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
    • Varnaman
    • By Varnaman 6th Apr 18, 9:07 AM
    • 19Posts
    • 1Thanks
    Varnaman
    Parking eye court case
    • #1
    • 6th Apr 18, 9:07 AM
    Parking eye court case 6th Apr 18 at 9:07 AM
    I would be grateful if anyone could assist me in my court case v Parking Eye next week.

    I used the skeleton argument from The Parking Prankster .

    http://www.parking-prankster.com/sample-defence.html


    I am the RK but not the driver who overstayed in a retail park in Maidstone using ANPR, the court case is next week, the driver involved is NOT English but the main user of the car.

    BMPA suggested If the driver's first language is not English you can run the defence of there being no contract as it takes understanding to agree terms. A language barrier could stop a contract being form so that there was no breach of contract and nothing payable by you as Keeper.

    Has anyone successfully run this defence?

    All Help Gratefully received!

    Thanks
Page 1
    • bargepole
    • By bargepole 6th Apr 18, 9:23 AM
    • 2,355 Posts
    • 6,790 Thanks
    bargepole
    • #2
    • 6th Apr 18, 9:23 AM
    • #2
    • 6th Apr 18, 9:23 AM
    I used the skeleton argument from The Parking Prankster .
    http://www.parking-prankster.com/sample-defence.html
    Originally posted by Varnaman
    Oh dear. That was written over 2 years ago, before the ruling in Beavis from the Supreme Court.

    Main points:

    i. The Unfair Terms in Consumer Contract Regulations 1999 applies
    ii. The signage does not offer a contract with the motorist
    iii. The Consumer Contracts (Information, Cancellation and Additional Charges) Regulations 2013 applies
    iv. The Claimant has no standing to bring a case
    v. The charge is not a genuine pre-estimate of loss and is therefore an unenforceable penalty

    i. Not applicable, as ruled by 6 to 1 by the UKSC Judges
    ii. If the signage is clear and prominent, yes it does.
    iii. This argument has been rejected by almost all Judges
    iv. If their landowner contract authorises them to pursue debts via court, they do have standing.
    v. This was the whole point of the Beavis case. They don't have to prove any loss, the charges are enforceable if there is a legitimate interest in deterrence of breaching the terms.

    I have been providing assistance, including Lay Representation at Court hearings (current score: won 34, lost 10), to defendants in parking cases for over 5 years. I have an LLB (Hons) degree, and am an associate member of CILEx, studying towards a Fellowship (equivalent to solicitor) in Civil Litigation. However, any advice given on these forums by me is NOT formal legal advice, and I accept no liability for its accuracy.
    • Quentin
    • By Quentin 6th Apr 18, 9:25 AM
    • 36,872 Posts
    • 21,007 Thanks
    Quentin
    • #3
    • 6th Apr 18, 9:25 AM
    • #3
    • 6th Apr 18, 9:25 AM
    If your hearing is next week it's too late for adding to the defence you already submitted

    Read up on Court process in the Newbies FAQ thread near the top of the forum (#2)
    • Varnaman
    • By Varnaman 6th Apr 18, 9:50 AM
    • 19 Posts
    • 1 Thanks
    Varnaman
    • #4
    • 6th Apr 18, 9:50 AM
    Parking Eye
    • #4
    • 6th Apr 18, 9:50 AM
    Many thanks for your reply,

    On the basis of what you have said, Would the fact the Driver is not English and did not understand any idea of contract stand up in court?
    • Umkomaas
    • By Umkomaas 6th Apr 18, 9:58 AM
    • 18,974 Posts
    • 29,848 Thanks
    Umkomaas
    • #5
    • 6th Apr 18, 9:58 AM
    • #5
    • 6th Apr 18, 9:58 AM
    Many thanks for your reply,

    On the basis of what you have said, Would the fact the Driver is not English and did not understand any idea of contract stand up in court?
    Originally posted by Varnaman
    Is the driver being pursued, or the keeper? If it's the latter, you've got little or no chance with the argument. If it's the former, well it's one line of defence. Never previously seen this used previously.
    We cannot provide you with a silver bullet to get you out of this. You have to be in for the long run, and need to involve yourself in research and work for you to get rid of this. It is not simple. We will help, but can't do it for you.

    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.
    • Quentin
    • By Quentin 6th Apr 18, 10:08 AM
    • 36,872 Posts
    • 21,007 Thanks
    Quentin
    • #6
    • 6th Apr 18, 10:08 AM
    • #6
    • 6th Apr 18, 10:08 AM
    Many thanks for your reply,

    On the basis of what you have said, Would the fact the Driver is not English and did not understand any idea of contract stand up in court?
    Originally posted by Varnaman
    You are being pursued as the keeper!!

    So this defence is irrelevant!!
    • The Deep
    • By The Deep 6th Apr 18, 10:11 AM
    • 9,968 Posts
    • 9,766 Thanks
    The Deep
    • #7
    • 6th Apr 18, 10:11 AM
    • #7
    • 6th Apr 18, 10:11 AM
    I cannot see how such an argument would hold. If it did, then surely speed limits would not apply, no entry signs, no smoking signs, etc., etc., etc.

    This is an entirely unregulated industry which is scamming the public with inflated claims for minor breaches of contracts for alleged parking offences, aided and abetted by a handful of low-rent solicitors.

    Parking Eye, CPM, Smart, and another company have already been named and shamed, as has Gladstones Solicitors, and BW Legal, (these two law firms take hundreds of these cases to court each year). They lose most of them, and have been reported to the regulatory authority by an M.P. for unprofessional conduct

    Hospital car parks and residential complex tickets have been especially mentioned.

    The problem has become so rampant that MPs have agreed to enact a Bill to regulate these scammers. Watch the video of the Second Reading in the HofC recently.

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

    and complain in the most robust terms to your MP. With a fair wind they will be out of business by Christmas.
    You never know how far you can go until you go too far.
    • Varnaman
    • By Varnaman 6th Apr 18, 10:21 AM
    • 19 Posts
    • 1 Thanks
    Varnaman
    • #8
    • 6th Apr 18, 10:21 AM
    Parking Eye
    • #8
    • 6th Apr 18, 10:21 AM
    So on that basis should I settle before I go to court?
    • Varnaman
    • By Varnaman 6th Apr 18, 11:27 AM
    • 19 Posts
    • 1 Thanks
    Varnaman
    • #9
    • 6th Apr 18, 11:27 AM
    Update v parking eye
    • #9
    • 6th Apr 18, 11:27 AM
    Parking Eye responded on the last date allowed by the court, the 27th March, so when I received their correspondence there were no longer 14 days to reply with my defence.

    I have just been to the site with the "Site Overview" supplied by PE, I have noticed that since the pictures were taken in August 2015 there are Two signs missing? Is this relevant for any defence?
    • nosferatu1001
    • By nosferatu1001 6th Apr 18, 11:38 AM
    • 3,150 Posts
    • 3,862 Thanks
    nosferatu1001
    You have ALREADY SENT IN YOUR DEFENCE

    What you have to do now is send ion your WITNESS STATEMENT. A statement of facts
    If you can show in your WS that the site plan is wrong, then it helps with a suggestion of inadequate signage.
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 6th Apr 18, 7:35 PM
    • 60,110 Posts
    • 73,256 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    Parking Eye responded on the last date allowed by the court, the 27th March, so when I received their correspondence there were no longer 14 days to reply with my defence.

    I have just been to the site with the "Site Overview" supplied by PE, I have noticed that since the pictures were taken in August 2015 there are Two signs missing? Is this relevant for any defence?
    Originally posted by Varnaman
    GET THE WS AND EVIDENCE IN NOW, ANYWAY.

    WHY DID YOU WAIT? YOU HAD THE SAME DEADLINE THEY DID!

    THEY MET IT.

    YOU DIDN'T, BUT THAT DOESN'T MEAN YOU CAN'T BE BOTHERED AND CAN LEAVE IT COMPLETELY!

    Re the signs, yes - with that outdated defence, signage is your only hope, IMHO.

    We assume when you went to the site you took photos to file with your WS as evidence on Monday morning, in person, at the court?

    And make sure you email your signed WS and evidence to PE as well:

    enforcement@parkingeye.co.uk

    ...with the Claim Number in the subject line and 'WITNESS STATEMENT/EVIDENCE'

    Good luck, you will need it now.
    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.

    • IamEmanresu
    • By IamEmanresu 16th Apr 18, 4:47 PM
    • 3,033 Posts
    • 5,076 Thanks
    IamEmanresu
    What happened?
    If you want to win - avoid losing first. Here are a few examples
    1. Failing to Acknowledge or Defend https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=5760415
    2. Template defences that say nothing https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=5818671&page=5#86
    3. Forgetting about the Witness Statement
    • The Deep
    • By The Deep 16th Apr 18, 5:45 PM
    • 9,968 Posts
    • 9,766 Thanks
    The Deep
    This is an entirely unregulated industry which is scamming the public with inflated claims for minor breaches of contracts for alleged parking offences, aided and abetted by a handful of low-rent solicitors.

    Parking Eye, CPM, Smart, and another company have already been named and shamed, as has Gladstones Solicitors, and BW Legal, (these two law firms take hundreds of these cases to court each year). They lose most of them, and have been reported to the regulatory authority by an M.P. for unprofessional conduct

    Hospital car parks and residential complex tickets have been especially mentioned.

    The problem has become so rampant that MPs have agreed to enact a Bill to regulate these scammers. Watch the video of the Second Reading in the HofC recently.

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

    and complain in the most robust terms to your MP. With a fair wind they will be out of business by Christmas.
    You never know how far you can go until you go too far.
    • IamEmanresu
    • By IamEmanresu 23rd May 18, 6:14 PM
    • 3,033 Posts
    • 5,076 Thanks
    IamEmanresu
    Is there still something going on?
    If you want to win - avoid losing first. Here are a few examples
    1. Failing to Acknowledge or Defend https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=5760415
    2. Template defences that say nothing https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=5818671&page=5#86
    3. Forgetting about the Witness Statement
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

54Posts Today

3,307Users online

Martin's Twitter
  • Ta ta... for now. This August, as I try and do every few yrs, I'm lucky enough to be taking a sabbatical. No work,? https://t.co/Xx4R3eLhFG

  • RT @lethalbrignull: @MartinSLewis I've been sitting here for a good while trying to decide my answer to this, feeling grateful for living i?

  • Early days but currently it's exactly 50 50 in liberality v democracy, with younger people more liberal, older more? https://t.co/YwJr4izuIj

  • Follow Martin