PePiPoo Helping the motorist get justice

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

barnet hospital parkingEye parking charge court case, i never parked - only waited inside the car park
chawal2
post Tue, 12 Jun 2018 - 15:02
Post #1


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 80
Joined: 12 Jun 2018
Member No.: 98,396



please can you review and comment on the final defence i prepared and shared below? should i add, edit or remove something? thanks,
---------------------

parking eye (PE) manages barnet hospital car park. car park has no barriers. on 8 feb 2017, i waited in car park for 46 minutes to get a parking space desperately - as were several other drivers. i never parked nor i got out of the car. then i left car park to park somewhere else as i was getting late for my hospital appointment. PE sent me the parking ticket which i appealed against but both PE and POPLA rejected my appeal. then i got letter before action and now court letter. i have sent AOS online. i need your help to know if my defence is robust or can i add or remove something.

PE signage:

I have got the terms and conditions of PE from POPLA Appeal document: I have typed relevant text below from PE terms and conditions signage:

*PE is authorized by landowner to operate the private car park for and on its behalf. We are not responsible for car park surface, damage or loss to and from motor vehicles or general site safety. Parking is subject to the terms and conditions that apply are set within this notice (The Parking Contract). By parking, waiting, or otherwise remaining within this private car park, you agree to comply with these terms and conditions (the Parking Contract) and are authorized to park only if you follow these correctly, including making payment where directed... and so on. If you fail to comply, you accept liability to pay the fee for unauthorised parking (the Parking Charge)
This Parking Contract shall form the entire agreement between the parties.
...more text but irrelevant to our case...

By entering this private car park, you consent, for the purpose of car park management to: capturing of photographs of vehicle and registration by APNR cameras and/or by the attendant and for sub-contractor to check compliance with the Parking Contract.
Furthermore, you consent to the processing of this data to request registered keeper details from DVLA, where the Parking Contract is not adhered to and a) enforcement is undertaken remotely via ANPR; or ...;

Parking charges incurred: a) will be notified to the registered keeper by post, where ANPR system identifies non-compliance with the Parking Contract,...;

------------------------------------
based on above, my defence is:

Background:

Defendant took his 13 year old son to Barnet Hospital for Phototherapy appointment with the nurse. Defendant entered car park and saw that many other cars were waiting to get a vacant parking bay to park car. Defendant too waited in the car park hoping to eventually find a vacant parking bay to park car and visit the hospital dermatology nurse. Defendant desperately waited inside the car along with his son but when in 46 minutes no parking bay became available, then rushed out of the car park to avoid losing the hospital appointment slot. Defendant then found a parking bay in a street and ran with his son to visit hospital nurse. Defendant did not leave car or get any parking bay to park so there was no contract formed to pay to land owner of car park or claimant.

Defence:

1. This claim should be rejected by court as no parking took place due to absence of a vacant parking spot. No contract formed between Claimant and Driver/Defendant
1. signage does not talk about grace period so waiting or grace period does not form part of contract with driver
2. signage does not mention any contract for waiting so waiting does not form terms and conditions or contract.
3. parking charge - as mentioned in signage is for parking and since no parking took place for lack of space, no contract formed or got violated so this charge is unlawful
4. PE has violated consumer contract regulations: consumer-contract-regulations-2013

In this case, a parking charge for breach of the terms and conditions (i.e. the charges of £100) would be.

The signage at this location fails to create any contractual liability due to the failure to comply with the provisions of the Consumer Contracts (Information, Cancellation and Additional Charges) Regulations 2013. The purported contract created by the signage is a ‘distance contract’ as defined in section 5 of the Regulations, and is therefore subject to the mandatory requirements set out in section 13, relating to the statutory information which must be provided by the trader.

The Regulations state, at 13(1)(a), that the information listed in Schedule 2 must be given or made available to the consumer in a clear and comprehensible manner. The Claimant’s notice fails to comply with various clauses of Schedule 2, as follows:

2© – Requirement to provide a geographical address. The Claimant’s address is given as a PO Box number.
2(k) – Requirement to provide a complaint handling policy. This is not described on the signage.
2(o) – Requirement to provide information about the right to cancel, or to state that there is no right to cancel. This is not stated on the signage.
2® – Requirement to provide information about Codes of Conduct. This does not appear on the signage.
2(x) – Requirement for access to an Alternative Dispute Resolution mechanism. Not indicated by the signage.]


5. Claimant has failed to provide any evidence that Defendant parked in the parking area. The APNR images showing the time car entered and exited car park do not prove if i parked so this parking penalty is unlawful.
6. The signage has very small letters and cannot be read unless driver comes out of the car. Without getting opportunity to park the car, it is not possible to read the signage so no contact can be formed until car was parked and since in this case car was not parked, no contract was formed.
7. The claimant failed to include a copy of their written contract as per Practice Direction 16 7.3(1) and Practice Direction 7C 1.4(3A). No indication is given as to the Claimants contractual authority to operate there as required by the Claimants Trade Association's Code of Practice B1.1 which says;
If you operate parking management activities on land which is not owned by you, you must supply us with written authority from the land owner sufficient to establish you as the Creditor; within the meaning of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (where applicable) and in any event to establish you as a person who is able to recover parking charges. There is no prescribed form for such agreement and it need not necessarily be as part of a contract but it must include the express ability for an operator to recover parking charges on the landowner's behalf or provide sufficient right to occupy the land in question so that charges can be recovered by the operator directly. This applies whether or not you intend to use the keeper liability provisions.


Due to these significant breaches of the Regulations, it is submitted that Defendant cannot be held contractually liable, according to the wording of the Regulations at 13 (1) “Before the consumer is bound by a distance contract, the trader must …”.

8. Defendant is yet to have knowledge of all documents provided to the court in support of the application, despite sending an email request to the claimant's website contact form in first week of June.
9. In the pre court stage the Claimant refused to provide defendant with the necessary information requested in order for defence by Defendant against the alleged debt.
They did not send following to defendant:
9a. evidence that the occupants of car left the car.
9b. the car was parked in the Private Eye Car Park
9c. there was any vacant parking bay during the time of alleged use of car park.

10. no parking space was provided by claimant and no service was used by defendant so no contract applies in this case.

11. The Claimant has at no time provided an explanation how the parking charge has been calculated, the conduct that gave rise to it or how the amount has escalated from £60 to £100. This appears to be an added cost with apparently no qualification and an attempt at double recovery, which the POFA Schedule 4 specifically disallows.
11.1. The Protection of Freedom Act Para 4(5) states that the maximum sum that may be recovered from the keeper is the charge stated on the Notice to Keeper.
11.2. The driver did not enter into any 'agreement on the charge', no consideration flowed between the parties and no contract was established.
11.2.1. The Defendant denies that the driver would have agreed to pay the original demand of £60 to agree to the alleged contract had the terms and conditions of the contract been properly displayed and accessible.
Accordingly, it is denied that the Claimant has authority to bring this claim. The proper Claimant (if any debt exists, which is denied) would be the landowner. Strict proof is required that there is a chain of contracts leading from the landowner to Parking Eye and no proof has been provided.


12. The contract displayed on the signage by Claimant was actually discharged by frustration. The contract into which Driver (defendant) may have been willing to enter with the Claimant while entering the car park, was frustrated immediately upon entering car park - by the Claimant's lack of a parking space in the car park for the whole of the time when Defendant was there. Where a contract is found to be frustrated, each party is discharged from future obligations under the contract and neither party may sue for breach.
This proves that this claim is unlawful.


13. Claimant has failed to provide following details in the claim:
a) Full particulars of the parking charges
b) Who the party was that contracted with Claimant
c) The full legal identity of the landowner
d) A full copy of the contract with the landholder that demonstrated that Claimant had their authority.
e) If the charges were based on damages for breach of contract and if so to provide justification of this sum.

The Defendant asks that the court orders Further and Better Particulars of Claim and asks leave to amend the Defence.

14. the claimant is not trading responsibly and has clearly failed to secure its parking area by allowing every car to enter its premises - irrespective of whether any parking bay is vacant or not. Claimant should be forced to put barriers in its parking are and allow a car inside only if there is a vacant parking bay. the parking contract is frustrated as soon as claimant allows a car inside when no parking bay is available.

15. I suggest 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.



16. This case can be easily distinguished from ParkingEye v Beavis which the Judges held was 'entirely different' from most ordinary economic contract disputes.
Charges cannot exist merely to punish drivers. This claimant has failed to show any comparable 'legitimate interest' to save their charge from Lord Dunedin's four tests for a penalty, which the Supreme Court Judges found was still adequate in less complex cases, such as this allegation.


17. It is denied that there was any 'relevant obligation' or 'relevant contract' relating to any single parking event.

18. It is denied that the signs used by this claimant can have created a fair or transparent contract with a driver in any event. The signs were insufficient in terms of their distribution, wording and lighting hence incapable of binding the driver, which distinguishes this case from the Beavis case:
a) Sporadic and illegible (charge not prominent nor large lettering) site/entrance signage - breach of the BPA Code of Practice and no contract formed to pay any clearly stated sum.
b) The signs are believed to have no mention of any debt collection additional charge, which cannot form part of any alleged contract.
c) The signage was not lit and any terms were not transparent or legible; this is an unfair contract, not agreed by the driver and contrary to the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999.
d) No promise was made by the driver that could constitute consideration because there was no offer made nor accepted. No consideration flowed from the Claimant.
e) Absent the elements of a contract, there can be no breach of contract.

19. The defendant denies the claim in its entirety voiding any liability to the claimant for all amounts claimed due to the aforementioned reasons.
It is submitted that the conduct of the Claimant is wholly unreasonable and vexatious.
As such, I am keeping a note of my wasted time/costs in dealing with this matter.

20. I request the court strike out this claim for the reasons stated above, and for similar reasons cited by District Judge Hayes County Court on 17
th March 2014 Case No: 3JD08399 where a similar claim by the Claimant failed, as the Defendent was not parked (she only waited in car park like Defendent in this case) and therefore Claimant could not prove that any parking took place.

21. Claimant has failed to comply with the following documentation which specifically addresses hospital parking and are at least as authoritative as the Code of Practice: '07-03 Health Service Technical Memorandum - NHS Parking and the British Parking Association Charter for Hospital Parking'.
This failure disqualifies ParkingEye from relying on the Beavis decision

22. Appeal Court, considering Beavis, stated that the penalty could never be disengaged for a pay car park



Statement of Truth: I confirm that the contents of this statement are true to the best of my knowledge and belief.
Signature and Date

This post has been edited by chawal2: Sun, 17 Jun 2018 - 19:47
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
8 Pages V  « < 5 6 7 8 >  
Start new topic
Replies (120 - 139)
Advertisement
post Tue, 12 Jun 2018 - 15:02
Post #


Advertise here!









Go to the top of the page
 
Quote Post
nosferatu1001
post Thu, 11 Oct 2018 - 10:01
Post #121


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 18,710
Joined: 27 Nov 2007
Member No.: 15,642



You will need to email them, or you print and send via post. Email is better/ Enforcement@ should work for them

How could an email be lost in the post? Besides, the order states they have READ your defence, not that you didnt file a defence

Please just post the defence here. Poeple wont hop around a thread
Have another read of it yourself - given you have had weeks now you surely have familiarised yourself more with how defences are structured
To be blunt: it is unlikely anyone here will completely rewrite a defence for you, so be prepared to do the work yourself and do it QUICKLY
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
ManxRed
post Thu, 11 Oct 2018 - 10:03
Post #122


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 9,284
Joined: 20 Aug 2008
Member No.: 21,992



QUOTE (nosferatu1001 @ Thu, 11 Oct 2018 - 11:01) *
Please just post the defence here. Poeple wont hop around a thread


Its in the very first post that the OP made on this thread.


--------------------
Sometimes I use big words I don't understand in an effort to make myself sound more photosynthesis.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
chawal2
post Thu, 11 Oct 2018 - 10:20
Post #123


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 80
Joined: 12 Jun 2018
Member No.: 98,396



I removed original pdf. Thanks all.

This post has been edited by chawal2: Fri, 12 Oct 2018 - 10:54
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nosferatu1001
post Thu, 11 Oct 2018 - 10:26
Post #124


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 18,710
Joined: 27 Nov 2007
Member No.: 15,642



Ah sorry, I have the first post turned off - I only see it on the first page of a thread, not every subsequent one.

Just going by the bullets:

1. This claim should be rejected by court as no parking took place due to absence of a vacant parking spot. No contract formed between Claimant and Driver/Defendant
-> very poorly worded but the right idea. Should have been "The D is not liable for any sum claimed as there was no contract in place, as the C had failed to provide any parking places" or similr

1. signage does not talk about grace period so waiting or grace period does not form part of contract with driver
-> not relevant, grace period does not need to be advertised. Besides which you are well over any grace period.

2. signage does not mention any contract for waiting so waiting does not form terms and conditions or contract.
-> That is a repeat of 1. Essentially no parking took place, only waiting, therefore no parking contract was ACCEPTED by the drvers conduct, and no charge for breach of contract is possible
3. parking charge - as mentioned in signage is for parking and since no parking took place for lack of space, no contract formed or got violated so this charge is unlawful
-> complete tosh. It isnt unlawful, its just not enforceable, and its simply a repeat of 1 and 3
4. PE has violated consumer contract regulations: consumer-contract-regulations-2013
-> not a defence to an invoice. Just because they did something wrong it doesnt mean their charge isnt lawful.

Im pretty sure this was discussed at the imte.

So, you have a second bite of the cherry

Go away
Fully research BARNET cases. This site has been WELL COVERED over on the MSE Forum. You cannot possibly fail to find it. Review what was siad.
But at its core you have a one element defence: the defendant never parked, they waited for a parking space, and when no space because available they left. That this took 46minutes isnt important per se - its lengthy but waiting is waiting is waiting, it doesnt become parking suddenly

You also need to get reference to the "waiting isnt parking" case in - was it Newquay? - whic hwas ALSO a parking eye site from memory. That was a queue to leave, not failure to find a space, but the same principle applies.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
ManxRed
post Thu, 11 Oct 2018 - 10:35
Post #125


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 9,284
Joined: 20 Aug 2008
Member No.: 21,992



QUOTE (nosferatu1001 @ Thu, 11 Oct 2018 - 11:26) *
You also need to get reference to the "waiting isnt parking" case in - was it Newquay? - whic hwas ALSO a parking eye site from memory. That was a queue to leave, not failure to find a space, but the same principle applies.


Was that a Fistral Beach case?


--------------------
Sometimes I use big words I don't understand in an effort to make myself sound more photosynthesis.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
chawal2
post Thu, 11 Oct 2018 - 10:38
Post #126


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 80
Joined: 12 Jun 2018
Member No.: 98,396



Ok Nesferatu i will shorten my defence and remove the points u suggested. I will share here for review asap.
I am surprised judge rejected my defence if there were few repetitions. PE writes several pages of complete irrelevant garbage and court seems to be ok with that. I have referenced following case in my defence point 20: which was lost by PE and and defedent waited for half hour and won the case.

20. I request the court strike out this claim for the reasons stated above, and for similar reasons cited by District Judge Hayes County Court on 17
th March 2014 Case No: 3JD08399 where a similar claim by the Claimant failed, as the Defendent was not parked (she only waited in car park like Defendent in this case) and therefore Claimant could not prove that any parking took place.

This post has been edited by chawal2: Thu, 11 Oct 2018 - 10:40
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
unicorn47
post Thu, 11 Oct 2018 - 10:42
Post #127


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 138
Joined: 24 May 2015
Member No.: 77,413



I think the case was Parking Eye v Mrs X.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nosferatu1001
post Thu, 11 Oct 2018 - 10:49
Post #128


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 18,710
Joined: 27 Nov 2007
Member No.: 15,642



All we know is the judge said it didnt disclose a defence. the repetitions arent eh issue, not directly, but they MIGHT have caused the judge to miss your actual defence point.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
ostell
post Thu, 11 Oct 2018 - 10:55
Post #129


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 8,924
Joined: 8 Mar 2013
Member No.: 60,457



Your defence, in my mind, looked more like a witness statement than a defence. The judge was probably complaining that there was so much superfluous wording that he couldn't actually see the defence points. Much as Nosferatu has pointed out.

This case, at Fistral Beach but there may be more. Good memory manxred

The long rambling statement from PE is their witness statement. All the judge has seen from PE so far is the Particulars of Claim. Think of the poor judge having to read all these defences. If you can get the points over in as few words as possible it can only be to your advantage.

This post has been edited by ostell: Thu, 11 Oct 2018 - 10:59
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nosferatu1001
post Thu, 11 Oct 2018 - 10:58
Post #130


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 18,710
Joined: 27 Nov 2007
Member No.: 15,642



Thats Newquay area right? So I wasnt far off!
I wanted to say Fistral beach but thought there was a Wales case as well. Snowdon?

So OP - you have work
Go away and read the suggested links, plus go to MSE and find the BARNET cases there.
You shoujl dbe able to wrangle that intoa defence

Remember, a defence advances your LEGAL ARGUMENTS as to why you are not liable. It is not concerned with the facts of the day, but the arugment. I am not liable because no contract was formed ... is a legal argument.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Umkomaas
post Thu, 11 Oct 2018 - 11:11
Post #131


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 1,753
Joined: 8 Feb 2013
Member No.: 59,842



QUOTE
but thought there was a Wales case as well. Snowdon?

ParkingEye v Cargius. CS027 on this list:

http://www.parking-prankster.com/case-law.html

@OP - have you seen the example/model defence (much foreshortened from standard forum templates) put forward by legally qualified poster 'bargepole'?

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showpo...mp;postcount=24
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
chawal2
post Thu, 11 Oct 2018 - 11:28
Post #132


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 80
Joined: 12 Jun 2018
Member No.: 98,396



QUOTE (ostell @ Thu, 11 Oct 2018 - 11:55) *
Your defence, in my mind, looked more like a witness statement than a defence. The judge was probably complaining that there was so much superfluous wording that he couldn't actually see the defence points. Much as Nosferatu has pointed out.

This case, at Fistral Beach but there may be more. Good memory manxred

The long rambling statement from PE is their witness statement. All the judge has seen from PE so far is the Particulars of Claim. Think of the poor judge having to read all these defences. If you can get the points over in as few words as possible it can only be to your advantage.

Completely makes sense. I will abide by the advice. Thanks

QUOTE (Umkomaas @ Thu, 11 Oct 2018 - 12:11) *
QUOTE
but thought there was a Wales case as well. Snowdon?

ParkingEye v Cargius. CS027 on this list:

http://www.parking-prankster.com/case-law.html

@OP - have you seen the example/model defence (much foreshortened from standard forum templates) put forward by legally qualified poster 'bargepole'?

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showpo...mp;postcount=24

I will look at this link. Many thanks Umkomaas

Thanks Nosferatu and all
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
SchoolRunMum
post Thu, 11 Oct 2018 - 17:42
Post #133


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 18,406
Joined: 20 Sep 2009
Member No.: 32,130



QUOTE (chawal2 @ Thu, 11 Oct 2018 - 11:20) *
Thanks ManxRed.
Nosferatu, i think i did very thorough good job and spent a lot of time creating defence. I will post it again for u all here although it is the pjnned first post.


[attachment=58634:_Claim_R...ce_Final.pdf]
Here is the real pdf file sent to court. Please let me know if you have any suggestions. I could not remove personal details so would like to remove it after i get required help. Thanks all


URGENTLY send a SAR using ParkingEye's online privacy contact page, to their Data Protection Officer, asking for a report from all cameras onsite that day, showing every time the VRN xxx xxxx was captured going past any camera.

I am thinking of this case:

http://parking-prankster.blogspot.com/2016...se-drivers.html

It's possible your car was caught be several cameras looking for a space and might have been in various areas, all of hich have different parking signs. At Barnet I think there is that 20 minute drop off, a staff permit area, a pay & display area, etc. and your car may have been captured more often than you think, not just the In and OUT that PE have cherry picked.

Read the linked case, the OP won due to getting the ANPR capture list, in time for the hearing.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
chawal2
post Fri, 12 Oct 2018 - 14:25
Post #134


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 80
Joined: 12 Jun 2018
Member No.: 98,396



QUOTE (SchoolRunMum @ Thu, 11 Oct 2018 - 18:42) *
QUOTE (chawal2 @ Thu, 11 Oct 2018 - 11:20) *
Thanks ManxRed.
Nosferatu, i think i did very thorough good job and spent a lot of time creating defence. I will post it again for u all here although it is the pjnned first post.


[attachment=58634:_Claim_R...ce_Final.pdf]
Here is the real pdf file sent to court. Please let me know if you have any suggestions. I could not remove personal details so would like to remove it after i get required help. Thanks all


URGENTLY send a SAR using ParkingEye's online privacy contact page, to their Data Protection Officer, asking for a report from all cameras onsite that day, showing every time the VRN xxx xxxx was captured going past any camera.

I am thinking of this case:

http://parking-prankster.blogspot.com/2016...se-drivers.html

It's possible your car was caught be several cameras looking for a space and might have been in various areas, all of hich have different parking signs. At Barnet I think there is that 20 minute drop off, a staff permit area, a pay & display area, etc. and your car may have been captured more often than you think, not just the In and OUT that PE have cherry picked.

Read the linked case, the OP won due to getting the ANPR capture list, in time for the hearing.

Thanks SchoolRunMum...
I went through the case you shared link of. I can write to PE but in our case we did not drive around various car parks of barnet hospital. We drove inside one car park trying to get a parking space for 46 minutes
Please can u advise how PE APNR images can help in my case? Am i right that PE does not monitor cars once inside car park? Thanks
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
ManxRed
post Fri, 12 Oct 2018 - 14:42
Post #135


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 9,284
Joined: 20 Aug 2008
Member No.: 21,992



It may be that the driver - in driving around the same car park - may have occasionally strayed close to the entrance/exit, or within the field of view of the ANPR cameras, and triggered them, without necessarily going in and out. It might be worth a try.

Yes, once inside, PE rarely have people on the ground to monitor the cars. That would be far too close to being actual 'parking management' instead of the money grubbing revenue scheme they are ACTUALLY running.


--------------------
Sometimes I use big words I don't understand in an effort to make myself sound more photosynthesis.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
chawal2
post Fri, 12 Oct 2018 - 15:22
Post #136


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 80
Joined: 12 Jun 2018
Member No.: 98,396



QUOTE (ManxRed @ Fri, 12 Oct 2018 - 15:42) *
It may be that the driver - in driving around the same car park - may have occasionally strayed close to the entrance/exit, or within the field of view of the ANPR cameras, and triggered them, without necessarily going in and out. It might be worth a try.

Yes, once inside, PE rarely have people on the ground to monitor the cars. That would be far too close to being actual 'parking management' instead of the money grubbing revenue scheme they are ACTUALLY running.

Thanks ManxRed i shall write them now.
Do i need to make reference to this in defence statement?

As far as i understand, we cannot write new facts in wutness statement. It just expands defence.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nosferatu1001
post Fri, 12 Oct 2018 - 16:33
Post #137


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 18,710
Joined: 27 Nov 2007
Member No.: 15,642



The defence is a set of arguments

It isn't a set of facts

The witness statement is the FIRST place you put any facts at all!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
SchoolRunMum
post Fri, 12 Oct 2018 - 19:02
Post #138


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 18,406
Joined: 20 Sep 2009
Member No.: 32,130



QUOTE
Thanks ManxRed i shall write them now.
No letter, of course. Just this online:

QUOTE
URGENTLY send a SAR using ParkingEye's online privacy contact page, to their Data Protection Officer, asking for a report from all cameras onsite that day, showing every time the VRN xxx xxxx was captured going past any camera.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
chawal2
post Sat, 13 Oct 2018 - 03:27
Post #139


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 80
Joined: 12 Jun 2018
Member No.: 98,396



Yes thanks SchoolRunMum

QUOTE (nosferatu1001 @ Fri, 12 Oct 2018 - 17:33) *
The defence is a set of arguments

It isn't a set of facts

The witness statement is the FIRST place you put any facts at all!

Thanks Nosferatu
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
chawal2
post Sun, 14 Oct 2018 - 12:29
Post #140


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 80
Joined: 12 Jun 2018
Member No.: 98,396



(Claim Reference xxx) ParkingEye v (Xxx) defence
--------------------------------------------------------------
Background:

This defence has been filed in response to District judge Ahmed’s order dated 4th october 2018; and this defence supersedes defence filed dated 26th june 2018

Defendant took his 13 year old son to Barnet Hospital for Phototherapy appointment with the nurse. Defendant entered car park and saw that many other cars were waiting to get a vacant parking bay to park car.

Defendant too waited in the car park hoping to eventually find a vacant parking bay to park car and visit the hospital dermatology nurse. Defendant desperately waited inside the car along with his son but when no parking bay became available for a long time, then rushed out of the car park to avoid losing the hospital appointment slot.

Defendant then found a parking bay in a street and ran with his son to visit hospital nurse. Defendant did not leave car or get any parking bay to park so there was no contract formed to pay to land owner of car park or claimant.


Defence:

1. The defendant is not liable for any sum claimed as there was no contract on place because claimant had failed to provide any parking space to defendant.


2. As per data shared by Claimant, its APNR cameras captured that both when entering and exiting barnet hospital grounds, the car took exactly 10 seconds to transit Barnet Hospital Main Entrance and Exit area. This cannot be true as traffic conditions were considerably different during defendant’s entry and exit. It seems that claimant’s APNR camera system is defaulted to this value. This could also mean that the time shown by APNR camera system for car park stay duration is also defaulted and not real. Claimant data is not reliable true or fit as an evidence for claim so court should dismiss this case.

3. Signage does not mention any contract formation for waiting so waiting does not form part of terms and conditions or contract. No contract was accepted by driver’s conduct and no charge for breach of contract is possible. Waiting cannot be classified as parking.











4. Claimant has failed to provide any evidence that Defendant parked in the parking area. The APNR images showing the time car entered and exited car park do not prove if i parked so this parking penalty is not enforceable.


5. The signage has very small letters and cannot be read unless driver comes out of the car. Without getting opportunity to park the car, it is not possible to read the signage so no contract can be formed until car was parked and since in this case car was not parked, no contract was formed.

6. The Claimant is not the land-holder and, in the absence of written authority from the land-holder in accordance with the BPA Code of Practice Para 7.2, has no legal capacity to bring the claim. Inspite of requests from defendant to claimant and barnet hospital, none of them have shown any evidence of the above mentioned written authority.

7. Visitors to a hospital have a particular expectation of privacy that is jeopardised when the Claimant contacts the registered keeper.
The Claimant has failed to provide evidence that it conducted a privacy impact assessment that justifies its practice of 'continuous monitoring by ANPR is in use'.

The Defendant therefore submits that the Claimant's ANPR system is unlawful.

The Claimant is attempting to profit from its failure to comply with the basic principles of Data
Protection as advised by the Information Commissioners Office and 07-03 Health Technical Memorandum that parking notices must only be used when all other options have been considered.


8. The claimant failed to include a copy of their written contract as per Practice Direction 16
7.3(1) and Practice Direction 7C 1.4(3A).

No indication is given as to the Claimants contractual authority to operate there as required by the Claimants Trade Association's Code of Practice B1.1 which says;


If you operate parking management activities on land which is not owned by you, you must supply us with written authority from the land owner sufficient to establish you as the

Creditor; within the meaning of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (where applicable) and in any event to establish you as a person who is able to recover parking charges.

There is no prescribed form for such agreement and it need not necessarily be as part of a contract but it must include the express ability for an operator to recover parking charges on the landowner's behalf or provide sufficient right to occupy the land in question so that charges can be recovered by the operator directly.
This applies whether or not you intend to use the keeper liability provisions.


Due to these significant breaches of the Regulations, it is submitted that Defendant cannot be held contractually liable to pay any money claimed.






9. In the pre court stage the Claimant refused to provide defendant with the necessary information requested in order for defence by Defendant against the alleged debt. They did not send following to defendant:

9a. evidence that the occupants of car left the car.


9b. the car was parked in the Private Eye Car Park


9c. there was any vacant parking bay during the time of alleged use of car park.


10. The Claimant has at no time provided an explanation how the parking charge has been calculated, the conduct that gave rise to it or how the amount has escalated from £60 to £100.

11. Claimant has failed to provide following details in the claim:

a) Full particulars of the parking charges

b) Who the party was that contracted with Claimant

c) The full legal identity of the landowner

d) A full copy of the contract with the landholder that demonstrated that Claimant had their authority.



The Defendant asks that the court orders Further and Better Particulars of Claim and asks leave to amend the Defence.








12. I request the court strike out this claim for the reasons stated above, and for similar reasons cited by District Judge Hayes County Court on 17
th March 2014 Case No: 3JD08399 where a similar claim by the Claimant failed, as the Defendent was not parked (she only waited in car park like Defendant in this case) and therefore Claimant could not prove that any parking took place.

13. Claimant has failed to comply with the following documentation which specifically addresses hospital parking and are at least as authoritative as the Code of Practice:

'07-03 Health Service Technical Memorandum - NHS Parking and the British Parking Association Charter for Hospital Parking'.

This failure disqualifies ParkingEye from relying on the Beavis decision



The Claimant has failed to have regard to both 07-03 Health Technical Memorandum : NHS Car Parking Management and the BPA Charter for Hospital Parking that are at least as authoritative as its general Code of Practice.



Failure to comply with ICO basic guidelines (especially on hospital grounds) makes the Claimant's claim unlawful.

Statement of Truth: I confirm that the contents of this statement are true to the best of my knowledge and belief.

Xxx
15/10/2018



-----------


All... please find my updated defence above for your review if this is of interest to you. i have reduced the number of points from 24 to 13. I carefully considered the 13 points that still remain in my defence. My defence has two components... one is that i never parked and second is that the claimant's action is not valid as violates the rules.
I will email and *hand deliver on monday or tuesday.
I did not show deletions in document and did not add new points in red as that resulted in document looking very unpleasant after that.
Please let me know if you have any suggestions

This post has been edited by chawal2: Sun, 14 Oct 2018 - 12:31
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

8 Pages V  « < 5 6 7 8 >
Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 



Advertisement

Advertise here!

RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: Sunday, 16th December 2018 - 14:03
Pepipoo uses cookies. You can find details of the cookies we use here along with links to information on how to manage them.
Please click the button to accept our cookies and hide this message. We’ll also assume that you’re happy to accept them if you continue to use the site.