Pangbourne Working Mens Club- Parking Eye drop claim

I haven't posted previously, but am now looking for advice following receipt today of a Notice of Discontinuance (at long last and seven days before a scheduled County Court hearing).

Relevant history (which might be helpful for others fighting claims for this car park) is as follows:

August 2018 out of the blue I received (as Registered Keeper) a County Court Claim form in respect of a claim (usual £175) by ParkingEye for an alleged 18 minute visit to the car park made by a driver of my car back in April 2018. The (rather lacking in detail) Particulars of Claim asserted that a NTK under POFA had been sent to me, but did not say when.

I wrote immediately to PE seeking further information. They responded after 14 days enclosing copies of four letters allegedly sent to me between April-July. I did not receive any of these letters - which were not ones which would pass unnoticed.

ParkingEye's claim was a shock and a surprise because I had no recollection of ever visiting that car park. Although I have passed it many times, there is 30 minutes free parking a hundred yards away in the centre of Pangbourne. The same applied to the other two insured drivers. The whole thing was a mystery as was the suspicious non-receipt of important letters.

I wrote back to ParkingEye immediately (mid-August) explaining I had no record of receipt and putting them to proof of posting, in particular of the NTK which was the core of their claim against me.

In the meantime I had made a site visit, taken photographs and had a chance conversation in passing with a member of the Club's committee. The committee member seemed surprised that PE had issued a claim for a stay of 18 minutes because the Club had taken pains to negotiate a 15 minute grace period (longer than the BPA 10 minutes) with PE when setting up the management contract in January 2017. He also mentioned that the Club had been taken by surprise when shortly after the contract became live they received a VAT invoice from PE charging them VAT on PE's revenue from parking claims. (I believe this is relevant to the question of whether PE is acting as principal or agent).

I had also asked in my August letter for PE to respond to requests for further and better particulars and evidence concerning the accuracy of the ANPR cameras (the alleged visit being only 3 minutes in excess of the grace period); to confirm the grace period or send me an unredacted copy of the site contract; to send me a plan and actual photos of the size and location of signage; and of course I put them to proof in respect of their £50 legal costs.

By end August I had not received a response to my letter and reminders so I was obliged to file a provisional Defence to the County Court Northampton via Money Claim online.

Provisional grounds were:
No evidence provided by PE for the breach described as "entering and leaving the car park, parking without a parking ticket" (the ANPR covers an entrance/exit which also appears to serve some private lock-up garages not part of the car park and it is not clear how PE filters out those users);
No evidence (proof of posting / delivery) provided by PE in respect of NTK (under the Interpretation Act 1978 para 7 "service by post" is only "deemed to be effected by properly addressing, pre-paying and posting a letter". PE had not senr Recorded Delivery or even obtained a Certificate of Posting).
Signage is inadequate, unlit and insufficient to form a contract with the driver. (This was a key defence. The signs in the car park are high up, small print and (bar one) unlit. The alleged visit took place at night and the car park is unlit apart from the pay machine island - which tellingly is an area where there should be a sign but isn't).
Grace period exceeded by only 3 minutes therefore de-minimis.
Claimant has no standing.

I kept chasing PE for the further particulars requested. Eventually, in response to my saying their refusal to respond to my requests was prejudicing the Overriding Objective and would be drawn to the attention of the Court as evidence of acting unreasonably, they emailed me saying they would include the evidence in their court bundle.

In October I filed the Directions Questionnaire as the claim had now been listed my local court in Reading. I took the opportunity to mention in my covering letter to the court that PE's refusal to provide further particulars was risking frustration of alternative routes to settlement (both parties had said yes to the involvement of the Small Claims Mediation Service - but in the end the court did not refer the claim to them.) I asked the Court to consider making a Case Management Direction under Rule 1.4(2)(i) to PE requiring them to provide the information requested. (I did not make a formal application because this would have cost £240!).

Around the same time (October) I checked with the local planning authority. It turned out that PE had not applied for planning permission for the car park installation, including the ANPR camera which was on a floodlit pole and therefore not covered by "permitted development". PE were therefore operating in breach of planning. Furthermore and more seriously, each of the six signs in the car park was in excess of 0.3sqm and required express advertising consent (a type of planning consent). Crucially, whereas planning consent can be back-dated, advertising consent cannot be granted retrospectively. The failure to apply for advertising consent is also a criminal offence (under s224 of the Town and country Planning Act 1990), punishable by a fine of up to £2,500 and £250 a day for continued breach. All this meant that PE had been operating unlawfully on site for at least 18 months. Furthermore, internet research indicated that PE's business model was to "install now and apply for permission only when required" so they were knowingly and wilfully committing a criminal offence. That criminality, if present, in regard to the signage would go the core of their contract because the signs are the basis of the contract the driver of my car was alleged to have breached. For those interested, Parking Eye's breach of planning law is currently under investigation by West Berkshire Council under reference 18/00546/04ADV and I have a letter from the Head of Enforcement at the Council confirming that no applications for planning or advertising consent have been received in respect of the PE installed camera and signage.

I heard nothing from PE for several months. I had made a second site visit in October and taken pictures under darkness to prove it would have been impossible for anyone to have read, understood and approved the terms of any contract without the use of as ladder (the bottom of the signs are 2.2 metres above floor level) and a torch (they are unlit). By mid-February I was ready to go to court and was confident the claim would be struck out not least because of the unlit and unlawful signage, the lack of proof of posting of the NTK and the de-minimis 3 minutes beyond the grace period.

The Court Directions required me to file my Witness Statement and any further defence and documents by 22 February. On 19 February I emailed PE one last time (copy to the court) chasing for the further particulars and listing the many previous requests, reminding them again that their refusal to respond was making it inevitable that the case could not be settled before court. I included in that letter that I was now aware of the planning issues and possible criminality relating to the signage.

On 21 February I received through the post what I believe to be PE's usual defence bundle. Unsurprisingly, although it stretched to 164 pages, it contained hardly any of the further detail I had requested. There was a Witness Statement from a claims handler, but she would not be attending court. PE would be represented by an advocate from LPC Law. The bundle did include some additional comments in PE's Rely to Defence relating to particular points I had made and a reference to signage being sufficient " even if their presence was a purported planning breach". The photos of the signage included in the bundle were not current but dated from 2017, since which the wording had changed.

The last moment delivery meant I had to put together my own Witness Statement and Further Defence and Rebuttal very quickly and this was sent to PE and the Court the following day. I was pretty angry by now that PE were acting unreasonably, so I did not hold back in my further defence and Witness Statement. I focused on the criminality, if proven, of the signage being fatal to PE's prospects of pursuing a claim for breach of a contract founded on wilful and knowing criminality. I referred the Court to the Somerfield case at para 535 which made reference to the long-established principle that "No court will lend its aid to a man who founds his cause of action on an immoral or an illegal act"

The hearing was scheduled for 8 March. Included with the PE bundle (but separate) was a Without Prejudice offer to settle for £100 with a time limit of a few days. Having filed my bundle with the Court I was now looking forward to my day in court and, hopefully to challenging the LPC Law advocate's Right of Audience and generally making PE pay for the aggravation, time and trouble (and at the outset anxiety also) they had caused me. I ignored the offer to settle.

I was therefore slightly disappointed therefore today to receive a Notice of Discontinuance from PE dropping their claim. My first thought is to regret that I did not make a counter-claim which could have been heard on 8 March - I have booked time off work, etc.

I do not want to just drop this as I want to make PE hurt a little in return and I think the issues need to be referred to the proper authorities. Obviously my case has meant some work for them, and I am hopeful that the Planning Enforcement team at West Berkshire Council will act in regard to the criminal breach.

I think I may have the option of a claim against PE for my expenses up to the ND and possibly a complaint to the ICO for breach of data protection since their application to DVLA for my registered keeper details was possibly unlawful since they appear to have ridden a coach and horses through the BPA Code of Practice.

Whilst holding myself (and my "dossier") available to assist any other unfortunate victims of what I see as ParkingEye's entrapment operation at Pangbourne, does anyone have any suggestions about how I might make PE pay for 8 months of stress?