Parking eye vs me, Parking fine Northampton county court business centre Options

[allygood100]

Hi everyone
Got a parking invoice "fine" from parking eye for a visit to a local hotel my mate was staying in. As i was told by that friend not to worry about the parking and didnt check. Anyways started getting them letters ignored them as i always did in the past. Then received a letter from Northampton county court business centre it was issued 7/1/19 after reading alot of posts on here i did the AoS around the 15/1/19. I then approached the hotel and spoke to a manager about the whole drama. He seemed reasonable and took my details and i have a email from him that says he requested the parking co to cancel the ticket and that i should expect there email to confirm it been cancelled ( haven't heard from them as of yet) so my question is shall i submit a defence to court or wait ? And if i do defence can i use the email from the hotel as a defence
Thank you.

[Advertisement]

[bearclaw]

Has the manager requested a cancellation or REQUIRED them to cancel?

Ideally you want a note from the manager stating that the parking company have been required to cancel the PCN and therefore you have something to wave at the Court...

Mean while you need to get on with writing a good solid defence. Might be best to post up all details, and rembember never hint at who was driving refer to the "the driver" and yourself as "the keeper" at all times.

[ostell]

So make sure you write into your defence that the principal has requested their agent cancel any charge.

Keep following the process for the court claim until it is stopped by PE,

This post has been edited by ostell: Mon, 21 Jan 2019 - 18:03

[allygood100]

They requested them to cancel.

[ostell]

They may have requested them to cancel but PE have a habit of ignoring

[allygood100]

I will try and chase it with the hotel. In really thought that PE would listen to the people who they got a contract with.

[cabbyman]

Of course not; they don't make money that way. You need to realise that you dealing with a nasty, pernicious industry. They won't be nice to you; don't be nice to them!

[allygood100]

Hi all
Got mail from PE today it reads
without prejudice (save as costs)
My name
We are now in receipt of further info and in an effort to bla bla prepard to accept sum of £60 with in 14 days.


Bear in mind that i havent filed my defence yet.
What do you think?

This post has been edited by allygood100: Fri, 25 Jan 2019 - 19:26

[Redivi]

That's their standard letter when they know their claim is dead in the water and they just want to recover their (non-existent) costs
It's usually dressed up to say that you're responsible for the costs because you didn't appeal

A suitable response is to reject their argument and point out that you've cost them precisely zero :

If you had appealed, their costs and fees to deal with an independent appeal to POPLA would be higher than issuing the claim
You are well-aware that they use an in-house solicitor and the £50 Legal Representative fee on the claim form is pure profit

You are content to allow the court to decide if they have the capacity to take legal action in accordance with the BPA Code of Practice Para 7.3

Claims are usually discontinued shortly afterward

[allygood100]

hi guys this a draft defense :


IN THE COUNTY COURT

CLAIM No: xxxxxxxxxx

BETWEEN:

XXXX PARK (Claimant)

-and-

xxxxxxxxxxxx (Defendant)

________________________________________
DEFENCE
________________________________________

1. The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to relief in the sum claimed, or at all.
1.2 The Defendant is the registered keeper of the vehicle in question. The Claim relates to an alleged debt in damages arising from a driver's alleged breach of contract, when parking at xxxx

1.3. Any breach is denied, and it is further denied that there was any agreement to pay the Claimant's £100 'Parking Charge Notice ('PCN')'.

2. The allegation appears to be based on images by their ANPR camera at the entrance and exit to the site. This is merely an image of the vehicle in transit, entering and leaving the car park in question and is not evidence of the registered keeper 'not purchasing the appropriate parking time' or of the driver not being a patron of the cxxxxxx Hotel.


2.1. The defendant is a private hire driver and due his trade is in constant use of the pickup and drop off at the car park in question, and the registration of the vehicle is picked up numerous times when entering and leaving the site, the defendant rise the fact that is could sometimes create a double dip scenario where the system calculate wrongly the amount spent in the premises. And from previous experience with parking firm the same issue occurring and will be providing proves in due time.

3. The Particulars of Claim state that the Defendant was the registered keeper and/or the driver of the vehicle(s). These assertions indicate that the Claimant has failed to identify a Cause of Action, and is simply offering a menu of choices. As such, the Claim fails to comply with Civil Procedure Rule 16.4, or with Civil Practice Direction 16, paras. 7.3 to 7.5. Further, the particulars of the claim do not meet the requirements of Practice Direction 16 7.5 as there is nothing which specifies how the terms were breached.

4. Due to the sparseness of the particulars, it is unclear as to what legal basis the claim is brought, whether for breach of contract, contractual liability, or trespass. However, it is denied that the Defendant, or any driver of the vehicle, entered into any contractual agreement with the Claimant, whether express, implied, or by conduct.

5. Further and in the alternative, it is denied that the claimant's signage sets out the terms in a sufficiently clear manner which would be capable of binding any reasonable person reading them. They merely state that vehicles must be parked correctly within their allocated parking bay, giving no definition of the term 'correctly parked', nor indicating which bays are allocated to whom.

5.1. The terms on the Claimant's signage are also displayed in a font which is too small to be read from a passing vehicle, and is in such a position that anyone attempting to read the tiny font would be unable to do so easily. It is, therefore, denied that the Claimant's signage is capable of creating a legally binding contract. The defendant never noticed the signs prior to the fine and if he knew about the parking terms he would’ve asked the hotel in question to exempt his vehicle on their permanent ‘white list’ to enable him to use the site regularly without being punished for not knowing about an onerous hidden trap. Not only was that option never stated anywhere, but in fact nothing was seen about any keypad to input any VRN, a wholly unexpected requirement.


6. This case is different to Beavis vs ,,, furthermore the hotel wants the whole claim cancelled and the defendant will provide prove in due time. So there are no facts that save this from being struck out as punitive and unconscionable, and the penalty rule mentioned in Beavis remains engaged on this occasion, with no support from the landowner and no deterrent value or commercial justification, and a complete lack of clear signs inside and out to draw attention to some sort of keypad/ipad, there is no legitimate interest that could allow this claimant to charge more than could the normal damages that only a landowner could claim if applicable.


7. XXXX recently issued a parking ticket to a motorist who they said had stayed almost 3 hours in a car park. They based this accusation on pictures their ANPR had taken of the vehicle arriving and leaving. However, the motorist had visited the car park twice, once in the afternoon and then later in the early evening. XXXXXs system, being unfit for purpose, had failed to take pictures of the first exit and second entry. The motorist appealed; XXXX responded with a threatening letter. Luckily for the motorist, they had a tracker device in their vehicle which showed their journey.

8. The Claimant is put to strict proof that it has sufficient proprietary interest in the land, or that it has the necessary authorization from the landowner to issue parking charge notices, and to pursue payment by means of litigation. Furthermore the landowner (business) agrees with the defendant in that there no ground of the parking fine and has requested the Claimant to cancel the fine.

9. The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4, at Section 4(5) states that the maximum sum that may be recovered from the keeper is the charge stated on the Notice to Keeper, in this case £100. The claim includes an additional £60, for which no calculation or explanation is given, and which appears to be an attempt at double recovery. Shall I keep this as the fine was for £100.

10. In summary, it is the Defendant's position that the claim discloses no cause of action, is without merit, and has no real prospect of success. Accordingly, the Court is invited to strike out the claim of its own initiative, using its case management powers pursuant to CPR 3.4.

I believe the facts contained in this Defense are true.

Name
Signature
Date

[Redivi]

Lose 2.1. It's an attempt to mislead the Court about the incident

Lose 7. Same reason

Rephrase 1:

1. The Defendant is the registered keeper of the vehicle in question.. The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to relief in the sum claimed, or at all.
1.2 The Claim relates to an alleged debt in damages arising from a driver's alleged breach of contract, when parking at xxxx

1.3. Any breach is denied, and it is further denied that there was any agreement to pay the Claimant's £100 'Parking Charge Notice ('PCN')'.

Rephrase 8 and make it #2 :

The Defendant denies that the Claimant has the capacity in accordance with the British Parking Association Code of Practice Para 7.3 to take legal action.
The Defendant further asserts that the Principal has instructed the Claimant to cancel the Parking Notice.

[allygood100]

Thank you for the corrections.

[cabbyman]

....And it's defence not defense.

This post has been edited by cabbyman: Sun, 27 Jan 2019 - 06:29

[Slapdash]

The defence point 2.1 doesn't sound consistent with the original account.

[allygood100]

thank you guy for your help. will be sending my defence this evening .

[allygood100]

I've emailed the parking firm my responseto thier offer of discount and a request of a SAR.



Dear Sir/Madam

without prejudice (save as costs).

Replaying to your last letter regarding the offer of discount on the disputed parking fine
Vehicle registration XXXXX . The defendant reject that offer.

The defendant Request for Access pursuant to Article 15 of the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR).
Please provide all and every information you hold of the register keeper of the vehicle mentioned above. Including the new information you mentioned (your referred to a new information past on to Xxxxcxcccc ltd that made you make an offer of discount on the parking fine) on your latest corresponds.

Yours sincerely

[nosferatu1001]

OK, one document isnt a great idea, as it is to two different "people" within the firm

Please try to construct full English sentences, especially when communicating with the claimant.

[Redivi]

I had suggested including reasons to justify your rejection

[cabbyman]

Why 'without prejudice?' That means that you can't refer to that in court.

[Redivi]

He's put "save as costs" so it can be presented after the hearing when the costs are decided

Not that rejecting the offer without giving a reason helps him in any way