, before you take enforcement action. If the location is one where parking is normally permitted, the Grace Period at the end of the parking period should be a minimum of 10 minutes.

    Should this matter proceed to court the published Article 'Good car parking practice includes grace periods'* by Kelvin Reynolds, Director of Policy and Public Affairs at the British Parking Association will be cited as evidence.

    Thus it is clear that the defendant made every attempt to make appropriate payment using the means advertised by ParkingEye.

    D. On yy/yy/17 ParkingEye’s photographs show the defendant’s car entering the car park at **:** and leaving the car park at **:**. This duration of 19 minutes, falls well within any grace period to find a parking space and read the terms and conditions and then any reasonable grace period to leave the car park after parking. These two separate grace periods are as described in Para 13 of the BPA Code of Practice:-

    13.2 You should allow the driver a reasonable ‘grace period’ in which to decide if they are going to stay or go. If the driver is on your land without permission you should still allow them a grace period to read your signs and leave before you take enforcement action

    13.4 You should allow the driver a reasonable period to leave the private car park after the parking contract has ended, before you take enforcement action. If the location is one where parking is normally permitted, the Grace Period at the end of the parking period should be a minimum of 10 minutes.

    Should this matter proceed to court the published Article 'Good car parking practice includes grace periods'* by Kelvin Reynolds, Director of Policy and Public Affairs at the British Parking Association will be cited as evidence.

    Thus it is clear that the defendant made every attempt to make appropriate payment using the means advertised by ParkingEye

    E. £**.** was paid in total, more than the £**.** that the signage states is the amount payable for a 31 minute stay (the time claimed by ParkingEye that the defendant did not pay for).

    F. It is not reasonable in these circumstances for the driver to assume any more obligations for making the payment. In Jolley V Carmel LTD (2000) 2-EGLR-154; it was held that a party who makes reasonable endeavours to comply with contractual terms, should not be penalised for breach when unable to comply with the terms.

    5. The Claim Form issued on zz/zz/17 states that the claim is for defendant “parking without purchasing a valid parking ticket”. The defendant purchased a valid parking ticket, but due to a faulty machine one was not printed out. There are therefore no grounds for the claim that the defendant parked without purchasing a valid parking ticket.

    6. The amount demanded is excessive and unconscionable. The claimant’s representative has artificially inflated the value of the claim from £120 to £275.

    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 in the Notice to Keeper.

    The claimant’s legal representative ‘Rosanna Breaks’ is ParkingEye’s in house solicitor. The charge of £50 for these solicitor fees is not supportable. In 2014 ParkingEye filed over 30,000 claims. A total of £1,500,000 in solicitor filing costs. It is difficult to see how ParkingEye can justify this amount: Rosanna Breaks would have to file one claim every 4 minutes every day for an 8 hour working day, without a break. I believe that ParkingEye’s filings are almost completely automated. No signature is evident just a typed name.

    The defendant believes the terms for such conduct are ‘Robo Claims’ which is against the public interest demonstrates a disregard for the dignity of the court and is unfair on unrepresented consumers. The defendant believes that this is a claim that will proceed without any facts or evidence until the last possible minutes to their significant detriment as an unrepresented defendant. The defendant respectfully suggests that parking companies using the small claims track as a form of aggressive, automated debt collection is not something the courts should be seen to support.

    7. Non-disclosure of reasonable grounds or particulars for bringing a claim.

    A. ParkingEye LTD are not the lawful owners occupiers of the land.

    B. 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.

    C. The claimant is not the landowner and suffers no loss whatsoever as a result of the vehicle in question.

    D. The particulars of claim are deficient in establishing whether the claim is brought in trespass. If the driver on the date of the event was considered a trespasser if not allowed to park there, then only the landowner can pursue a case under the tort of trespass not this claimant. As the Supreme Court in the Beavis V Parking Eye (2015) UK SC 67 case confirmed such a matter would be limited to the landowner themselves for a nominal sum.

    8. The defendant denies the claim in its entirety voiding any liability to the claimant for all amounts due to the aforementioned reasons. It is submitted that the conduct of the claimant is wholly unreasonable and vexatious.

    9. The defendant invites the court to dismiss this claim as it is in breach of pre court protocols in relation to the particulars of claim under practice direction 16, set out by the ministry of justice and also civil procedure rules under 16.4 and to allow such defendants costs as are permissible under civil procedure rule 27.14.

    I believe that the facts stated in this defence are true
    • DaveJones74
    • By DaveJones74 11th Nov 17, 10:55 PM
    • 9 Posts
    • 3 Thanks
    DaveJones74
    • #7
    • 11th Nov 17, 10:55 PM
    • #7
    • 11th Nov 17, 10:55 PM
    Just a quickie to add to the above, do I send the photos with the defence, or leave that for later? Looked in the newbies thread, but not clear. Cheers
    • KeithP
    • By KeithP 11th Nov 17, 11:08 PM
    • 6,672 Posts
    • 5,870 Thanks
    KeithP
    • #8
    • 11th Nov 17, 11:08 PM
    • #8
    • 11th Nov 17, 11:08 PM
    Just a quickie to add to the above, do I send the photos with the defence, or leave that for later? Looked in the newbies thread, but not clear. Cheers
    Originally posted by DaveJones74
    Post #2 of the NEWBIES thread seems clear to me on that.

    The paragraphs starting:
    Once allocated to your local court, you will be given a clear date by which YOU MUST file the evidence ('exhibits') and any Witness Statement...
    ...are the ones you are looking for.
    .
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 11th Nov 17, 11:58 PM
    • 56,275 Posts
    • 69,911 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    • #9
    • 11th Nov 17, 11:58 PM
    • #9
    • 11th Nov 17, 11:58 PM
    Nothing goes with the defence, so remove the reference to an attached sketch & photos.

    Your first point suggests at least one NTK is non-POFA, so is that right? PE normally serve POFA versions but maybe not if this was a railway car park. Do the NTKs have the POFA 2012 paragraph on the back?

    If not, then #1 stands but these points contradict/jeopardise that stance of 'no keeper liability' as they suggest the defendant was the driver!

    4. The defendant made all reasonable efforts to make payment for parking using an approved payment channel and by following the signage in the car park.
    B. On yy/yy/17 the machine was still in operable and as the defendants mobile phone was flat they were unable to use the pay by phone instructions.
    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.

    • DaveJones74
    • By DaveJones74 12th Nov 17, 8:14 AM
    • 9 Posts
    • 3 Thanks
    DaveJones74
    Thank you so much for you help.


    The rear of the NTK seems to be pre-printed paper - It is a PCN REMINDER, does this make a difference (don't have the original)? Under the Further Information heading it says "The registered keeper details have been provided by the DVLA as this vehicle was parked in breach of the Terms and Conditions of a private car park. If you were the driver/hirer of the vehicle, but not the registered keeper, at the time of the parking event then your details have been provided by the registered keeper. If you believe that your details have been obtained fraudulently or misused, please contact us straight away. You may also choose to write to the Release of Information, Fee Paying Enquiries Section, DVLA, Swansea SA99 1AJ. You should include details of how the information has been misused and the vehicle registration mark. The DVLA will investigate all allegation where information has been requested unlawfully and where appropriate, refer to the Information Commissioner for Prosecution. If you are not satisfied with the way the DVLA has handled you complaint, you should contact the Information Commissioner at...."


    I assumed the onus would be on PE to prove they have followed correct procedure, but of it risks jeopardising anything then I will remove it. I believe there are more than enough grounds in the other points anyway. It's truly a shambles of a signage arrangements, and while I wont say to deliberately confuse or catch people out, it is impossible to work out which area of the car park you are in, and which Terms and Conditions apply.


    RE point 4 B, Day 1 paid, but was not issued a ticket. Day 2 willing to pay (had cash) but was unable to. Are you suggesting I reword point B, remove it, or just be able to defend if challenged?


    Again, thanks for all your help.


    I have taken on board the other comments and will file in the morning to comply with the 28 days.
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 12th Nov 17, 4:03 PM
    • 56,275 Posts
    • 69,911 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    I would have thought the most important thing to do is to find out whether or not Railway Byelaws apply to the car park. You'll want to contact either the Department for Transport, Network Rail or the station operator TOC to find this out. Ideally a map of the site would be best.

    If you have confirmation from DfT, NR or the TOC that Railway Byelaws apply, they have no stand whatsoever - remind them that bringing a claim in these circumstances would be an abuse of process and that you would be claiming costs for unreasonable behaviour, in addition to punitive damages for egregious behaviour with intent to profit.

    If Railway Byelaws don't apply, or you can't get confirmation from any of those three, your case will take a lot more work, as you'll need to argue the toss over things like signage, POFA, frustration of contract and so on.
    Originally posted by situation-observer
    The above poster appears to be trying to make things seem far more complicated than they are, making out you have to contact all sorts of agencies or that the alternative is a lot 'harder work'.

    There is no need to be alarmist, 'situation-observer', which I have to say is the impression given.

    The OP can always contact the TOC later on (after filing his defence) to see if byelaws apply to that site but IMHO it is unlikely. ParkingEye do not issue PCNs under byelaws, they issue under contract law only.

    It's a bog standard 'contractual breach' PCN so no need to over-complicate the advice and confuse newbies.



    So, in reply to DaveJones74:

    Thank you so much for you help.

    The rear of the NTK seems to be pre-printed paper - It is a PCN REMINDER...

    I assumed the onus would be on PE to prove they have followed correct procedure, but of it risks jeopardising anything then I will remove it. I believe there are more than enough grounds in the other points anyway. It's truly a shambles of a signage arrangements, and while I wont say to deliberately confuse or catch people out, it is impossible to work out which area of the car park you are in, and which Terms and Conditions apply.
    Originally posted by DaveJones74
    If you only have the NTK Reminder then look at the dates top right, it will tell you the date of the first letter (NTK) itself. I expect both original NTKs were sent in time?

    RE point 4 B, Day 1 paid, but was not issued a ticket. Day 2 willing to pay (had cash) but was unable to. Are you suggesting I reword point B, remove it, or just be able to defend if challenged?
    I think leave all your points in, and if the NTKs were issued in time I would remove the points about no keeper liability, meaning lose points #1 and #2. Your defence is one that's better argued as the driver.

    I see you have a solid point about frustration of contract, citing Jolley v Carmel. Good!

    And you already have a point about grace periods, so again I fail to see why situation-observer wants you to believe this is going to mean 'hard work' - you have done it already.

    Which station is this at? Is the car park within the station/railway location?
    Last edited by Coupon-mad; 12-11-2017 at 4:13 PM.
    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.

    • DaveJones74
    • By DaveJones74 13th Nov 17, 1:28 PM
    • 9 Posts
    • 3 Thanks
    DaveJones74
    Which station is this at? Is the car park within the station/railway location?
    Originally posted by Coupon-mad

    Defence submitted, again, thanks for all the help.


    Car park in question is the poorly identified Parking Eye 'Central Station, Warrington' car park, located within the boundary of the main station car park, which is sited on the former railway club.
    Had no response from Northern Rail who own / operate the station, so now trying Network Rail.
    • DaveJones74
    • By DaveJones74 11th Jan 18, 4:23 PM
    • 9 Posts
    • 3 Thanks
    DaveJones74
    Apologies for this going quiet, but a quick update / question.


    We had hoped the issue had gone away, but on the last day a photocopied N180 arrived from PE. N180s have been exchanged, within the appropriate dates, completed in line with Bargepoles guidance.


    Yesterday a rather strange email was received - see below:-
    "Dear xxxxxxx


    We are writing in reference to the Parking Charges and subsequent County Court claim, referenced above.


    ParkingEye are yet to receive your defence to this claim, please be aware that under the Civil Procedure Rules, it is your responsibility to serve a copy of the defence on all parties, including ParkingEye as the Claimant.


    Please could you send this at your earliest convenience, this can be done by email or post
    Yours sincerely


    ParkingEye Enforcement Team"

    Based on the advice in the Newbies and specifically Bargepoles thread, PE should have received the defence from the Northampton Business Centre. Does the email mean they've lost it? Is it some form of game? Why have they now decided to correspond via email rather than by letter?


    My first instinct is to simply ignore the request - is this the correct thing to do? Or should we reply with a copy of the letter of receipt of defence from the court?


    Cheers
    • nosferatu1001
    • By nosferatu1001 11th Jan 18, 4:36 PM
    • 2,299 Posts
    • 2,721 Thanks
    nosferatu1001
    I would respond back, and state that contrary to their assertion, for a claim issued through MCOL the defence lodged with teh CCBC is then served by the CCBC on the claimant. I suggest you refer to the CCBC for details if you have not received a copuy.
    • DaveJones74
    • By DaveJones74 27th Feb 18, 4:02 PM
    • 9 Posts
    • 3 Thanks
    DaveJones74
    So witness statement due to be with the court early next week, so I'd appreciate a bit of feedback on the below please. Not sure if it's too much detail? More like a skeleton argument than witness statement? As ever, any help greatly appreciated. Thanks


    In the matter of
    xxxxxxx (Claimant)
    v
    xxxxxxxx (defendant)
    Claim no: xxxxxxxx
    Witness statement of Mrs xxxxxxxx, defendant

    I am the Defendant in this matter (as owner of the vehicle). I am unrepresented and if I do not set out documents in the way that the Claimant may do, I trust the Court will excuse my inexperience.
    In this Witness statement, the facts and matters stated are true and within my own knowledge, except where indicated otherwise.

    1. The driver entered the xxxxxx xxxxxx Station Car Park at approximately 09:22 on xx/xx/xx and at approximately 09:21 on xx/xx/xx, both days at the height of rush hour, and at a time when the station was extremely busy; as such it took a not inconsiderable amount of time to find a free space in the congested and crowded car park, and to leave afterwards.


    Having found a space and parked appropriately, the driver made all reasonable efforts to make payment for parking using an approved payment channel and by following the signage in the car park.


    A. On xx/xx/xx an appropriate amount was entered into the parking machine but no ticket was issued. No attempt was made to use the pay by phone instructions as an appropriate amount had already been entered into the machine. Photographic evidence of the machine in question is attached.


    B. On xx/xx/xx the machine was still in operable and as the defendants mobile phone was flat they were unable to use the pay by phone instructions.


    C. On xx/xx/xx ParkingEyes photographs show the defendants car entering the car park at 09:22 and leaving the car park at 09:35. This duration of 12 minutes, falls well within any grace period to find a parking space and read the terms and conditions and then any reasonable grace period to leave the car park after parking. These two separate grace periods are as described in Para 13 of the BPA Code of Practice. See also the published Article 'Good car parking practice includes grace periods'* by Kelvin Reynolds, Director of Policy and Public Affairs at the British Parking Association - attached.


    D. On xx/xx/xx ParkingEyes photographs show the defendants car entering the car park at 09:21 and leaving the car park at 09:40. This duration of 19 minutes, falls well within any grace period to find a parking space and read the terms and conditions and then any reasonable grace period to leave the car park after parking. These two separate grace periods are as described in Para 13 of the BPA Code of Practice. See also the published Article 'Good car parking practice includes grace periods'* by Kelvin Reynolds, Director of Policy and Public Affairs at the British Parking Association - attached.


    Thus it is clear that the driver made every attempt to make appropriate payment using the means advertised by ParkingEye. As proven in case law [Jolley V Carmel LTD (2000) 2-EGLR-154] it is not reasonable in these circumstances for the driver to assume any more obligations for making the payment.
    It is also felt unfair that they should be both out of pocket and called to a court of law for failings on the part of the claimant.


    It can be seen from the attached sign that the amount paid on xx/xx/xx was for 1 hours parking. As the total time of the parking events on both days is just 31 minutes, then it is not believed the claimant can claim to be out of pocket.


    2. The signage at the site in question is woefully inadequate and extremely confusing. The car park itself is located within another car park (see attached sketch). The signs for the ParkingEye area are both unremarkable and therefore misleading. On entering the main site, signs can clearly be seen displaying 30 minutes free parking for users of the station. It is not clear that you are leaving the area for which the 30 minute free parking period is available and entering into another area for which a charge is payable. Photographic evidence for all signage is attached, including those taken form the point of view of the driver, showing it is IMPOSSIBLE to see the change from one car park to the other.


    3. An initial appeal, outlining the above circumstances, was made via the claimants on-line appeal process but was refused, without ever actually addressing any of the issues raised. It appears a standard rebuttal was issued (attached), with at no point the specifics of the case being taken into consideration.


    4. There followed, over a number of months, a stream of incomplete and believed out of process communication both written and via email. In addition, on further investigation it is believed that the claimant has, on several occasions, failed to comply with due protocol in terms of issuing written correspondence as outlined in the defence issued to the court on xx/xx/xx and it is felt prudent that the claimant provide evidence that all steps have been followed appropriately (and lawfully) or the claim be struck out.


    5. The claimant has on more than one occasion failed to comply with the County Court Small Claims process, including sending an email to the defendant asking for their defence as they had not received it (email dated xx/xx/xx - attached) and as stated in the Notice of Allocation to the Small Claims Track (Hearing) letter from District Judge xxxx (dated xx/xx/xx - attached). Not only has this caused stress and confusion to the defendant, it also shows a blatant disregard for the court process and data protection of the defendants previously submitted information.


    6. The Direction questionnaire (Small Claims Track) received by the defendant on xx/xx/xx, was simply a pre-completed photocopy, with the claim details entered in a different coloured ink (attached). It is clear to see the form has not been completed specifically for this case and refer to section 6 of the previously submitted defence with regard to 'robo claims', abuse of the judicial system and wasting the courts time.

    I believe that the facts stated in this Witness Statement are true.

    Signed xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

    Dated xx/xx/xx
    Last edited by DaveJones74; 28-02-2018 at 10:18 AM.
    • DaveJones74
    • By DaveJones74 2nd Mar 18, 8:41 PM
    • 9 Posts
    • 3 Thanks
    DaveJones74
    Just a quick update. After spending all day printing and compiling packs for various people, came home to find a letter saying they we're dropping the claim!

    Slightly annoyed that we won't get our day in court to expose these scammers for what they are, but a positive result all the same.

    Thanks everyone for all the help provided
    • KeithP
    • By KeithP 2nd Mar 18, 9:02 PM
    • 6,672 Posts
    • 5,870 Thanks
    KeithP
    Dave, you would be wise to check with the court that they have indeed discontinued.

    It would be a great shame if the Claimant turned up at court at the appointed hour and the Defendant didn't.

    Ring the court on Monday.
    .
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 3rd Mar 18, 12:26 AM
    • 56,275 Posts
    • 69,911 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    Just a quick update. After spending all day printing and compiling packs for various people, came home to find a letter saying they we're dropping the claim!

    Slightly annoyed that we won't get our day in court to expose these scammers for what they are, but a positive result all the same.

    Thanks everyone for all the help provided
    Originally posted by DaveJones74
    Hooray, that's a win!

    They had no case and have completely wasted your time (as did the poster 'situation-observer' who I see disappeared from the thread). What on earth were ParkingEye playing at earlier, seemingly they'd lost the defence that comes to them via MCOL?! Odd for ParkingEye and very incompetent.

    You should read these links and watch the MPs debate in Parliament, to fire you up:

    http://parliamentlive.tv/event/index/2f0384f2-eba5-4fff-ab07-cf24b6a22918?in=12:49:41

    https://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2018-02-02b.1149.0

    http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=5787731

    Just 4 weeks ago, the private parking industry's little game and 'outrageous scam' (Hansard), has been finally been condemned unanimously by MPs in Parliament in the private parking Code of Practice Bill debate, where (guess who?) PARKINGEYE were named and shamed along with their Trade Body, the BPA.

    Why not now fight back? Complain to your MP and the local Trading Standards that PE tried to sue you for days when their machines were out of order, and how many other locals have been ripped off this way? Tell TS what happened and when well defended, they discontinued.

    You could also do a complaint to the Information Commissioner (easy to do online, and you can attach evidence) that PE obtained your data - and no doubt that of other drivers - on the days when their P&D machine was out of action, then tried to sue you, then backed down when your defence was robust. But given the failure of their machines, they failed to make an offer that was capable of acceptance and had no right to even obtain any keepers' data from the DVLA for those days, at that location. So they misused your data, that they had no 'reasonable cause' to obtain under excuse of the DVLA KADOE rules, in the first place.

    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

2,696Posts Today

7,920Users online

Martin's Twitter
  • This week's MSE emails out inc Why I'm suing Facebook, TSB help, Big energy switch ends, free eye test, cheap Easy? https://t.co/cHaLs25dUD

  • It's an ad. I don't do ads. Its not legit. No ads with me in are legit. That is another scam. https://t.co/uEgbuhJzxy

  • RT @Ofcom: Can you tell the difference between an official website and a third-party call connection service site from search results? @PSA?

  • Follow Martin