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
    • jimmyt05
    • By jimmyt05 30th Oct 17, 5:10 PM
    • 28Posts
    • 7Thanks
    jimmyt05
    Parking Eye Claim Form
    • #1
    • 30th Oct 17, 5:10 PM
    Parking Eye Claim Form 30th Oct 17 at 5:10 PM
    Hi,

    This is my first post here and I would like some advice on what to do.
    This is the particulars of claim from Parking Eye.
    Claim for monies outstanding from defendant, as registered keeper in relation to a Parking Charge issued xxxxxx for parking on private land breach of terms and conditions (the contract).
    Parkingeye automated number plate system monitoring xxx captured vehicle xxx entering and leaving the car park without a valid paid parking ticket. The signage clearly displayed at the entrance to and throughout the car park states that this is private land, is managed by Parking Eye Ltd and is a paid site, along with the T+C's set out in the signage, the Parking Charge became payable. Notice under the protection of Freedom Act 2012 has been given under Sch4 making the keeper liable.

    Signed by Claimnt's Legal Representative.

    I never received letter before claim also. Which I emailed and requested.
    I am writing my defense now but seeing a few examples. This POC does not relate to others defenses. Or is this also a generic POC? As mine clearly says I breached the contract.

    Thanks for any help received.
Page 3
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 8th Apr 18, 12:40 AM
    • 64,896 Posts
    • 77,472 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    WS stage is where you file your evidence photos of those confusing signs, and your proof of patronage of the Gym or Bingo, and case law referred to in the defence, and any other useful things you intend to rely upon (a video showing how confusing the two areas are would be good, taken from a dash-cam or simply with a passenger taking a video as you drive in).

    Maybe a second WS from the Gym or Bingo Manager confirming you were AUTHORISED to park there as you were a patron and that 'the signage is ambiguous and catches lots of people out, and it's the bane of their lives with all the patrons affected by and complaining about PCNs', would be good.

    Have a look at the examples in the NEWBIES thread, some file 15 or more pieces of evidence. Not saying you need to do that but please, go and read how others won their cases with good WS/evidence!
    Last edited by Coupon-mad; 08-04-2018 at 12:43 AM.
    • jimmyt05
    • By jimmyt05 9th Apr 18, 6:52 PM
    • 28 Posts
    • 7 Thanks
    jimmyt05
    1. The Claim relates to an alleged debt arising from the vehicle having been parked at XXX on XXX.
    ParkingEye are arguing I was bound by unknown terms and conditions creating a contractual charge, yet this 100 was not a term known or agreed at the point of making the contract as no terms and conditions were presented to me, and how can I breach them if I was not aware I was bound to one.

    2. I did park at XXX, but believed that this was a free car park, shared between two buildings, the bingo (xxx location) and the gym (xxx location). As at the car park entrance signs states free for Bingo customers, but no mention from anything from the Gym and it's customers which I was attending on that date.

    2.1. See exhibit 1 for entrance sign photo. It shows no contract to be created. No amount of sum is shown and agreed upon. I don't understand what is means by unauthorised vehicles. it would not be talking about unregistered vehicles. I would not know what ticket will be given for unauthorised vehicles, I would assume a ticket to not park here.

    2.2. No other signs were referenced from this entrance sign, therefore I would have not been aware if others were present inside the car park. On the day stated I did not notice any other signs. I was only aware of the other signs within the car park, after I received the claims letter and went to revisit to make sure whether or not Parking Eye made a mistake.

    Yes I have read some others WS, and will read more.

    This is a 24/7 automated gym, there are only personal trainers here and no receptionist who can help with this, but I will chat to them to see what they can add.

    For the case law, can I just print it out as evidence, without referencing them in my WS ?
    Last edited by jimmyt05; 09-04-2018 at 7:04 PM. Reason: Addition
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 9th Apr 18, 7:33 PM
    • 64,896 Posts
    • 77,472 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    No, you need to reference your evidence in your WS, so the Judge can follow it and see how each piece of evidence relates to your case.

    This is a 24/7 automated gym, there are only personal trainers here and no receptionist who can help with this, but I will chat to them to see what they can add.
    I would definitely do that, see if they can provide something signed/dated to assist, even an email sent to you that you can attach as evidence that even the Gym think the signs are unclear and cause huge issues to patrons.
    • jimmyt05
    • By jimmyt05 24th Apr 18, 11:59 PM
    • 28 Posts
    • 7 Thanks
    jimmyt05
    Hi, this is my witness statement.

    I assert that I am not liable to the Claimant for the sum claimed, or any amount at all, for the following reasons:

    1. I am unrepresented, with no experience of Court procedures. 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.

    2. The Claim relates to an alleged debt arising from the vehicle having been parked at XXX on XXX.
    ParkingEye are arguing I was bound by unknown terms creating a contractual charge, yet this 100 was not a term known or agreed at the point of making the contract as no terms and conditions were presented to me, and how can I breach them if I was not aware I was bound to one.

    3. I did not receive any 'Parking Charge Notice' either on the windscreen nor in the post, nor any warning or Letter before Claim. The Court Claim was the first I knew about this allegation, hence I had no fair opportunity to appeal or show my evidence prior to proceedings. On XXX, I emailed ParkingEye Ltd asking for the Letter Before Court Claim and any other relevant documents. Exhibit 1.

    4. I got an email reply back on XXX from ParkingEye Ltd. Attached to the email was the parking charge notice, the parking charge, and the letter before court, all of which I never received, and was unaware of until requested in the email. Exhibit 2.

    5. I did park at XXX, on XXX, but believed that this was a free car park, shared between two buildings, The Bingo at XXX and The Gym at XXX which I was attending on this date. As at the car park entrance signs states free for Bingo customers. No words specifying that it would be free only for Bingo members, the sign would of pointed out otherwise.

    6. Exhibit 3. Car park entrance sign photo. It shows no contract to be created. No amount of sum is shown and agreed upon. I don't understand what it means by unauthorised vehicles. It would not be talking about unregistered vehicles. I would not know what ticket would be given for unauthorised vehicles. I would assume a ticket stating to not park at this car park, and no parking charge to be issued from the ticket as no sum is shown.

    7. No other signs were referenced from this car park entrance sign, therefore I would have not been made aware if others were present inside the car park. On the day XXX, I did not notice any other signs when leaving the vehicle, as normally after leaving my vehicle after a drive, I would be on my mobile phone. I was only aware of the other signs within the car park, after I received the Court Claims letter and went to revisit the car park to make sure whether or not ParkingEye Ltd made a mistake.

    8. Denning LJ in Thornton v Shoe Lane Parking [1971] held that the courts should not hold any man bound by such a condition unless it was !!!8220;drawn to his attention in the most explicit way!!!8221;. Exhibit 4.

    9. Denning LJ in J Spurling Ltd v Bradshaw [1956] red hand rule comment !!!8220;Some clauses which I have seen would need to be printed in red ink on the face of the document with a red hand pointing to it before the notice could be held to be sufficient.!!!8221; Exhibit 5.

    10. No such warning was drawn or pointed out to my attention.

    11. In addition to the original parking charge I believed to be 100, for which liability is denied, the Claimants have artificially inflated the value of the Claim by adding purported Solicitor!!!8217;s Costs of 50, which I submit have not actually been incurred by the Claimant.

    12. DJ Sparrow struck out the solicitor cost in the claim B9FC508F, ParkingEye Ltd v Mrs S. Exhibit 6.

    13. Whilst 50 may be recoverable in an instance where a claimant has used a legal firm to prepare a claim, ParkingEye Ltd have not expended such a sum on my case. They employ salaried in-house Solicitors and file hundreds of similar robo-claims per week, not incurring any legal cost per case. I put the Claimant to strict proof to the contrary because Ms Breaks cannot possibly be believed to be paid in the millions for her services.

    14. The added 'legal' cost is an artificially invented figure (carefully avoided in the Beavis case where only 85 was pursued, presumably to avoid just such scrutiny). This is a cynical attempt to circumvent the Small Claims costs rules using double recovery.

    15. The Court is invited to dismiss the Claim, and to allow such Defendant!!!8217;s costs as are permissible under Civil Procedure Rule 27.14.

    I believe that the facts stated in this witness statement are true.

    ---

    Parking Eye sent me their one.
    Would I need to reference beavis case anywhere ?
    Point 8 and 9, how would I reference them as an exhibit ? Download the whole case ?

    Thanks for any help.
    Last edited by jimmyt05; 25-04-2018 at 12:03 AM. Reason: Info
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 25th Apr 18, 12:30 AM
    • 64,896 Posts
    • 77,472 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    Avoid any 'would of' or 'could of' which isn't English:
    No words specifying that it would be free only for Bingo members, the sign would of pointed out otherwise.
    I have tried to adapt what Johnersh said earlier, can you add this in the middle or adapt what you have to include this sort of wording, as Johnersh is a solicitor and words it well:


    Distinguishing this case clearly apart from the (wholly different) facts and signs in the ParkingEye v Beavis case, there is a conflict of signage/parking terms at this location. Under the doctrine of contra proferentem, any ambiguity or omission in the drafting of the signs that face a driver on arrival, must be interpreted in the way that most favours the consumer.

    The entrance sign offers FREE PARKING in the largest lettering, and that is all I saw from my moving car, in traffic, on arrival. I relied upon that offer, and it did not cross-refer to any signs containing different terms within the car park, so I had no obligation nor even a hint to seek those out too, having read the two-word offer at the entrance. The Claimant cannot expect any circumspect driver to assume, or be expected to know, that the signs were different.

    The entrance sign I replied upon does not even mention the amount of any 'parking charge' (ticket, whatever they mean, Mecca don't explain - a bingo ticket perhaps?). What price or charge can the Claimant show was agreed under contract - none. I had no idea. The entrance sign neither creates any contract, nor alerts drivers to read the terms of any other peripheral signs to learn of the rules/obligations and alleged 'contract'.

    The BPA Code of Practice sets mandatory requirements for entrance signs that must be placed by operators. Normally the larger entrance sign has a sentence referring to parking terms within the car park - this one does not. If the above analysis is accepted by the court, then Mecca could issue a 'ticket' as a result of their entrance sign (but I did not accept any costs of any ticket as none appear on the sign).

    I assert that it is by no means certain that this Claimant can rely on their own secondary signs at this location and nor can they pretend that the Mecca (larger) sign is somehow irrelevant. I assert it is very relevant, conflicted with the Claimant's supposed contract and formed the basis of my parking decision.

    My conduct in parking did not form the basis of any secondary contract with any other party. I had no idea that any ParkingEye terms existed at this location and I had no reason to seek alternative terms out on any other signs, which I since found are placed sparsely around the edges of the car park. The lack of an entrance sign from the Claimant distinguishes this location from the Beavis case and breaches the BPA Code of Practice (exhibit xx).
    Last edited by Coupon-mad; 25-04-2018 at 12:40 AM.
    • jimmyt05
    • By jimmyt05 25th Apr 18, 10:58 PM
    • 28 Posts
    • 7 Thanks
    jimmyt05
    My updated WS.

    ---

    I assert that I am not liable to the Claimant for the sum claimed, or any amount at all, for the following reasons:

    1. I am unrepresented, with no experience of Court procedures. 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.

    2. The Claim relates to an alleged debt arising from the vehicle having been parked at xxx on xxx.
    ParkingEye are arguing I was bound by unknown terms creating a contractual charge, yet this 100 was not a term known or agreed at the point of making the contract as no terms and conditions were presented to me, and how can I breach them if I was not aware I was bound to one.

    3. I did not receive any 'Parking Charge Notice' either on the windscreen nor in the post, nor any warning or Letter before Claim. The Court Claim was the first I knew about this allegation, hence I had no fair opportunity to appeal or show my evidence prior to proceedings. On xxx, I emailed ParkingEye Ltd asking for the Letter Before Court Claim and any other relevant documents. Exhibit 1.

    4. I got an email reply back on xxx from ParkingEye Ltd. Attached to the email was the parking charge notice, the parking charge, and the letter before court, all of which I never received, and was unaware of until requested in the email. Exhibit 2.

    5. I did park at xxx, on xxx, but believed that this was a free car park, shared between two buildings, The Bingo at xxx and The Gym at xxx which I was attending on this date.

    6. Exhibit 3. The car park entrance sign offers FREE PARKING in the largest lettering, and that is all I saw from my moving car, in traffic, on arrival. I relied upon that offer, and it did not cross-refer to any signs containing different terms within the car park, so I had no obligation nor even a hint to seek those out too, having read the two-word offer at the entrance. The Claimant cannot expect any circumspect driver to assume, or be expected to know, that the signs were different.

    7. Distinguishing this case clearly apart from the (wholly different) facts and signs in the ParkingEye v Beavis case, there is a conflict of signage/parking terms at this location. Under the doctrine of contra proferentem, any ambiguity or omission in the drafting of the signs that face a driver on arrival, must be interpreted in the way that most favours the consumer.

    8. The car park entrance sign I relied upon does not even mention the amount of any 'parking charge' (ticket, whatever they mean, Mecca don't explain - a bingo ticket perhaps?). What price or charge can the Claimant show was agreed under contract - none. I had no idea. The entrance sign neither creates any contract, nor alerts drivers to read the terms of any other peripheral signs to learn of the rules/obligations and alleged 'contract'.

    9. The BPA Code of Practice sets mandatory requirements for entrance signs that must be placed by operators. Normally the larger entrance sign has a sentence referring to parking terms within the car park - this one does not. If the above analysis is accepted by the court, then Mecca could issue a 'ticket' as a result of their entrance sign (but I did not accept any costs of any ticket as none appear on the sign).

    10. I assert that it is by no means certain that this Claimant can rely on their own secondary signs at this location and nor can they pretend that the Mecca (larger) sign is somehow irrelevant. I assert it is very relevant, conflicted with the Claimant's supposed contract and formed the basis of my parking decision.

    11. My conduct in parking did not form the basis of any secondary contract with any other party. I had no idea that any ParkingEye terms existed at this location and I had no reason to seek alternative terms out on any other signs, which I since found are placed sparsely around the edges of the car park. The lack of an entrance sign from the Claimant distinguishes this location from the Beavis case and breaches the BPA Code of Practice. Exhibit 4.

    12. Denning LJ in Thornton v Shoe Lane Parking [1971] held that the courts should not hold any man bound by such a condition unless it was !!!8220;drawn to his attention in the most explicit way!!!8221;. Exhibit 5.

    13. Denning LJ in J Spurling Ltd v Bradshaw [1956] red hand rule comment !!!8220;Some clauses which I have seen would need to be printed in red ink on the face of the document with a red hand pointing to it before the notice could be held to be sufficient.!!!8221; Exhibit 6.

    14. No such warning was drawn or pointed out to my attention.

    15. In addition to the original parking charge I believed to be 100, for which liability is denied, the Claimants have artificially inflated the value of the Claim by adding purported Solicitor!!!8217;s Costs of 50, which I submit have not actually been incurred by the Claimant.

    16. DJ Sparrow struck out the solicitor cost in the claim B9FC508F, ParkingEye Ltd v Mrs S. Exhibit 7.

    17. Whilst 50 may be recoverable in an instance where a claimant has used a legal firm to prepare a claim, ParkingEye Ltd have not expended such a sum on my case. They employ salaried in-house Solicitors and file hundreds of similar robo-claims per week, not incurring any legal cost per case. I put the Claimant to strict proof to the contrary because Ms Breaks cannot possibly be believed to be paid in the millions for her services.

    18. The added 'legal' cost is an artificially invented figure (carefully avoided in the Beavis case where only 85 was pursued, presumably to avoid just such scrutiny). This is a cynical attempt to circumvent the Small Claims costs rules using double recovery.

    19. The Court is invited to dismiss the Claim, and to allow such Defendant!!!8217;s costs as are permissible under Civil Procedure Rule 27.14.

    I believe that the facts stated in this witness statement are true.

    ----

    I replaced my middle with yours. Thank you so much for that it was perfect.
    For point 11. is the exhibit the BPA code of practice, all of it, or just the point on entrance signs ?
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 25th Apr 18, 11:07 PM
    • 64,896 Posts
    • 77,472 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    For point 11. is the exhibit the BPA code of practice, all of it, or just the point on entrance signs ?
    Just the relevant page(s).
    • jimmyt05
    • By jimmyt05 2nd May 18, 5:42 PM
    • 28 Posts
    • 7 Thanks
    jimmyt05
    Can I email my witness statement, or would I have to print it all out and send it to the court and parking eye ?
    • KeithP
    • By KeithP 2nd May 18, 5:51 PM
    • 11,379 Posts
    • 11,911 Thanks
    KeithP
    You cannot rely on the court to print all of your evidence.
    It would be disappointing, at best, if the judge didn't see all your evidence.

    Place your Witness Statement and all supporting evidence in a file or ring binder with all pages numbered and indexed.
    Hand deliver it to the court and get a receipt.

    You need to deliver a copy to the claimant too.
    .
    • jimmyt05
    • By jimmyt05 2nd May 18, 6:28 PM
    • 28 Posts
    • 7 Thanks
    jimmyt05
    Thanks for the reply, yeah I decided to hand delivery it tomorrow. But will send email to parking eye.
    • jimmyt05
    • By jimmyt05 3rd May 18, 12:12 AM
    • 28 Posts
    • 7 Thanks
    jimmyt05
    On the court day, what would I need to bring ?
    And I will print out a costs schedule, do I hand it to the judge when I win the case ?
    Thank you for all the help so far, its nearly coming to an end.
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 3rd May 18, 12:24 AM
    • 64,896 Posts
    • 77,472 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    You must file everything in advance, costs schedule 2 or 3 days before, and to PE.
    • jimmyt05
    • By jimmyt05 16th May 18, 12:40 PM
    • 28 Posts
    • 7 Thanks
    jimmyt05
    So I lost, heres what happened, I lost due to the fact that I should of been aware of the other signs within the car park, and the bingo entrance sign has no relevance as entering the car park I should of seen Parking Eyes one and read it. Even though mine came before and what I entered on. The judge and the representative of parking eye seemed to get along more, I was mostly confused to what was happening as it was my first time. The rep kept asking me things over and over, he kept bringing up their signs, I told them I was not aware and kept everything I spoke about to the Mecca bingo sign. In the end the judge gave ordered me to pay 200. I asked what for, 100 for the parking charge, 25 for court fees twice not sure why (so 50), I asked but I didn't know why judge said it twice, and 50 for a fixed fee not sure of what aswell. Original claim 175 why was total 200. I didn't want to asked for break down again in case more was added. Judge just seemed one sided, and annoyed at my lack of experience and understanding.
    • Umkomaas
    • By Umkomaas 16th May 18, 12:57 PM
    • 20,702 Posts
    • 32,607 Thanks
    Umkomaas
    Sorry to hear of your loss.

    25 for court fees twice not sure why (so 50)
    25 for PE to file the claim
    25 for the hearing fee

    50 for a fixed fee not sure of what aswell
    That's the PE solicitor costs. It could have been challenged as PE employ in-house salaried solicitors, and they don't get paid 50 for every claim raised via a template. Not much you can do about it now, I don't think.
    Please note, we are not a legal, residential or credit advice forum, rather one that helps motorists fight private parking charges, primarily at the 'front-end' of the process.
    Give a man a fish, and you feed him for a day; show him how to catch fish, and you feed him for a lifetime.
    • jimmyt05
    • By jimmyt05 16th May 18, 1:48 PM
    • 28 Posts
    • 7 Thanks
    jimmyt05
    Judge said it was a fixed fee, so I didn't challenge, if I knew it was solicitor cost I would of as I have an exhibit of it being struck out between an defendant and parking eye.
    • Umkomaas
    • By Umkomaas 16th May 18, 4:25 PM
    • 20,702 Posts
    • 32,607 Thanks
    Umkomaas
    Judge said it was a fixed fee
    It's a 'capped' limit which means that legal costs in the small claims court cannot run out of control. It's not 'fixed' as far as I know, so if they claimed just 20, they would just get that, not 50.

    But there have been so many private parking court cases, and they all go for the 50 max, one could be forgiven for thinking it is a 'fixed' fee
    Please note, we are not a legal, residential or credit advice forum, rather one that helps motorists fight private parking charges, primarily at the 'front-end' of the process.
    Give a man a fish, and you feed him for a day; show him how to catch fish, and you feed him for a lifetime.
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 17th May 18, 12:49 AM
    • 64,896 Posts
    • 77,472 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    Sorry to hear this, sounds like unlucky 'DJ lottery'. Which court and Judge?

    When you filed your WS, what evidence did you provide, photos of the signs? What else?
    Last edited by Coupon-mad; 17-05-2018 at 12:54 AM.
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

2,044Posts Today

8,025Users online

Martin's Twitter
  • Yes (+ Blair's fear of being seen to impose a new 'tax') This rule will make the public cost of funding more reali? https://t.co/DE1VzzX4Do

  • Many asking "what does leaving EU actually mean for me?" both with or without a no-deal. The MSE guide to Brexit t? https://t.co/ULimpQPlHp

  • I'm very glad my poll today has caused such unity and consensus. It feels like a real moment of rapprochement in th? https://t.co/QVCzqsiVOi

  • Follow Martin