Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: Northampton County Court Claim Form received re: Parking Eye
FightBack Forums > Queries > Private Parking Tickets & Clamping
SP1966
Hello,

I'm newly-registered to PePiPoo, but have been following several threads since I received a Parking Charge Notice from Parking Eye Ltd on 12th October 2012 when my wife parked my car in the private car park which had Parking Eye signage, that she did not see - it was bucketing down with rain at the time. Parking Eye's ANPR system "captured vehicle XXXXXXX entering and leaving the site without the appropriate permit/authorisation."

Having read that ignoring was the best course of action I did so, even when the letters became more forceful in tone, and now today I have received:
a Claim Form from the Northampton County Court (Money Claim Online)
a Response Pack/Acknowledgement of service sheet
an Admission (specified amount) sheet in which to enter personal details (including dependants, employment, bank account and savings, residence, income, expenses, priority debts)
a Defence and Counterclaim (specified amount) sheet

On receipt of the original PCN letter from Parking Eye, my wife sent the following e-mail
I have just received a letter fining me £100 for parking at The XXXXXXX XXXXXXX in XXXXXXXXX on X/10/12.

I cannot afford to pay the charge - I am currently paying off debts, and because of my family's low income I am paying them at a rate of only £1 a month. Very often, I cannot afford to buy food and clothes.

If I had known there was a parking charge at the carpark, I would certainly have paid it, as I keep change for that purpose in my car. There are signs in all the surrounding carparks clearly saying that they are private land, and I am familiar with those. I never saw any sign at the carpark for the medical centre (although there may well be one). - I used to be registered with that particular practice and the parking was free, and I assumed it still was.

I only parked in that car park at all because I was on a very tight schedule, I had to take my son to an appointment at the neighbouring XXXXXXX XXXXX, it was raining extremely heavily, we had about 1 minute to spare, and I could not find any parking in the street. I thought since both XXXXXXXXX are part of the same XXXXXXXX it would be OK to park at XXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXX.

I am sure that the above information is not relevant to the appeals process and you will tell me that the signs are there and there is no way of getting out of paying the charge, but I am begging you, if it is in your power to do so, to let me off this penalty. Only yesterday I was hoping to buy something for £24 and realised I couldn't, so being faced with a fine (even when reduced to £60 for paying immediately), is so distressing that I haven't been able to stop crying since I opened the letter. It was an absolutely genuine mistake, on a very stressful day, and I beg you please to take pity on me in this instance.

This clearly did not meet with a favourable response, or indeed anything but an automatically-generated letter. It was at that point that I started looking online for help, found it at PePiPoo, and have since been ignoring Letters from PE. However, receiving the County Court Claim Form today has really knocked the wind out of my sails, and I am extremely anxious that I may one of the few people, so it seems, that actually end up in court.

I would be very grateful for any advice on how to proceed from this point onwards, including how I might construct a robust defence.

Regards,
SP1966
SchoolRunMum
OMG I am sorry to say that was a terrible 'appeal' almost worded as 'choose me as a victim'. Sorry, they picked on you as your 'begging letter' showed you actually believed it was a fine.

Also they will know who you are now from that quoted appeal so hopefully one of the experienced regulars here will find a moment to help you by private message with a robust defence. Only reply to a pm from a regular with thousands of posts. In the meantime - unless anyone disagrees - I think your first priority is to acknowledge it and ask for more time for your defence which I think can extend the time from 14 days to 28.
bargepole
QUOTE (SP1966 @ Fri, 12 Apr 2013 - 23:28) *
... On receipt of the original PCN letter from Parking Eye, my wife sent the following e-mail ...

So, when Parking Eye sent a letter rejecting that appeal, did they give you a POPLA code? (POPLA is the "independent" appeals service which all BPA members must offer).

I'd have to say though, that you've shot yourself in the foot with that letter, and the fact that you've published it on here, so PE now know exactly who you are. Their staff may not be the sharpest tools in the box, but even they would recognise that someone claiming to pay off debts at £1 a month and being unable to afford food and clothing, whilst running a car and having a broadband connection, needs to flag down a black cab and take a trip to reality street.
SP1966
QUOTE (bargepole @ Sat, 13 Apr 2013 - 08:58) *
QUOTE (SP1966 @ Fri, 12 Apr 2013 - 23:28) *
... On receipt of the original PCN letter from Parking Eye, my wife sent the following e-mail ...

So, when Parking Eye sent a letter rejecting that appeal, did they give you a POPLA code? (POPLA is the "independent" appeals service which all BPA members must offer).

I'd have to say though, that you've shot yourself in the foot with that letter, and the fact that you've published it on here, so PE now know exactly who you are. Their staff may not be the sharpest tools in the box, but even they would recognise that someone claiming to pay off debts at £1 a month and being unable to afford food and clothing, whilst running a car and having a broadband connection, needs to flag down a black cab and take a trip to reality street.


Thanks for the reply. I removed all personal details from the email I published in my original post, so PE should not be able to identify me. We have not bought clothing, for ourselves or our 3 children, for more than a year, and food bills are £50 a week all in - lots of baked beans on toast.

I realise the 'appeal' my wife made to PE by email was a mistake, I also realise that she was under and great deal of stress that day and that hindsight is a wonderful thing. I appreciate that you clearly know a great deal more about how to deal with this type of unethical 'PCN' tactic, but many others, including my wife and I, do not.

To continue your, frankly unnecessary and rather offensive, metaphor, I can confidently say that I have become very familiar with Reality Street (should have capitals, since, even as a metaphor, is considered a proper noun - we can all fall victim to pedantry); we have since sold the car in question, without replacing it, so we are no longer 'running a car', I am writing this on a generous neighbour's PC and broadband, and flagging down a black cab is far too expensive a prospect ; I'll walk thanks.

I had hoped constructive criticism would be given on this thread, I don't consider yours to be so. Just my opinion, of course, but I'm not in the most robust state-of-mind at the present, so your remarks are less than helpful.
Jlc
I'm sure BP didn't mean to offend - he's one of the regulars that assists with defences but you are where you are. PPC's rarely show any compassion as they just want cash. To move this forward we need to assess what's happened thus far to see if they have met all of their obligations.

When they 'rejected' your appeal did they give you details of POPLA? What's the particulars of the claim? (Are they pursuing under Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedom's Act?). Was there an option to pay for the parking? How good are the signs?

If you are uncomfortable revealing details here, feel free to pm me.
Half_way
Dont worry to much if the replies on here appear a little terse/rude if you havw received genuine papers you need to act, otherwise you could find yourself in real trouble.
bargepole
QUOTE (SP1966 @ Sat, 13 Apr 2013 - 09:57) *
... I had hoped constructive criticism would be given on this thread, I don't consider yours to be so. Just my opinion, of course, but I'm not in the most robust state-of-mind at the present, so your remarks are less than helpful.

My approach is just to tell it like it is, however harsh (but fair) that may be.

Anyway, you haven't answered the question about the POPLA code. If PE never gave you one of those, then they haven't complied with the BPA AOS Code of Practice, and that would be a significant point of defence, as well as the subject of a possible complaint to DVLA.

If they did, and you chose not to appeal to POPLA, the defence would have to rely on contractual / penalty issues.

In either case, you need to return the Acknowledgement of Service from the Court claim, selecting the option "I wish to defend the claim in full". That extends the deadline to 28 days to submit a defence, which we can help with once we know more facts.
tapas600
QUOTE (SP1966 @ Sat, 13 Apr 2013 - 09:57) *
I removed all personal details from the email I published in my original post, so PE should not be able to identify me.

No, of course they receive hundreds identical, i.e. word for word, e-mails like that.

Please follow Bargepole advice, he is one of the experts here who can help you fight PE off.

SP1966
Hello,

Thank you to everyone for the posts in response to my original. Here are some further details in response:-

When PE 'rejected' my appeal (copies of my first and second letters attached) they did not provide me with a POPLA code or indeed any details of POPLA at all? The only references to POPLA were on the back of the original PCN (stating that I must first appeal to PE before POPLA) and in the LETTER BEFORE ACTION stating that I had not appealed to POPLA within 28 days, which I hadn't as I was ignoring all correspondence at that point.

Yes, PE are pursuing their claim against me under Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedom's Act.

The car was parked for 26 mins in a doctor's surgery car park. No option to pay, just not to be used by anyone other than surgery clients.

Only one sign was displayed, offset slightly from view, near to the entrance. My wife did not see the sign and, as we had previously been registered at the surgery, she believed it was still free to park there. No other signs were displayed. The sign is no longer there, and there are no references to PE at all anymore.

I should say that my wife is urging me to pay up rather than go to court - where we would get the money, however, is another thing.
bargepole
From the letters you've wtitten to PE, I can see that you've obviously got a far better grasp of the issues than was apparent from your original posting. Indeed, the points you made in the first letter would form the main basis of the defence.

I would also add in a section about PE failing to provide you with a POPLA code, and therefore denying you the opportunity to resolve the matter without resorting to litigation. As a member of the BPA Approved Operator Scheme, they are required to abide by the BPA's Code of Practice, in order to obtain keeper details from the DVLA.

This is the relevant section:

22.12 If you reject a challenge you must:
• tell the driver how to make an appeal to POPLA. This
includes providing a template ‘notice of appeal’ form, or
a link to the appropriate website for lodging an appeal
• give the driver a reasonable amount of time to pay
the charge before restarting the collection process.
We recommend that you allow at least 35 days from
the date you rejected the challenge.
hoohoo
If they did not give you a POPLA code within 35 days of you first appealing then it is game over for them.

This is from the POPLA website.

http://www.popla.org.uk/receivedaPCN.htm

If they have accepted the representations or failed to respond within 35 days, cancel the notice to keeper (where the parking charge notice was served at the scene) or the parking charge notice (where this was served by post) and refund any sums...


This should form part of your defence.

I would also report them to both the BPA and POPLA

enquiries@popla.org.uk

Dear Sir,

I wish to use your appeal service. Parkingeye have rejected my appeal but are refusing to issue me with a POPLA code and are pursuing me through the courts. The 35 day deadline for them to issue me with a POPLA code has expired so I consider the case closed. How should I now proceed?


And the BPA...

info@britishparking.co.uk

Dear Sirs,

I wish to report parkingeye for failure to adhere to your code of practice. I have followed their appeal procedure,but after rejecting my appeal they are refusing to issue me with a code to appeal to POPLA. Since they did not issue me with a POPLA code within 35 days of the appeal, I consider the matter closed as per the POPLA web site (http://www.popla.org.uk/receivedaPCN.htm). However, they are now pursuing me through the courts. Please take the appropriate action against them to enforce your code of practice, and to either cancel the court case, or defer it until the POPLA process has been completed.


It may well be that by using these two emails you head off the court case.
whitewing
QUOTE (hoohoo @ Sat, 13 Apr 2013 - 15:52) *
I would also report them to both the BPA and POPLA

And DVLA. Every little might help. <doesn't hold breath>
emanresu
QUOTE
If they did not give you a POPLA code within 35 days of you first appealing then it is game over for them


I'm not sure it is.

The whole s54 is beginning to unravel and the true purpose of it is being revealed. The OP better get read Bargepole's advice and get the whole defence claim in.

As a side issue, this is becoming a game of shooting fish.... Have a look at PE's accounts. In a year's time, they will make SRS (paid himself £1mn/year) look poor.

OP get your facts in order.
SchoolRunMum
So if they have breached the BPA CoP and not suppiled a POPLA code isn't it true to say that they have failed to fulfil the requirements of POF Act and so haven't got registered keeper liability in this instance? SO as the claim is aimed at the husband, but he wasn't driving, there is no case against him that can stick?
bama
he would need strong - unrebuttable - evidence that he wasn't driving
to avoid the whole 'on balance he was' thing
SP1966
Hi,

I've double/triple/quadruple checked, and I have not received anything from PE that "tells the driver how to make an appeal to POPLA", let alone "providing a template ‘notice of appeal’ form, or a link to the appropriate website for lodging an appeal" (BPA's Code of Practice, Section 22.12) - thank you BP.

I'm a primary school teacher. At the time of the incident, I was signed in at school (log book for H&S reasons), in another town, in a meeting with a colleague. So, if I can irrefutably show that I was not the driver, will PE, can PE, come after my wife instead given that they have taken it as far as they have already with me as the defendant?



Ming Rider
QUOTE (bama @ Sat, 13 Apr 2013 - 21:09) *
he would need strong - unrebuttable - evidence that he wasn't driving
to avoid the whole 'on balance he was' thing


Surely it's PE's responsibility to prove guilt, not the OP to prove innocence?
bama
its not guilt - it liability.
civil standard of proof - balance of probability so 51% is enough.
for old style RK pursuit that it
hoohoo
+1 for schoolrunmum. I would definitely add this to the defence.

1 Not POFA compliant
therefore
2 Can only pursue driver
and
3 OP can prove with witness statements he was not driver


SP1966
What's to stop PE pursuing my wife instead?
bargepole
QUOTE (SP1966 @ Sun, 14 Apr 2013 - 16:16) *
What's to stop PE pursuing my wife instead?

Nothing. But, the current claim has been made against the RK, and they would have to abandon that and start a new claim. All of which would take considerable additional time and expense for them, which they may not want to do.
hoohoo
You don't have to say it was your wife, although it's probably too late now it's on this forum. PE employ people specifically to trawl forums like this. But it will cost them more money to start again.
SP1966
I've tried very hard not to reveal particulars that might identify my case to PE, but my wife has already admitted being the driver in her first appeal email to PE. We now know that was a mistake, but didn't at the time.
Jlc
So, just to be clear - they know who the driver was but they are pursuing the RK?

PoFA working against the PPC.....
SP1966
Yep, to clarify, PE were informed that my wife was the driver by her own admission, I subsequently wrote two letters to them, and they are pursuing me as RK not the driver.
bama
prepare your costs schedule. reasonable costs according to the CPR rules.

PE may be mad enough - or have the machine rolling willy nilly enough - to go through with the case
Jlc
Surely go for early strike out as the claimant has no chance of winning? (I.e. RK has disposed of 'liability' under Schedule 4 of PoFA)
bama
yup
SP1966
How do I go about going for an early strike out?
Jlc
QUOTE (SP1966 @ Tue, 16 Apr 2013 - 17:15) *
How do I go about going for an early strike out?

See Rule 3.4(6) of CPR. (Powers to strike out a statement of case)

QUOTE
(6) If the court strikes out a claimant’s statement of case and it considers that the claim is totally without merit
SP1966
Just thought I would give you an update on this. I managed to get through to PE today (after trying for a number of days) to find out what was happening with the claim. To cut a long story short they admitted that they were aware that it had been issued in the wrong name (presumably from reading this thread...) and have subsequently cancelled it. PE are reissued it to my wife. They said that the error was due to the bulk process they had put together, she wouldn’t say what this meant but said that 100s of claims had been issued that week. I got the distinct impression that this was the tip of the iceberg.

The claim hasn’t reached us yet, what do you think we should do?’
bargepole
QUOTE (SP1966 @ Sun, 28 Apr 2013 - 11:39) *
... The claim hasn’t reached us yet, what do you think we should do?’

When the claim reaches your wife, return the Acknowledgement of Service saying that she wishes to defend the claim in full.

Then send me a PM, and I'll put together a defence for her.
Gan
Haven't read the full thread so i'm not clear whether or not you've replied with a defence to the claim.

If not, do so, and include Parking Eye's admission that they brought it against the wrong person.
You don't want a judgement by default by accident
Ming Rider
"100's of claims issued that week" ?!?! The courts will be pleased ?

Rachel must have made some incredible reassurances to her boss, or be on quite a big promise herself ?
Jlc
They're between a rock and a hard place. Don't issue claims and everyone will hear how to avoid these penalties and do issue claims to make more people fold. I don't think they want to push some of these claims in front of a judge - they'll pick off the weak defences and defaults and avoid the thorny ones...

The majority of the public are dead scared of court so it's all part of the tactics to drive up the number that fold as early as possible.
nigelbb
What are needed are counter-claims for harassment etc to force them to court.
Ming Rider
Jlc,

So, throw enough mud . . . ?

The downside for PPC's is that the cost of issuing claims eats away at their bottom line. Must stop now, I'm beggining to well up. sad.gif
bargepole
QUOTE (Ming Rider @ Sun, 28 Apr 2013 - 13:52) *
... The downside for PPC's is that the cost of issuing claims eats away at their bottom line. ...

I think they are starting to realise that issuing claims is a way to make money.

They issue 100 claims through MCOL, at a cost of £30 each, so an outlay of £3000. The Particulars of Claim are just a template, so they can bang them out quite quickly.

At least 50% of recipients will just pay up when they get the papers, so that's 50 x £175 = £8,750.

Another 10% will ignore the documents, or have moved house, so that's 10 Judgments in Default, another £1,750, from which they will recover say £1000.

Of the 40% who defend, probably half will end up settling out of court at £100 each, so another £2000.

The remaining 20 who stand by their defence, will find that the PPC won't go to court, as the risk of losing, and the resultant publicity, will hurt their percentages.

So overall they rake in £11,750 for an outlay of £3000. It only becomes unprofitable if sites like this are more active in spreading the word, and pushing up the number of committed defendants.
Ming Rider
So, pre-POFA hardly any attempted court. Then POFA comes in (for many reasons including easing the burden on the courts) and as a result, it's a free-for-all at MCOL?

I think somethings gone awry somewhere?
DBC
This is proably due to the erroneous figures supplied by the BPA regarding court cases pre-Pofa. According to the BPA "thousands" of court cases were being heard every year and POPLA would reduce this. In reality about 900 court papers were issues with less than 50 going to court
Ming Rider
And not one Civil Servant thought to check with the courts that this volume of high traffic was actually the case?

It makes my blood boil !! mad.gif
Vinesh Patel
QUOTE (Ming Rider @ Sun, 28 Apr 2013 - 12:53) *
"100's of claims issued that week" ?!?! The courts will be pleased ?

Rachel must have made some incredible reassurances to her boss, or be on quite a big promise herself ?

Unfortunately, with the blanket "ignore" advice, this was always going to happen. To make matters worse, PE are clearly making money from the process (otherwise I doubt they would still be issuing claims). We pushed the PPC's into a corner and many of us saw this coming from a mile away.

What is clear however is that no PPC appears to be touching cases where a strong appeal has been sent in. They are going for the easy targets: those who weaken their own cases by not using POPLA. I have no doubt that we will win some cases, and that the PPC's will win the occasional poorly defended ones. And the cycle will continue.

CEL and PE are two of the biggest PPC's around and it's clear from how many claims they have both issued that it has been a money spinner for them.
Gan
It's strange that we're seeing so many CEL claims but only a handful from Parking Eye

My suspicion is that the CEL claims are so over the top that victims are checking the company.
In contrast, the Parking Eye claims are of a size that people will pay up rather than fight.

I also suspect that PE won't push claims where they're facing strong defences.
Jlc
QUOTE (bargepole @ Sun, 28 Apr 2013 - 14:11) *
QUOTE (Ming Rider @ Sun, 28 Apr 2013 - 13:52) *
... The downside for PPC's is that the cost of issuing claims eats away at their bottom line. ...

I think they are starting to realise that issuing claims is a way to make money.

Indeed, it's the 'ultimate' step in their threat and intimidation chain.

I mean, they have to recover all these losses - they'd go under if they didn't... wink.gif
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.