This one ? http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=132660&hl=

Get the mods to merge

No I haven't. Is there one or two in particular you'd suggest while I wait for this post to be merged with the other one?

Yes I did contact them but we are now way beyond that stage. We are at the pre action stage before a suit

What did they say though?

Blood from stone....

In your original thread you said:
"The receipts show that not enough time was paid for, i.e. the tariffs were wrong. Meant to pay for 1.5 hours but only paid for 1 hour.".
Where were the tariffs wrong? On the signs? On the payment machine? Sounds like cast-iron case if signage was misleading.

Dear Sirs

Your Reference: ******
Our Reference: *****
Vehicle: *****

By Email Only:- enforcement@parkingeye.co.uk

I am in receipt of your letter headed Letter Before Claim dated 10 June 2020, received on 17 June 2020. For the avoidance of doubt, the postal address above is the address to be used for service of any documentation. Service is not accepted by email.

I deny the claim and that any debt exists. If you persist with being unreasonable in this matter then I will robustly defend this claim.

Although I wholeheartedly dispute that a debt exits, I request that this matter be placed on hold for 30 days, while I seek debt advice on this matter. Unless of course you wish to be reasonable and revoke the PCN.

To have issued this PCN to someone whose car was being used to attend a Hospital’s department (evidence was provided to you previously) is both baffling and devoid of humanity.

I invite you now to save wasting everyone’s time and revoke this PCN.

In any case, the Hospital’s PALS department has been informed of your predatory behaviour and will be in touch with you.

Should you persist in bringing the action you threaten, I am challenging your parking notice, inter alia, for the following grounds:-

1. I was not driving the vehicle.
2. The land concerned is a hospital car park. Separate specialist guidelines apply to parking in hospital car parks (see https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/...ing-principles). These include, inter alia:-
a. charges should be ‘reasonable’ for the area;
b. ‘concessions, including free or reduced charges or caps, should be available for the following groups:- … frequent outpatient attenders’; and
c. additional charges should only be imposed where reasonable an should be waived when overstaying is beyond the driver’s control (e.g. when treatment takes longer than planned…)’.
3. A person with a disability cannot be subject to any detriment relating to any matter to do with their condition (Equality Act 2010). The vehicle was being used by a patient at a hospital for a condition to which the act applies.
4. The parking notice sent is not a genuine pre-estimate of loss. The amount claimed is extravagant and unconscionable. Further, the Supreme Court’s eventual decision in Parking Eye v Beavis made no comment on the Court of Appeal’s reasoning that the ruling was not applicable to private car parks; so the Court of Appeal’s dicta on this matter is good law.

5. Even if a contract had been formed it would be void. The Claimant was not acting in good faith and was in breach of the Consumer Rights Act 2015. Part 2 of the CRA:

a. Requires that all written terms used with consumers must be transparent.
b. Requires that all terms used with consumers must be fair; save that the fairness test does not apply to terms which reflect mandatory laws, the main subject matter of the contract or the adequacy of the price.

If this is the rule for consumers, how much more so is this the rule for hospital patients. Recital 16 to the Unfair Contract Terms Directive (‘UCTD’) (EU: Directive 93/13/EEC) states that the concept of good faith is used to ensure an overall evaluation of the different interests involved. It is a broad concept. Good faith involves "fair and open dealing" (Director General of Fair Trading v First National Bank plc [2001] UKHL 52). You are not acting in good faith. Terms should be "expressed fully, clearly and legibly, containing no concealed pitfalls or traps. Appropriate prominence should be given to terms which might operate disadvantageously" to the consumer (Director General v First National Bank). Traders should not assume that consumers can identify important terms, or those disadvantageous to or likely to surprise them; traders should consider how to draw such terms to a consumer's attention (OFT v Foxtons and Spreadex Ltd v Cochrane [2012] EWHC 1290).

Regarding fair dealing

Terms should not, whether deliberately or unconsciously, take advantage of the consumer's circumstances to their detriment (Director General v First National Bank). Relevant circumstances could include the consumer's poverty, their need for the service or product, their inexperience in negotiations and their relative unfamiliarity with the subject matter of the contract.
Traders should take particular care in communicating key terms to consumers who may have greater difficulty than others in collecting, processing and acting on information and so in exercising choice effectively. Examples of such consumers include the young, the old and those short of time or inclined to be distracted (for example, new parents or the recently bereaved).
Consumers do not have the time and ability to read most consumer contracts. Consumers' resulting vulnerability is something that unfair terms legislation seeks to address.

The Commission UCTD Guidance notes that circumstances existing when the term was agreed include all the circumstances which were known, or could reasonably have been known, to the seller or supplier and which could affect the future performance of the contract, such as the risk of variations in the exchange rate inherent to contracting a loan in a foreign currency (Andriciuc).

Other Points that Will Be Raised

1. You may argue that Beavis is applicable. I would argue that the present case meets none of the conditions that the Supreme Court stated were required for a parking notice to be exempt from the well-established principle that penalty charges cannot be recovered. The main difference is that the Supreme Court determined that, in a retail park, there was a public interest in ensuring a turnover of visitors that justified a disincentive to overstay. There is clearly no such interest in a third party attempting to impose conditions in a hospital car park where there is no turnover of visitors and it has been demonstrated to you by providing evidence that the visitor was a patient at the hospital.

2. No evidence has been supplied by you as to who parked the vehicle. Under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 there is no presumption in law as to who parked a vehicle on private land nor does there exist any obligation for a keeper to name a driver. I will choose to defend this claim as the registered keeper, as is my right.

3. Your paperwork is not clear and concise, so I have had to cover all eventualities in defending a 'cut & paste' claim, where you have effectively used a boilerplate letter to send to all people. This has caused significant distress. I have had to spent a large amount of time in dealing with this ridiculous and specious claim. Your lazy approach to your claim against me has denied me a fair chance to defend this claim in an informed way.

4. If this matter proceeds to court as you threaten, as an unrepresented litigant-in-person.

5. Your lazy approach to your claim against me is made with no due diligence, no scrutiny of details nor even checking for a true cause of action.

6. Should you persist in your claim I believe the term for such conduct is ‘robo-claims’ which is against the public interest, demonstrates a disregard for the dignity of the court and is unfair on unrepresented consumers. I have reason to believe that this is a claim that will proceed without any facts or evidence supplied until the last possible minute, to my significant detriment as an unrepresented Defendant.

7. If you persist in issuing a claim, I will suggest at court that you are abusing the small claims track as a form of aggressive, automated debt collection and is not something the courts should be seen to support.

8. It is denied that you would have any authority to bring a claim. The proper Claimant (if any debt exists, which is denied) would be the landowner. Third parties may not enforce contract terms.

9. The alleged debt is an unenforceable penalty, being just the sort of unconscionable charges exposed as offending against the penalty rule, in ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis.

10. As the registered keeper under The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, it is denied that you have met the conditions of the Act and that you never acquired any right to pursue me as the registered keeper in this capacity if you cannot identify the driver. This distinguishes the case from Elliott vs Loake (1982) in which there was irrefutable evidence of the driver’s identity. The Protection of Freedom Act 2012 Schedule 4 has not been complied with and you may not quote reasonable assumption. PATAS and POPLA Lead Adjudicator and barrister, Henry Michael Greenslade, clarified that with regards to keeper liability, "There is no ‘reasonable presumption’ in law that the registered keeper of a vehicle is the driver and operators should never suggest anything of the sort"(2015).

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

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

13. If you persist in issuing a claim I will request the court strike out the same for the reasons stated above, and for similar reasons cited by District Judge Cross of St Albans County Court on 20/09/16 where a similar claim was struck out without a hearing, due to Gladstones' template particulars for a private parking firm being 'incoherent', failing to comply with CPR 16.4, and ''providing no facts that could give rise to any apparent claim in law''.



14. Please provide me with the necessary information I requested in order to defend myself against the alleged debt.

Lastly, as you no longer have "reasonable cause" to process Keeper details, as the keeper cannot be liable for this supposed breach, you no longer have the right to process personal information relating to the Keeper. As such I require you to cease processing all personal data relating to the Keeper, and confirm within 10 days that this has occurred. Failure to confirm this will result in a complaint to the ICO and the DVLA, with a view to removing your ICO registration and barring access to the Keeper database.

Yours faithfully


[name etc]

Typical nonsense email.

[i]To have issued this PCN to someone whose car was being used to attend a Hospital’s department (evidence was provided to you previously) is both baffling and devoid...........

...Keep this up and you'll really p**s-off the court, if you get there.

Your response from PALS in January looks as though your complaint had been handed to the PE rep on site for handling, and of course you were told to contact PE.

There was a government directive telling hospitals that patients shouldn't be put to extra expense if they were delayed in returning to their car because of problem with the appointment time. I can't remember the location of this but it is in the forum.

I therefore suggest that you go above PALS and write to the CEO complaining that against government guidance the driver was charged a penalty for parking because the hospital caused the delay.

(I now it's not a penalty but it gets the point across)

Yes, you got help. Direct, to the point help.
For more info try mse forum, parking, newbies thread

Your response from PALS in January looks as though your complaint had been handed to the PE rep on site for handling, and of course you were told to contact PE.

There was a government directive telling hospitals that patients shouldn't be put to extra expense if they were delayed in returning to their car because of problem with the appointment time. I can't remember the location of this but it is in the forum.

I therefore suggest that you go above PALS and write to the CEO complaining that against government guidance the driver was charged a penalty for parking because the hospital caused the delay.

(I now it's not a penalty but it gets the point across)

Thanks for that, it has been noted