Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: Parking Eye Court Claim (with an interesting twist)
FightBack Forums > Queries > Private Parking Tickets & Clamping
dxb
Hi all,
Sorry to be another one of the people asking for help with a Parking Eye court claim...

We've filled out the AoS and stated that we intend to defend, and contest jurisdiction.

Summary so far is that PE claim that in November we overstayed in a 2 hour car park by less than 20 minutes (I'm not sure how vague is too vague). The car park is shared with a number of retail outlets, and offers free parking.

Following what seemed to be the best advice at the time, we ignored the invoices from PE, until the court claim form from Northampton court showed up.

The interesting twist is that a few days following the claim of overstaying, the signs state that the car park offered 3 hour free parking - an increase from the 2 claimed. I don't have the exact date that the signs were updated. Should I write to PE and ask? The claim form also makes reference to 'other terms and conditions' which we have not yet been provided a copy of. Should I also ask PE for a copy of the sign and these T&Cs?

Given that increase to 3 hours free parking within a few days of their claim, it is especially hard to see how the claim for £90 is a reasonable pre-estimate of loss.

Any advice in helping to prepare the defence would be gratefully received.
tapas600
QUOTE (dxb @ Tue, 2 Jul 2013 - 21:55) *
The interesting twist is that a few days following the claim of overstaying, the signs state that the car park offered 3 hour free parking - an increase from the 2 claimed. I don't have the exact date that the signs were updated. Should I write to PE and ask? The claim form also makes reference to 'other terms and conditions' which we have not yet been provided a copy of. Should I also ask PE for a copy of the sign and these T&Cs?

Given that increase to 3 hours free parking within a few days of their claim, it is especially hard to see how the claim for £90 is a reasonable pre-estimate of loss.

Any other advice in helping to prepare the defence would be gratefully received.


Any change in a contract must be interpreted to the advantage of a customer, otherwise it is an unfair contract.
EHBA
One thing I am trying to get my head round and apologies if this has been covered before.

PE claim that the OP 'overstayed'. The car park signs offer free 'parking' for x hours. Parking is not the same as staying. Staying, in 'PE world' is the elapsed time between being clocked by the 'in' ANPR and the 'out' ANPR.

There will be other angles to help the OP but could the difference between 'staying' and 'parking' be another point to use in relation to a short 'overstay' ?

Salmosalaris
One of many
dxb
QUOTE (EHBA @ Tue, 2 Jul 2013 - 22:44) *
PE claim that the OP 'overstayed'. The car park signs offer free 'parking' for x hours. Parking is not the same as staying. Staying, in 'PE world' is the elapsed time between being clocked by the 'in' ANPR and the 'out' ANPR.

There will be other angles to help the OP but could the difference between 'staying' and 'parking' be another point to use in relation to a short 'overstay' ?


The current car park signs (I have no idea about the old ones which apply in this case) do currently say '3 hour max stay', then 'parking limited to 3 hours'. I'm not sure how strong an argument that would be?
EHBA
QUOTE (dxb @ Tue, 2 Jul 2013 - 22:56) *
QUOTE (EHBA @ Tue, 2 Jul 2013 - 22:44) *
PE claim that the OP 'overstayed'. The car park signs offer free 'parking' for x hours. Parking is not the same as staying. Staying, in 'PE world' is the elapsed time between being clocked by the 'in' ANPR and the 'out' ANPR.

There will be other angles to help the OP but could the difference between 'staying' and 'parking' be another point to use in relation to a short 'overstay' ?


The current car park signs (I have no idea about the old ones which apply in this case) do currently say '3 hour max stay', then 'parking limited to 3 hours'. I'm not sure how strong an argument that would be?



As Salmosalaris said, one of many. In the absence of any wording on the sign, or on entry, that defines 'stay' as the elapsed time between entering and leaving the car park and where signs do not clearly spell out to the 'customer' the difference between parking and staying, it has to be a point in short 'overstay' cases.
dxb
QUOTE (EHBA @ Tue, 2 Jul 2013 - 23:35) *
QUOTE (dxb @ Tue, 2 Jul 2013 - 22:56) *
QUOTE (EHBA @ Tue, 2 Jul 2013 - 22:44) *
PE claim that the OP 'overstayed'. The car park signs offer free 'parking' for x hours. Parking is not the same as staying. Staying, in 'PE world' is the elapsed time between being clocked by the 'in' ANPR and the 'out' ANPR.

There will be other angles to help the OP but could the difference between 'staying' and 'parking' be another point to use in relation to a short 'overstay' ?


The current car park signs (I have no idea about the old ones which apply in this case) do currently say '3 hour max stay', then 'parking limited to 3 hours'. I'm not sure how strong an argument that would be?



As Salmosalaris said, one of many. In the absence of any wording on the sign, or on entry, that defines 'stay' as the elapsed time between entering and leaving the car park and where signs do not clearly spell out to the 'customer' the difference between parking and staying, it has to be a point in short 'overstay' cases.


Fair enough - I see what you mean.
The Rookie
What is the betting that the planning consent is for 3 hours free parking, hence they were forced to change it.
dxb
QUOTE (The Rookie @ Wed, 3 Jul 2013 - 12:32) *
What is the betting that the planning consent is for 3 hours free parking, hence they were forced to change it.


I've had a look at the planning documents (since my council helpfully puts them online) and there's no specific reference unfortunately - merely that there must be customer parking, and it has to be complete and as agreed in the planning application before the units are allowed to start trading.
dxb
I'm going to send Parking Eye a letter tomorrow asking for the following:

Copy of the signs as they were on <date>, including the terms and conditions referenced in the court claim.
The exact date that the signs changed from 2 hours maximum stay to 3 hours maximum stay.
Evidence of Parking Eye's ownership of the land, or a copy of the contract with the landowner.
A copy of all correspondence sent by Parking Eye and their representatives.
A full breakdown of the loss incurred by Parking Eye based on an overstay of X minutes in a 2 hour max stay car park.
Evidence that the ANPR system in use at this car park complied with the BPA Code of Practise at <date>, including maintenance and calibration records.

Is there anything else I should ask for?

Cheers biggrin.gif
bama
QUOTE
and it has to be complete and as agreed in the planning application

what does the planning application say about it
dxb
QUOTE (bama @ Wed, 3 Jul 2013 - 23:49) *
QUOTE
and it has to be complete and as agreed in the planning application

what does the planning application say about it


It's a bit of an epic reply this one, feel free to skip to the end for the fun part smile.gif

The initial planning application states:

GRANTED
your application, as described above, subject to the following Conditions/Reasons:
1 Details relating to the siting, design and external appearance of the proposed buildings and the landscaping of the site shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority before any development is commenced.

REASON: No such details have been submitted.



7. In accordance with condition 01 above, details of the proposed site shall include provision for vehicle parking not exceeding the city council's maximum parking standard for such development and for dedicated bicycle parking areas, delivery vehicle servicing and turning areas, shall be submitted to the local planning authority for its approval and such parking spaces, servicing and turning areas shall be laid out in accordance with the approved plans before the building is first brought into use. Thereafter, the areas so laid out shall not be used for any purpose other than the parking and turning of vehicles.

REASON: The development without the provision of adequate parking spaces would be likely to lead to inconvenience and danger to road users by virtue of vehicles parked on the public highway.



The followup application with the details states:

4 None of the buildings hereby approved shall be occupied until the areas shown for vehicle parking, servicing and turning on the submitted plans have been laid out in accordance with the plans and thereafter these areas shall be permanently set aside for these purposes.

REASON: The development without the provision of adequate parking space and servicing areas would be likely to lead to inconvenience and danger to road users by virtue of vehicles parked on the public highway.


The application cover letter also states:

"A significant objective is to encourage the use of this retail node as the destination for for linked shopping trips reducing the need, or at least discouraging shoppers from driving between the different retail parks"



"Moreover, as the parking areas would be on the south western side of the properties, then the car park for the <name> redevelopment would be seen as separate from other retail stores at this retail node and it is considered likely that this would encourage shoppers to drive around between the various retail parks. The advantage with the layout as proposed is that shoppers will very clearly see the traders available to them and, through the introduction of pedestrian crossing links, will be able to move around the site in relative safety. This will be facilitated by the pedestrian link into the site from the pedestrian crossing on <name> Road and the pedestrian linkage shown into the shopping frontages. It will also in our view then be the more common perception that it is reasonable to park in any one of the car parking areas, particularly the two on the <name> Road side of <name> Road and to visit a number of separate retailers."


The committee report follows that up with:

"Although the layout does not accord with the Committee's previously expressed preference for the parking to be behind frontage buildings, it is considered that the mitigating measures proposed are sufficient to ensure that the development would enhance the character and appearance of the area."


I can't see any specific requirement on parking time limits, which is a shame, but it seems quite clear that the intention of the planners were that the car park would permit 'shopping around' with the nearby but unrelated parts of the retail park. This conflicts with Parking Eye's current signs, which state:

"This car park is private property and for the use of customers only, whilst shopping on site".

I might have to give the council a ring and see what they think... Thanks for the heads up, it's been an interesting bit of research biggrin.gif
dxb
I've put together my defence based on a fair bit of research, and I think it's pretty strong. Any of you amazing experienced folks able to have a read over it tomorrow or saturday and give me any feedback?
dxb
Ok, people are understandably busy at the moment smile.gif

I'm going to file the defense in a bit - it's pretty detailed. Is it best to submit the whole lot now, or hold back the detail, and just make the main points without backing up the argument?
kirkbyinfurnesslad
Hope it has sum legal argument in it?
dxb
QUOTE (kirkbyinfurnesslad @ Sat, 20 Jul 2013 - 21:04) *
Hope it has sum legal argument in it?


Yep, just not sure if I should hold something in reserve in case PE do take the case to court?
SchoolRunMum
No no no, you can't hold anything in reserve, this has to be your skeleton (but complete in terms of points) defence, saying what case law you are relying upon to show the charge is a penalty, for example, and what documents and evidence you will bring to any hearing.
dxb
QUOTE (SchoolRunMum @ Sat, 20 Jul 2013 - 21:12) *
No no no, you can't hold anything in reserve, this has to be your skeleton (but complete in terms of points) defence, saying what case law you are relying upon to show the charge is a penalty, for example, and what documents and evidence you will bring to any hearing.


OK, gotcha. Thanks.
SchoolRunMum
Did you read all the links and advice here on MSE's sticky about small claims and PPCs?

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=4585747

There are links summarising what to definitely include in any defence, plus some case law quoted which shows compelling decisions that a fake PCN for 'breach' is always a penalty, plus quotes from the UTCCR etc.

dxb
QUOTE (SchoolRunMum @ Sat, 20 Jul 2013 - 21:18) *
Did you read all the links and advice here on MSE's sticky about small claims and PPCs?

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=4585747

There are links summarising what to definitely include in any defence, plus some case law quoted which shows compelling decisions that a fake PCN for 'breach' is always a penalty, plus quotes from the UTCCR etc.


Yes thanks - case law, UTCCR, non-compliance with POFA, as well as the inconsistencies in the signage/claim referenced.
dxb
I'm starting to put together the document bundle now we have a court date, and I'm wondering if it's worth including any transcripts that PE have misquoted in their defence response or are not relevant? Is it likely to be better for our case if I include them in case PE don't?

Should I also highlight the specific bits of POFA and the BPA CoP (and the PD pre-action protocol) that PE have failed to comply with, or leave the documents in their original state? Some of it was mentioned in the original defence, and other evidence has come to light since I filed it...
EDW
QUOTE (dxb @ Sun, 27 Oct 2013 - 22:41) *
I'm starting to put together the document bundle now we have a court date, and I'm wondering if it's worth including any transcripts that PE have misquoted in their defence response or are not relevant? Is it likely to be better for our case if I include them in case PE don't?

Should I also highlight the specific bits of POFA and the BPA CoP (and the PD pre-action protocol) that PE have failed to comply with, or leave the documents in their original state? Some of it was mentioned in the original defence, and other evidence has come to light since I filed it...



If you PM me the defence I will tell you what I think. Stuff about planning regulations is irrelevant. This is contract law.
dxb
So after 3.5 years, a number of delayed court appearances, and unimaginable (or possibly completely predictable) administrative incompetence from ParkingEye, a few weeks before our court date we have received a letter out of the blue from PE stating that the matter is now closed and the court action will be ceased. An unexpected but welcome result, although no real explanation as to why they've suddenly had a change of heart. It was, like a great deal of their correspondence over the last 3 years and despite repeated complaints, sent to the wrong address.

Still considering whether it's worth chasing them to recover our costs.
Albert Ross
The description of the layout makes me think that it is where ParkingEye were [first] instructed by the council to apply for advertising consent.
Supermarket separate from pets at home and halfords amongst others, and a KFC separate again? Maybe across the road from a sports stadium.

ostell
Don't forget to check with the court that PE have indeed cancelled.
nosferatu1001
Indeed. Dont believe anythign sent by PE

Apply to the court for your costs, citing their unreasonable behaviour.
dxb
QUOTE (Albert Ross @ Thu, 28 Apr 2016 - 22:55) *
The description of the layout makes me think that it is where ParkingEye were [first] instructed by the council to apply for advertising consent.
Supermarket separate from pets at home and halfords amongst others, and a KFC separate again? Maybe across the road from a sports stadium.


It's not. I did contact the council some time ago, who expressed an opinion that the signage counts as 'enclosed land', and they didn't seem to care about the ANPR cameras. I did point out that they're not CCTV, and that the post doesn't meet any of the planning exception criteria, but they don't seem to care.


QUOTE (nosferatu1001 @ Fri, 29 Apr 2016 - 08:15) *
Indeed. Dont believe anythign sent by PE

Apply to the court for your costs, citing their unreasonable behaviour.


Yup, will be confirming with the court closer to the time. I hadn't thought about doing it via an application for costs, but that does appeal - there's plenty of unreasonable behaviour I can document.
dxb
Well, the court has confirmed by phone that the case has been discontinued - drafting a letter pointing out PE's unreasonable behaviour to ask for costs.

I don't know if any of the other PE cases (there were several) due to be heard at Canterbury on Wednesday have also been discontinued - it'll be interesting to see the listings on the day.
emanresu
QUOTE
I don't know if any of the other PE cases (there were several) due to be heard at Canterbury on Wednesday have also been discontinued


There are a pile of claims at Canterbury today (Monday) so it seems ParkingEye are doing a hit and run on others this week. If anyone is in the Canterbury area perhaps they could print out a copy of this and pass it to the other victims at the court.
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.