Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: Defending Parking Eye Court Claim
FightBack Forums > Queries > Private Parking Tickets & Clamping
stevieM12
I requird advice for a friend who last summer parked in a pay and display town centre pub car park mistakenly believing charges didn't apply after 6pm.

Over the following 2/3 months 3 perhaps 4 demands for payment of an excessive charge by Parking Eye were received.

These were ignored and due to the passage of time thrown away.

However out of the blue a county court claim for payment plus costs.has been received.

Is there a defence of this given the length of time in commencing action or any other reason. .

Any advice gratefully appreciated
ostell
So what do the signs say? Perhaps another visit and take a photograph of the signs. Oh, and edit out any inference of the driver.
stevieM12
Thank you for the reply, theee would be a need to revisit the car park to find out what the sign said.

The claim is for £100 plus court fee £25 and legal reps cost £50, total £175.

The claim states "The signage clearly displayed at the entrance to and throughout the car park states this is private land, is managed by Parking Eye Ltd and is a paid parking site, along with other T&C's by which those who park on site agree to be bound. In accordance with the T+C's set out in the signage, the parking charge became payable. Notice under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 has been given under Sch4, making the keeper liable"

ostell
If you come for advice please follow suggestions given. Who was driving the car? Don't answer but look at you post. The PPC's do print off the threads to present tlo a court. Your best defence is if they don't know who the driver is. Have you not read other threads?
nosferatu1001
Have you acknowledged the claim?

You only have 14 days in which to do so; WHEN you do you get 14 extra days to submit your defence

So Acknowledge ONLINE, TODAY. Do NOT write ANYTHING AT ALL in the defecne box.
ostell
And remove the indication of who was driving, as asked. It makes life a lot easier. Don't care about the username but PE may be able to identify you through the thread contents later on.
stevieM12
Thanks for responses, sorry not read other threads , there is a lot, if somebody knows of one similar to the circumstances outlined and can provide a link then that would be appreciated
Jlc
Contents of the signs imperative.

The charge being 'excessive' is not likely to be a sufficient defence.
ostell
There are many pub type threads on here. It is expected that posters will do most of the work themselves and not expect to be spoonfed. Create you own defence from what you read and then put it on here for critique before submitting.

You are the only one that knows specifically what happened and the state of the signs therefore a template is not suitable.
stevieM12
Whilst I've now obtained a photograph of the sign it discloses the car park in question when I've been advised not to post anything that identifies my case.

I"ll therefore just ask the question - is there are defence because of the time taken from issuing warning letters to issuing a claim as this was well over a year. I was under the impression if someone issues a letter before action they have to then follow it up within 28 days.

Can accept advice via personal message

Any help appreciated
cabbyman
DO NOT accept advice by PM!!!!! It could be PE!!!

You are OK to post a copy of the sign on here. The identity of the car park is fine. It's the identity of the driver that should not be divulged.
stevieM12
I would only accept advice from an established poster, the signs don't help the defence as they are clear, the driver simply didn't read them.

Just wondering because of the scandalous charge of £100 (now £175) for missing a payment of £1.20 if there is another escape route
cabbyman
QUOTE (Jlc @ Thu, 24 Nov 2016 - 17:12) *
Contents of the signs imperative.

The charge being 'excessive' is not likely to be a sufficient defence.



kommando
QUOTE
the signs don't help the defence as they are clear, the driver simply didn't read them
.

You best post a photo of the sign and a description of where the signs were, were there any at the entrance, were they prominent and placed so the driver could read them easily.
stevieM12
I've taken that point, to be clear my motivation is the scandalous charge. You will see I've asked if the delay in taking the matter to court could be a defence.

Sadly the signs are clear no point in posting them up
cabbyman
OK. Your choice.
kommando
Scandalous charging is allowed courtesy of Beauvis decision, signs are nearly always deficient to BPA guidelines, they had 6 years to raise the claim, 18 months delay will not raise an eyebrow, so unless you co-operate with posters you are highly likely to lose.
Jlc
What the Appeal Court said in ParkingEye v Beavis :

When the court is considering an ordinary financial or commercial contract, then it is understandable that the law, which lays down its own rules as to the compensation due from a contract breaker to the innocent party, should prohibit terms which require the payment of compensation going far beyond that which the law allows in the absence of any contract provision governing this outcome.

The classic and simple case is that referred to by Tindal CJ in Kemble v Farren (1829) 6 Bing. 141 at 148: “But that a very large sum should become immediately payable, in consequence of the non-payment of a very small sum, and that the former should not be considered a penalty, appears to be a contradiction in terms, the case being precisely that in which courts of equity have always relieved, and against which courts of law have, in modern times, endeavoured to relieve, by directing juries to assess the real damages sustained by the breach of the agreement.”
stevieM12
QUOTE (kommando @ Mon, 28 Nov 2016 - 20:17) *
Scandalous charging is allowed courtesy of Beauvis decision, signs are nearly always deficient to BPA guidelines, they had 6 years to raise the claim, 18 months delay will not raise an eyebrow, so unless you co-operate with posters you are highly likely to lose.


The sign gives the name of the car park and therefore the claim, can you please point me in the direction of the BPA guidelines
kommando
http://www.britishparking.co.uk/Code-of-Pr...ance-monitoring



You have to pick the one in force at the time of the parking event.
stevieM12
QUOTE (kommando @ Mon, 28 Nov 2016 - 21:23) *
http://www.britishparking.co.uk/Code-of-Pr...ance-monitoring



You have to pick the one in force at the time of the parking event.



Thanks , will take a look
nosferatu1001
Then take the picture, and scrub out identifying information. Not difficult.

You need to draw attention that the court of appeal ruled that a Pay and Display car park is entirely differnt to a "free" carpark. The Supreme Court did not override this. Thus the "scandalous charge" route IS a defence, you just need to ensure you CLEARLY differentiate between the car park in Beavis and the car park here
You say the signs are clear, iss the AMOUNT really clear? Bigger than everything else, 96 point font etc?
stevieM12
This is one of the signs with the part showing the name of the car park not shown
stevieM12
Any further advice now I've posted one of the signs up chaps ?
kommando
But its not the full sign, but of note is the small letters at the bottom, can you read this when on site, I never have been able to decipher this as the signs are too high and this will be one appeal point under signage.
stevieM12
QUOTE (kommando @ Wed, 30 Nov 2016 - 20:42) *
But its not the full sign, but of note is the small letters at the bottom, can you read this when on site, I never have been able to decipher this as the signs are too high and this will be one appeal point under signage.



Good point , I struggled to read it. would it stand alone as an appealable point ?

I think my friend would have assumed the £100 fine would have been for a significant breach such as the car being parked up all week
nosferatu1001
IT IS NOT A FINE

Do not call it that. Invoice. Thats all it is

Clarity of signage is a classic point - if the terms cannot be read, they CANNOT be agreed to.
bargepole
In practical terms, the OP is clutching at the flimsiest of straws here, and I can't see any realistic way that this is likely to be defendable in Court.

Judges will generally regard the Beavis judgment as binding, and the fact that this was a P&D rather than a free car park is unlikely to cut any ice.

My advice would be to negotiate the best settlement possible, and get it over with.
nosferatu1001
I thoguht the court of appeal ruling that P&D would have been a different matter would indeed cut some ice?
Lynnzer
Agreed with bargepole on this one.
PE don't usually have signs that don't conform, or fail the PoFA test significantly, or at least to the extent that it would worth making it a single point of defence.

I would suggest making an offer, based on JLC's post here.

Try this.
Sir
Ref PCN ***** & Court Claim *******

I have considered this matter and am willing to agree to a settlement figure before the case is heard in court.

I am prepared to offer you an amount of £30 for the PCN, plus extra costs of £70 for the administrative effort and expense you have incurred already.

I base this offer on clearly worded considerations from legal cases, one of them being your own Beavis Supreme Court decision:

What the Appeal Court said in ParkingEye v Beavis :

When the court is considering an ordinary financial or commercial contract, then it is understandable that the law, which lays down its own rules as to the compensation due from a contract breaker to the innocent party, should prohibit terms which require the payment of compensation going far beyond that which the law allows in the absence of any contract provision governing this outcome.

The classic and simple case is that referred to by Tindal CJ in Kemble v Farren (1829) 6 Bing. 141 at 148: “But that a very large sum should become immediately payable, in consequence of the non-payment of a very small sum, and that the former should not be considered a penalty, appears to be a contradiction in terms, the case being precisely that in which courts of equity have always relieved, and against which courts of law have, in modern times, endeavoured to relieve, by directing juries to assess the real damages sustained by the breach of the agreement.


Of course your win against Beavis was based on you having some proprietary rights to the land so this case against me will not be as favourable in that you, as an agent, have suffered no loss except for the amount of expenses you have incurred thus far.

If you could please respond to this in a timely manner it would be of great assistance. Failure to accept this offer will be mentioned in the subsequent hearing.
bargepole
QUOTE (nosferatu1001 @ Thu, 1 Dec 2016 - 09:48) *
I thoguht the court of appeal ruling that P&D would have been a different matter would indeed cut some ice?


Experience suggests otherwise.

The COA ruling is superseded by the UKSC judgment, and while they didn't specifically consider this point, it can be inferred from the way they have framed the judgment that the same principles would apply, namely that the charge is needed as a deterrent to prevent motorists from parking without payment.

The only cases that PE tend to lose these days are ones where the defendant can establish one of the following:

- The contravention did not occur (eg double dip cases)

- Driver entered car park but never actually parked

- There was a failure of the P&D machine

- Frustration of contract due to unforeseen factors, eg the car wouldn't start when it was time to leave

nosferatu1001
I of course bow to your knowledge on this.

OP - I would do as Bargepole suggests.
stevieM12
Thanks everyone yes it looks as though Bargepole's suggestion is the only option.

So nothing on the delay in bringing any action then ? the last letters were over a year ago and so we're thrown away

nosferatu1001
They have 6 years to lay a claim. While it could be seen as unreasonable to wait a year, it isnt likely to give pause.
Lynnzer
QUOTE (stevieM12 @ Thu, 1 Dec 2016 - 17:58) *
Thanks everyone yes it looks as though Bargepole's suggestion is the only option.

So nothing on the delay in bringing any action then ? the last letters were over a year ago and so we're thrown away

Just go with post 30 or amend the amount according to your confidence in them accepting an offer
stevieM12
Should I head the letter "without" prejudice" showing I'm prepared to defend the claim if they don't accept the offer or "without prejudice save as to costs" if the event the court would agree the claim and lower the amount payable, then there could be chance they have to pay my costs or is it as i uspect an "all or nothing" claim.

Finally what would PE costs likely to be if I lost in court and would I be liable to pay them, thought I read somewhere there is a cap on costs in the small claims court.
ostell
But on neither of the headers and you can then include the letter in your bundle to show that you have been reasonable and attempted to agree to a settlement without resorting to court.
stevieM12
Hi All

Im about to send my offer just wondering if anyone can answer my question about costs (post #36) in the event the offer is declined or ignored.

I'd like to know what the worse case scenario is
stevieM12
QUOTE (bargepole @ Thu, 1 Dec 2016 - 14:45) *
QUOTE (nosferatu1001 @ Thu, 1 Dec 2016 - 09:48) *
I thoguht the court of appeal ruling that P&D would have been a different matter would indeed cut some ice?


Experience suggests otherwise.

The COA ruling is superseded by the UKSC judgment, and while they didn't specifically consider this point, it can be inferred from the way they have framed the judgment that the same principles would apply, namely that the charge is needed as a deterrent to prevent motorists from parking without payment.

The only cases that PE tend to lose these days are ones where the defendant can establish one of the following:

- The contravention did not occur (eg double dip cases)

- Driver entered car park but never actually parked

- There was a failure of the P&D machine

- Frustration of contract due to unforeseen factors, eg the car wouldn't start when it was time to leave


Out of interest how can the failure of the P&D machine be proven or conversely how would PE prove it was working ?
nosferatu1001
Witness statement to the effect it was out of order. PE would then be required to prove it was not, or the judge could find the witness was not credible.

Costs - you will not pay their legal costs such as appearance fee UNLESS you are unreasonable.
Youre looking around £200, because of course you attack their £50 filing fee - tehy use an inhouse solicitor who issues ~30,000 claims per year, at last count. They cannot possibly spend more than 5 minutes on issuing each claim.
stevieM12
Posting error
stevieM12
Does anyone have an email address for Parking Eye where I can a payment offer and discuss the claim?

Jlc
QUOTE (stevieM12 @ Thu, 8 Dec 2016 - 10:20) *
Does anyone have an email address for Parking Eye where I can a payment offer and discuss the claim?

enforcement@parkingeye.co.uk I believe?
stevieM12
I've heard nothing back from my email to parking eye so have decided to file a defence

However when I go onto moneyclaim.gov.uk it will no longer accept my log in, saying password or claim number is incorrect but they are correct, could this be because I acknowledged my claim online this is the end of the online process and I have to file the defence by post?
Gan
If you went to the right page, filing the AOS should have caused no problem for later

Good job you've discovered the problem in plenty of time

Sending by post is OK but keep a copy and get a receipt of sending from the Post Office
It's not mentioned in the instructions but there's also an email address to file defences but can't remember it offhand

Your offer should have been Without Prejudice save to Costs

Assume a claim is live until the court tells you it's been cancelled
ParkingEye has no reason to do a deal for anything other than full payment until it's seen a strong defence

stevieM12
Thanks if someone knows the email address it would be appreciated, I can't find anything here where I'd expect it

https://www.gov.uk/courts-tribunals/northam...business-centre

Actually I've now found an email address from the above link, so have asked them if I can file a defence using it

ccbc@hmcts.gsi.gov.uk



I've received the following automated response that tells me the email address to use


IMPORTANT
You will need to send any ‘claim response’ which includes the acknowledgment of service, part admission or defence/counterclaim forms as well as directions questionnaires (DQs) directly to ccbcaq@hmcts.gsi.gov.uk to ensure that they are filed correctly. Your email has not been forwarded.

N244 and N245 applications should be sent to ccbcfees@hmcts.gsi.gov.uk

The deadline for documents to be received is 4pm, any documents received after this time will be classed as received on the next working
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.
Invision Power Board © 2001-2024 Invision Power Services, Inc.