PePiPoo Helping the motorist get justice Support health workers

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

ES Parking Proceeding Issued - Seymour Grove, Help drafting a defence
Merlinscat
post Tue, 21 May 2019 - 11:08
Post #1


New Member


Group: Members
Posts: 9
Joined: 20 May 2019
Member No.: 103,944




My Brother in Law received a Final Demand Letter from ES Parking for returning to The Seymour Grove car park within the 4 hour period.

This was the first notice he had received from ES Parking.

We managed to find a number for ES Parking and called to advise that he had returned to the car park or give his fiancé her bank card which he had left with and that the Final Demand letter was the first he had heard of the fine and therefore he should have the right to appeal.

The lady he spoke to was not interested in what he had to say and advised to either pay the fine or be faced with a CCJ and ended the call.

We then received correspondence from Gladstones demanding payment. We explained to them what had happen via correspondence but again they were uninterested. We submitted the Pre- Action Protocol form and requested the further information as advised on the forums. We also requested proof of postage which of course was not provided as they alleged it’s an unreasonable request. Gladstones also advised that unless they receive payment within 30 days they will proceed to issue Proceeding, which they did.

We received a Claim Form dated the 7/5/19 from the Northampton County Court Business Center.

I am going to return the Allocation Questionnaire today and the try and work on a defence.

Any help with drafting a defence would be much appreciated. I know this will be tricky as he did return to the car park but there were mitigating circumstances and ES Parking’s behaviour has been so unreasonable this has become a matter of principle.

Also is there any way to have the Proceeding moved to a local court or is it best to leave it at Northampton?



Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
 
Start new topic
Replies (1 - 15)
Advertisement
post Tue, 21 May 2019 - 11:08
Post #


Advertise here!









Go to the top of the page
 
Quote Post
Sheffield Dave
post Tue, 21 May 2019 - 11:56
Post #2


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 2,053
Joined: 20 May 2013
Member No.: 62,052



By "allocation questionnaire", do you mean Acknowledgement of Service?

Northampton is just the central clearing house for small court claims; when you later receive a Directions Questionnaire you will be able to nominate your local court.

Did the return to the car park involve a second period of parking, or was it just briefly stopping to hand over the card?

In his appeals, was the driver identified? (It sounds like it was).
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Merlinscat
post Tue, 21 May 2019 - 13:33
Post #3


New Member


Group: Members
Posts: 9
Joined: 20 May 2019
Member No.: 103,944



Sorry yes it was Acknowledgement of Service. Getting my forms mixed up.

Second period was 12 minutes when he parked up to go into Iceland to return the card.

QUOTE (Sheffield Dave @ Tue, 21 May 2019 - 12:56) *
By "allocation questionnaire", do you mean Acknowledgement of Service?

Northampton is just the central clearing house for small court claims; when you later receive a Directions Questionnaire you will be able to nominate your local court.

Did the return to the car park involve a second period of parking, or was it just briefly stopping to hand over the card?

In his appeals, was the driver identified? (It sounds like it was).



In the initial reply he was stated as the driver but in an email response he has stated I
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Merlinscat
post Wed, 22 May 2019 - 09:44
Post #4


New Member


Group: Members
Posts: 9
Joined: 20 May 2019
Member No.: 103,944



Hi guys,

We were not given the opportunity to go through the appeals process as the initial letter was never received. The first we knew of the pan was the Final Demand Letter from ES Parking

All correspondence has been with Gladstones direct.

Acknowledgement of Service has been filed and I have until the Saturday 8 June to file a Defence. So in reality ideally want it filed by Wednesday 5 June 2019 or before if possible.

Any help to draft a defence for returning to site within the 4 hour no return period would be appreciated.

He only returned to give his fiancé her bank card so surely there is some kind of mitigating circumstances defence???.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
ostell
post Wed, 22 May 2019 - 10:08
Post #5


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 17,088
Joined: 8 Mar 2013
Member No.: 60,457



So if the first notice received was the final demand then if the driver has not been identified then the keeper has no liability as the notice was not received within the 14 days required.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Redivi
post Wed, 22 May 2019 - 10:46
Post #6


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 4,126
Joined: 31 Jan 2018
Member No.: 96,238



He's told ES and Gladstones that he went back to return the bank card
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Merlinscat
post Wed, 22 May 2019 - 15:08
Post #7


New Member


Group: Members
Posts: 9
Joined: 20 May 2019
Member No.: 103,944



QUOTE (Redivi @ Wed, 22 May 2019 - 11:46) *
He's told ES and Gladstones that he went back to return the bank card



Yes he has. Is there any defence / case law for this
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
ManxRed
post Wed, 22 May 2019 - 15:19
Post #8


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 9,985
Joined: 20 Aug 2008
Member No.: 21,992



The experts can shoot me down if I've got this wrong, but is there any mileage in the argument that the second visit, which triggers the breach, is in fact Trespass? The second visit is 'No Parking' isn't it?

Discuss.


--------------------
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
Redivi
post Wed, 22 May 2019 - 16:43
Post #9


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 4,126
Joined: 31 Jan 2018
Member No.: 96,238



All's fair because this brings in issues of legal capacity and limit to damages

Could go either way
Can also argue that a condition of parking the first time is the promise not to return and it's no different from a time limit as per Beavis

There are the usual defence points regarding Gladstones inadequate Particulars of Claim and the poor signage

There would be a defence if the car had different drivers for the two visits

Another possibility is whether the first visit was just a drop off without parking

This might be a case to raise the purpose of the contract which was to maximise revenue for the retail park
This is not fulfilled if potential customers are unable to make purchases when they discover that their bank cards have been left at home but cannot retrieve them and return

This post has been edited by Redivi: Wed, 22 May 2019 - 16:45
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
motstot
post Wed, 22 May 2019 - 19:37
Post #10


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 34
Joined: 18 May 2019
Member No.: 103,930



The signage may have changed, but there are other posts on here about this car park, and the condition of 'no return within 4 hours' is in teeny, tiny print and (according to that poster) "all their signs are mounted 8 feet up and you have to get quite close and crane your neck to read them". The amount of the parking charge is (or was) in tiny print too.

It may help if the first entry was a drop-off only, especially if the signage is as bad as indicated, as you could argue no opportunity to become acquainted with the terms which were imposed at the first visit before being bound by them.

Consumer Rights Act 2015, Schedule 2 (Consumer contract terms which may be regarded as unfair). Part 1 – List of Terms:
10: A term which has the object or effect of irrevocably binding the consumer to terms with which the consumer has had no real opportunity of becoming acquainted before the conclusion of the contract.

A subject access request (SAR) to ES would reveal exactly how long the first visit was, and I think this could be pertinent. Unfortunately they have 30 days to respond to an SAR and the defence is due before that.

Others may have differing opinions but as the contract was allegedly formed on the first visit, I’d say that’s where you need to firm up the facts. Mitigating circumstances for the 2nd visit are unlikely to be considered a valid defence.

My advice would be to get photographs of the signage – entrance sign and signs within the site, showing how high it is and how small the print is – and think about whether the driver could reasonably have known about the ‘no return’ clause.

The suggestion that ‘no return’ means there was no offer of parking on the second visit is also worth running with, I think. No offer = no contract, therefore trespass only.

This post has been edited by motstot: Wed, 22 May 2019 - 19:37
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Merlinscat
post Thu, 6 Jun 2019 - 10:19
Post #11


New Member


Group: Members
Posts: 9
Joined: 20 May 2019
Member No.: 103,944



Hi Guys,

well I have sent the acknowledgement of service and have now drafted my defence.


which by my calculation is due to be filed by tomorrow - issue date was the 7 May 2019. I hope this is correct?


here is the defence that I have put together. apologies as it is a bit lengthy but I thought better to cover more than less.


any feedback amendment suggestions would be much appreciated, especially as I wasn't to get this filed later today (to allow for any hiccups)

…………… Attached File  edited_defence.pdf ( 110.67K ) Number of downloads: 88


I think I have attached it properly any issues please message me.

thank you
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
ostell
post Thu, 6 Jun 2019 - 13:16
Post #12


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 17,088
Joined: 8 Mar 2013
Member No.: 60,457



You gave 33days from the date of issue to get your claim to court,

Defence due 28 days from date of service, assumed served 5 days after issue
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Merlinscat
post Thu, 6 Jun 2019 - 13:33
Post #13


New Member


Group: Members
Posts: 9
Joined: 20 May 2019
Member No.: 103,944



QUOTE (ostell @ Thu, 6 Jun 2019 - 14:16) *
You gave 33days from the date of issue to get your claim to court,

Defence due 28 days from date of service, assumed served 5 days after issue



Day 33 would be Sunday 9 2019. But in anticipation of any system glitches I want to file the defence today as that way I can contact the court tomorrow if I need to.

Does anyone have any feedback on the defence I have cobbled together, as I’m new to all this but don’t want them to get away with it or at least have to work a bit for their extortionate fees for a change

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Merlinscat
post Fri, 7 Jun 2019 - 07:52
Post #14


New Member


Group: Members
Posts: 9
Joined: 20 May 2019
Member No.: 103,944



Hi guys,

Any feedback on the defence as I really need to file today.

Any comments would be much appreciated
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Merlinscat
post Fri, 7 Jun 2019 - 13:25
Post #15


New Member


Group: Members
Posts: 9
Joined: 20 May 2019
Member No.: 103,944



Does anybody know the email address for the Northampton Business Center so I can email my defence today and then follow with a phone call.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Redivi
post Fri, 7 Jun 2019 - 17:23
Post #16


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 4,126
Joined: 31 Jan 2018
Member No.: 96,238



That defence is much too long and has several major errors

Consumer Rights Act is a non-starter
The Supreme Court kicked out the Aziz argument

So is the CCICR
As far as the courts are concerned, it's not a distance contract

Not a genuine pre-estimate of loss and therefore a penalty is an open invitation to reject your defence
It was the whole point of the Beavis case when the Supreme Court decided that penalties were enforceable

The £50 Legal Representative fee to issue a claim is authorised by the Civil Procedure Rules
How much ES was actually charged is irrelevant

It lacks a logical order
You want to write it as a series of Even if hurdles
Even if the previous defence point fails....

Something along the lines:

The Particulars of Claim don't disclose a cause of action
ES doesn't have the legal capacity required by its Code of Practice to issue the claim
Identity of driver
Signs don't comply with Code of Practice
The driver didn't park on at least one of the occasions
Even if had parked, was trespass not contract and only land-owner can bring claim
Even if had parked, was necessary for purpose of enabling passenger to make payments in shops
Believe ES acting outside terms of its contract. Nonsense that it allows penalising of brief stops for purposes of eg drop-off and collecting of passengers
Don't believe additional debt collection charges incurred
The charge is a penalty that does meet conditions of Beavis to be disengaged - no public interest, breaches of Code of Practice

This post has been edited by Redivi: Fri, 7 Jun 2019 - 17:23
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

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: Thursday, 28th March 2024 - 20:29
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.
IPS Driver Error

IPS Driver Error

There appears to be an error with the database.
You can try to refresh the page by clicking here