Parking Eye Court Summons Options

[Fender29]

Hello

I have been told this is the place to come for help with Parking Eye Court Summons.

In July last year, we parked in a Retail car park in Grantham, that gives 2 hours free parking. Problem being, it sometimes can take about 5-10 mins to park the car, as it is often packed on a Saturday, and then can take the same at least to get out, as it is next to a traffic lights on the one way system.
Anyway, we never received anything through the post informing us of an over stay, until a Court Summons came through the post on the 24th Jan this year. I have returned the Summons papers saying that we will contest it. I have then phoned Parking Eye to find out the details of the fine, and they have told me, that we have overstayed by 30 minutes. They said that they sent out 2 letters in August and September last year, but we have never received anything - until that is the Court papers came through.

The retail park does have the signs up (well it does now - couldn't tell you if they did back in July last year). As I have said it can take nearly 20 mins to get in and out of the car park - esp when it is busy, and they have said that the cameras take your photo as soon as you enter the car park and when you are about to leave the car park. So in effect, does not take any notice of the time it takes to actually park and get out of it.

Any help, would be really appreciated, as they want £165 for 30 minutes over!!

[Advertisement]

[trubster]

Google the Pranksters Guide to parking eye

for a few quid, it tells you everything you could ever want to know.

[EDW]

Hello

I have been told this is the place to come for help with Parking Eye Court Summons.

In July last year, we parked in a Retail car park in Grantham, that gives 2 hours free parking. Problem being, it sometimes can take about 5-10 mins to park the car, as it is often packed on a Saturday, and then can take the same at least to get out, as it is next to a traffic lights on the one way system.
Anyway, we never received anything through the post informing us of an over stay, until a Court Summons came through the post on the 24th Jan this year. I have returned the Summons papers saying that we will contest it. I have then phoned Parking Eye to find out the details of the fine, and they have told me, that we have overstayed by 30 minutes. They said that they sent out 2 letters in August and September last year, but we have never received anything - until that is the Court papers came through.

The retail park does have the signs up (well it does now - couldn't tell you if they did back in July last year). As I have said it can take nearly 20 mins to get in and out of the car park - esp when it is busy, and they have said that the cameras take your photo as soon as you enter the car park and when you are about to leave the car park. So in effect, does not take any notice of the time it takes to actually park and get out of it.

Any help, would be really appreciated, as they want £165 for 30 minutes over!!

Don't phone PE again use email.

[bargepole]

Firstly, you have not received a Summons, you only get those for criminal proceedings. What you have received is a County Court Claim form.

Secondly, this is not a fine. Only the Courts have the power to fine people, certainly not some tinpot outfit such as Parking Eye.

Thirdly, as stated above, you should not be phoning them. You are making the mistake of thinking they are some kind of reasonable organisation, whereas all they want to do is bully and intimidate you out of your hard-earned. You wouldn't phone a Nigerian "government official" who promised you £10,000 in return for your bank details, would you?

This is merely a speculative invoice, with no lawful basis, for an alleged breach of contract by breaking their silly made-up "rules". As it was a free car park, and you provided no consideration by way of payment, there was no contract to be in breach of.

What you need to do is acknowledge the claim, and submit a defence along the following lines:

On the material date, we were bona fide customers of Grantham Retail Park, a location where multiple retailers have stores. Due to the volume of traffic entering end exiting the car park, it can easily take 20 minutes or longer to park a vehicle. I received no letters or notification from the Claimant regarding the alleged overstay, until the N1 Claim Form arrived in the post. The alleged overstay is, therefore, a matter between the retailers, the landowner, and the Claimant.

I would also assert that I am not liable to the Claimant for the sum claimed, or any amount at all, for the following reasons:

1. The Claimant’s notices do not create any contractual relationship between the Claimant and motorists using the car park.

2. Any consideration flows from the landowner and/or retailers on site. The Claimant therefore has no standing to bring claims in their own name.

3. The Claimant has suffered no actual, or genuine pre-estimate of, loss as a result of the alleged overstay, and their charge of £100 is therefore not recoverable.

The above points will be explained fully in the Witness Statement which I shall serve not later than 14 days before the date of any hearing.

I would also request that the Court makes an order directing the parties to resolve the dispute through the Parking on Private Land Appeals service (POPLA), the independent Alternative Dispute Resolution facility for the private parking industry. This is in accordance with the orders made by District Judge Mayor at Croydon County Court on 13/09/2013 (Case no. 3JD00719, ParkingEye v Mr O), and also by Deputy District Judge Bridger at Southampton County Court on 21/01/2014 (Case no. 3JD05448, ParkingEye v Gilmartin). This will reduce the burden on the County Courts, and avoid the need for court staff and Judges to deal with the excessive volume of largely irrelevant documents known to be furnished by this Claimant in other cases of this nature.

You will then get a "Reply to Defence" from PE, which will be 30+ pages of mostly irrelevant drivel.

They will claim they have won lots of court cases - but no mention of the many they have lost.
They will claim that their charges are a genuine pre-estimate of loss - but they use fixed costs and profit to justify them, none of which are related to this particular incident
They will claim they have authority from the landowner - but are unable to provide any proper proof of that
They will claim "commercial justification" - quoting a load of cases between corporations, which are irrelevant in consumer law
They will claim to have been advised by a QC - but won't reveal the full extent of that advice.

In other words, a blizzard of bow locks.

[bama]

follow bargepole's sage advice - to the letter

[hoohoo]

+2 to bargepole's advice

Meanwhile, find out who the landowner is, and explain the situation and ask them to get PE to cancel.

Also complain to the BPA that parkingeye are holding the registered keeper liable without having sent a notice to keeper (or indeed any communication at all ever until a court claim) within 14 days.
aos@britishparking.co.uk

Also complain to the dvla for the same reason
David.Dunford@dvla.gsi.gov.uk

ParkingEye are well known for mysterious missing letters. Contact the parking prankster to add your name to the list and to get his list for use as evidence.

[EDW]

Firstly, you have not received a Summons, you only get those for criminal proceedings. What you have received is a County Court Claim form.

Secondly, this is not a fine. Only the Courts have the power to fine people, certainly not some tinpot outfit such as Parking Eye.

Thirdly, as stated above, you should not be phoning them. You are making the mistake of thinking they are some kind of reasonable organisation, whereas all they want to do is bully and intimidate you out of your hard-earned. You wouldn't phone a Nigerian "government official" who promised you £10,000 in return for your bank details, would you?

This is merely a speculative invoice, with no lawful basis, for an alleged breach of contract by breaking their silly made-up "rules". As it was a free car park, and you provided no consideration by way of payment, there was no contract to be in breach of.

What you need to do is acknowledge the claim, and submit a defence along the following lines:

On the material date, we were bona fide customers of Grantham Retail Park, a location where multiple retailers have stores. Due to the volume of traffic entering end exiting the car park, it can easily take 20 minutes or longer to park a vehicle. I received no letters or notification from the Claimant regarding the alleged overstay, until the N1 Claim Form arrived in the post. The alleged overstay is, therefore, a matter between the retailers, the landowner, and the Claimant.

I would also assert that I am not liable to the Claimant for the sum claimed, or any amount at all, for the following reasons:

1. The Claimant’s notices do not create any contractual relationship between the Claimant and motorists using the car park.

2. Any consideration flows from the landowner and/or retailers on site. The Claimant therefore has no standing to bring claims in their own name.

3. The Claimant has suffered no actual, or genuine pre-estimate of, loss as a result of the alleged overstay, and their charge of £100 is therefore not recoverable.

The above points will be explained fully in the Witness Statement which I shall serve not later than 14 days before the date of any hearing.

I would also request that the Court makes an order directing the parties to resolve the dispute through the Parking on Private Land Appeals service (POPLA), the independent Alternative Dispute Resolution facility for the private parking industry. This is in accordance with the orders made by District Judge Mayor at Croydon County Court on 13/09/2013 (Case no. 3JD00719, ParkingEye v Mr O), and also by Deputy District Judge Bridger at Southampton County Court on 21/01/2014 (Case no. 3JD05448, ParkingEye v Gilmartin). [b]This will reduce the burden on the County Courts, and avoid the need for court staff and Judges to deal with the excessive volume of largely irrelevant documents known to be furnished by this Claimant in other cases of this nature.
[/b]
You will then get a "Reply to Defence" from PE, which will be 30+ pages of mostly irrelevant drivel.

They will claim they have won lots of court cases - but no mention of the many they have lost.
They will claim that their charges are a genuine pre-estimate of loss - but they use fixed costs and profit to justify them, none of which are related to this particular incident
They will claim they have authority from the landowner - but are unable to provide any proper proof of that
They will claim "commercial justification" - quoting a load of cases between corporations, which are irrelevant in consumer law
They will claim to have been advised by a QC - but won't reveal the full extent of that advice.

In other words, a blizzard of bow locks.

Ha-ha, that is a pretty harsh thing to say in court pleadings.

This post has been edited by EDW: Wed, 5 Feb 2014 - 22:48

[hoohoo]

Ha-ha, that is a pretty harsh thing to say in court pleadings.

Well, it does usually take them 5 pages of 'cost justification' document to get round to saying 'our costs for issuing a ticket are £53'

What a pity they made an arithmetic error after all that work, as their costs per issued ticket cannot possibly be more than £16 according to their own accounts.

[EDW]

they then say 'we have to make a profit, you know'.

Er, fail.

[Fender29]

Hello again. To inform you, I have just received the parking eye pack with all their details in, which includes various examples of cases they have won (apparently), a map of the car park, a witness statement, copies of the two supposed PCNs they said was sent, plus a copy of a letter stating 'Schedule 4 - the registered keeper' - which is the first time that we have seen this also.

They have also refused to go to mediation.

We are still looking at fighting it, but I must admit, I am getting a tad wary now.

Any advice on the next stage would be most grateful.

[Jlc]

They've also included the cases they've lost in the interests of fairness?

Have a look here for starters.

[EDW]

Hello again. To inform you, I have just received the parking eye pack with all their details in, which includes various examples of cases they have won (apparently), a map of the car park, a witness statement, copies of the two supposed PCNs they said was sent, plus a copy of a letter stating 'Schedule 4 - the registered keeper' - which is the first time that we have seen this also.

They have also refused to go to mediation.

We are still looking at fighting it, but I must admit, I am getting a tad wary now.

Any advice on the next stage would be most grateful.

Which court has it been moved to?

[Fender29]

They haven't stated a court, just that they intend to proceed with the court action.

[jim C]

+2 to bargepole's advice.

+3 to bargepoles advice, I followed his advice and got a resounding win in court against PE Have a read of the court transcript on Pranksters web site, PE v Clarke. Don't give in to these scammers.

[emanresu]

They haven't stated a court,

The court will be the one you choose, usually nearest to you. If you click in PE cases and transcript link in my signature, you can see how many PE cases were at that court. If the court is not there, then it will be the first.

http://bit.ly/1iqSGGB

PE's cases are clustered around courts where they have been able to persuade the court there of their "case". They also lose money if they do proceed so everything they do is there to frighten, mislead and pressure you.

JimC saw them off from a court where PE had previously persuade the court there of their "case". So a bit of reading will help you.