Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: Another Parking Eye - N180
FightBack Forums > Queries > Private Parking Tickets & Clamping
Pages: 1, 2
Gymbolina
Hi there - I've been lurking on the forums for some time since receiving the first penalty fine notice for overstaying a 2.5 hour limit by 10 minutes. The overwhelming advice on MSE forums was ignore, ignore, ignore and ignore some more as I'm sure you all know - which was easy!

However clearly the game has moved on a bit now and we have a system that appears to be lending support to these people - infuriating as on the one occassion I've asked the system to look after me and pursue an individual who had ripped us off they were impotent. I suspect they will be more effective when it comes to Parking Eye vs Me. Anyway I digress....

I have received the N180 for me to respond to, I know what I would like to do but would like to discuss my 'strategy' with one of you legal eagles so I believe the protocol is to leave a message (such as this) and hope for a PM?

I would put more info in this thread but am aware from reading other threads that the scrotebags (PE) are likely monitoring them so I'll leave it out for now and summarise my experiences when it's all over!

Many Thanks!
Gymbolina
For info I'm pretty at much at the same stage as Vanya in this thread http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=81180
Gymbolina
Hello - just wanted to bump this back to the top. Would be really helpful to discuss my ideas in advance with someone who knows more about the process than I.

I've already submitted a (probably weak) defence and accepted I'm likely to pay up the £165 BUT I'd like to cause PE as much inconvenience as possible - without further adding to my bill.
emanresu
QUOTE
I'd like to cause PE as much inconvenience as possible


Subject access request to their data controller. ICO registration Z943106X


Gymbolina
Does that mean I request their data controller to come to court?

(thanks for response by the way)
kommando
That request should get you all the info PE have on your good self.

http://www.ico.org.uk/for_the_public/personal_information
Dublindel
Start by getting your POPLA code and then we can go from there
Gymbolina
Hi - again thanks for the responses.

So I think I've gone too far for the POPLA code now as I ignored all their PCNs etc and have received PE's completed N180 form and a 'Notice of proposed allocation to the fast track' from the court, which tells me I need to fill out a N181 direct questionnaire form - although they've sent me a blank N180 instead which strikes me as a bit odd.

I previously submitted a defence - quite short - based on the lines that I find the costs/charges they are imposing completely unjustified and not proportionate. I then received the doorstop of paperwork from PE with their own justification for the costs, citing several other cases which have gone their way etc.

What I'd like to do is reject the request to fast track, tell them I want my day in court and select a local court somewhere obscure but have very little intention of showing up myself.

Can my potential costs (if they pursued and I lost) increase by going down that path?
Gymbolina
Do you guys/gals think I can still follow up on this advice despite the apparent advanced stage of my process:

So as well as Acknowledging, send an offer to PE asking for a POPLA code so you can have their claims assessed by the "Independent Adjudication Service" which is POPLA for PE. If you do this then they can no longer claim a hearing fee or solicitors costs as they could have been avoided by going to POPLA
Gymbolina
Hello again all. As I need to respond in the next few days it would be really helpful to get a steer from someone, my two main questions are:

1 - Am I too late to go down the POPLA route now I have submitted a defence online, have the PE N180 form and have been asked to submit a N181 form in response?

2 - What are the potential impact to my costs if I reject the small claims mediation service and request my day in court - and then lose. Currently PE are asking for £165, if we go the court route is there the potential for that to go up?

Thanks!
Jlc
QUOTE (Gymbolina @ Fri, 30 Aug 2013 - 09:05) *
1 - Am I too late to go down the POPLA route now I have submitted a defence online, have the PE N180 form and have been asked to submit a N181 form in response?
Almost certainly - although there's a valid argument that 'cheaper' resolution options should be exhausted before legal proceedings they will almost certainly not stop and issue a POPLA code. EDIT: Here's a good link.

QUOTE (Gymbolina @ Fri, 30 Aug 2013 - 09:05) *
2 - What are the potential impact to my costs if I reject the small claims mediation service and request my day in court - and then lose. Currently PE are asking for £165, if we go the court route is there the potential for that to go up?
Mediation won't work - you want to pay £0, that want the full amount. Mediation is for situations where the parties can agree some middle ground where a claim is admitted or partly so. PE normally tick no to this though.

If PE win then they will try and claim additional costs - there is the potential for more but these are severely limited at small claims - read here. In real terms this could be next to nothing to £250.
Lynnzer
PM me your email address
Gymbolina
Ok thanks JLC. So your second link says to me my plan to request a court hearing in some obscure part of the UK might actually end up costing me more which I don't really want.

So I think now I return the N181 form requesting a one month stay and contact PE for a POPLA code? This would then show I've taken reasonable steps to settle the claim prior to a hearing?
Jlc
You can transfer the hearing to your local court. PE employ a country-wide solicitor service for their hearings (LPC) and they shouldn't be able to claim extravagant travel costs... (Or fees)

But let's not assume you'll lose - but you need to weigh up the pro's and con's of defending. Of course, if you win then you can claim costs from them...
Gymbolina
Hello again - just one thing I wanted to check, I think I know the answer but would like to verify.

If I do to court and lose - I don't actually get a "County Court Judgement" against me if I pay up right away do I?

EDIT: Ok just looking at some other recent threads I can see the advice is pay up within 28 days and nothing goes on your record as such. Hopefully I won't lose of course!
MMM
Hi Gymbolina

Did you ever receive an Letter Before Action from PE?

This thread might be useful

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=83175

However I am not sure if you are now too far down the road for this step.

Regards

MMM
Gymbolina
Thanks MMM. Yes I think we've gone too far for that, I'm having my day in court!!
southpaw82
Has your case been allocated to the fast track?
MMM
Thats OK

Its just that its not clear from your posts what PE have previously sent to you and what you have ignored. Its just that if PE have skipped any parts of the process that could help you.

It also looks like (from the posts above) that a number of other posters have been trying to ascertain this too and your post at #13 hints at you too make have considered this point.

Any means of Alternative Dispute Resolution of your part (offering to go to POPLA, challenging an LBA etc trying to open a dialogue of resolution as you suggest at #13) can only be looked upon favourably should the matter actually end up in court.

However am I correct in assuming you have ignored everything and have made no efforts to open a dialogue with PE and are now just going to battle it in court?

If so you have my deepest respect for doing so, I was merely looking to see if there were any other avenues that may still open to you. This could even include the possibility of adding to your defence statement especially if you feel (as you suggest above) that it may be "weak".

Best regards

MMM
Gymbolina
@southpaw82 I received a very confusing letter from the court telling me I was eligible for the fast track and to complete an N181 directions questionairre form. With it they included an N180 directions question form which talked of small claims track. So a bit confusing really and slightly unfair when you consider PE are armed with solicitors and I am now - I completed and returned both N180 and N181 forms along with my defence statement and will trust the court to select which is more appropriate. Probably naive but hey ho!

@MMM ok what has happened thus far is that I received the various notices (including a "notice of intended litigation" which I'm guessing is the letter before action) from PE and ignored them all, mostly based on what I had read on the MSE forums.

When the county court papers landed I realised I had to act. I filed a very lightweight defence via the MCOL site taking a few points I'd read from various posts here largely based on my pointing out I felt the fine wasn't commensurate with the "offence" (10 minute overstay).

Then I received the doorstop/tree of a rebuttal from PE and following that the letter from the court that I refer to in my post to @southpaw82 above.

Subsequently reading a bit more on these fine forums I have now submitted a more in-depth defence using collateral from a member here.
FranticMum
QUOTE (Gymbolina @ Mon, 9 Sep 2013 - 20:31) *
@southpaw82 I received a very confusing letter from the court telling me I was eligible for the fast track and to complete an N181 directions questionairre form. With it they included an N180 directions question form which talked of small claims track. So a bit confusing really and slightly unfair when you consider PE are armed with solicitors and I am now - I completed and returned both N180 and N181 forms along with my defence statement and will trust the court to select which is more appropriate. Probably naive but hey ho!

@MMM ok what has happened thus far is that I received the various notices (including a "notice of intended litigation" which I'm guessing is the letter before action) from PE and ignored them all, mostly based on what I had read on the MSE forums.

When the county court papers landed I realised I had to act. I filed a very lightweight defence via the MCOL site taking a few points I'd read from various posts here largely based on my pointing out I felt the fine wasn't commensurate with the "offence" (10 minute overstay).

Then I received the doorstop/tree of a rebuttal from PE and following that the letter from the court that I refer to in my post to @southpaw82 above.

Subsequently reading a bit more on these fine forums I have now submitted a more in-depth defence using collateral from a member here.


Hi Gymbolina - I am at exactly the same stage. I've been looking over the forum and now think I should take the same final action as you, by submitting a more-in-depth defence - could I ask you to PM me the details of the member who helped you with this so I can message them direct for support with it being recent and relevant. Thanks.
Gymbolina
In my recent correspondence from PE in my own ongoing case they stated they currently have a 92% win rate in such cases where the defendant has ignored initially and then gone to court - following guidance from internet forums.

Is there any way of validating this claim? I would love to be able to throw that back at them as false.
instrumentsofjoy
QUOTE (Gymbolina @ Thu, 26 Sep 2013 - 10:44) *
In my recent correspondence from PE in my own ongoing case they stated they currently have a 92% win rate in such cases where the defendant has ignored initially and then gone to court - following guidance from internet forums.

Is there any way of validating this claim? I would love to be able to throw that back at them as false.


Why not ask them what the winning 8% said!

Not really relevant. Why not win and crow afterwards?
Gan
Ask for the actual statistics

#1 No response resulting in default judgement
#2 Payment when claim received
#3 Settled by mediation or similar
#4 Claim discontinued - eg land-owner told them to drop it
#5 Parking Eye win at hearing
#6 Parking Eye lose at hearing

According to FOI for 2011, out of 845 PPC claims, only 49 resulted in a hearing, of which the PPC won fewer than half

If Parking Eye mean #1-3 = 92% rather than #5, the number isn't surprising but is seriously misleading
Gymbolina
QUOTE (instrumentsofjoy @ Thu, 26 Sep 2013 - 11:11) *
QUOTE (Gymbolina @ Thu, 26 Sep 2013 - 10:44) *
In my recent correspondence from PE in my own ongoing case they stated they currently have a 92% win rate in such cases where the defendant has ignored initially and then gone to court - following guidance from internet forums.

Is there any way of validating this claim? I would love to be able to throw that back at them as false.


Why not ask them what the winning 8% said!

Not really relevant. Why not win and crow afterwards?


I'm thinking it's relevant because I could point this out to the judge, that they are deliberately submitting misleading statistics to sway the court.
nigelbb
According to PE's website out of all the thousands of court claims they have entered this year in only nineteen has there actually been a day in court and of those they lost two. 17 out of 19 is not over 90% as claimed but 89.5% & this information may not be accurate anyway as the same web page claims that "ParkingEye has not vacated any hearing unless the defendant has chosen to pay prior to the date of the hearing" which we know to be a lie as there have been at least two cases with forum assistance where PE have not turned up to the hearing.
emanresu
Did you ever make a Subject Access Request as suggested early on?
Gymbolina
Hi Emanresu - No I didn't I'm afraid. Do you think this would help me much? (other than accomplishing my objective of causing them as much inconvenience as is possible)

How do I do it? i.e who do I request it through/
emanresu
Ask their Data Controller for it. They have an ICO registration and must comply. It may cost you £10 but it is a side issue to a good solid defence.

Have a read of 7 in my signature and ask yourself did they ever have a genuine pre-estimate of costs.
Gymbolina
I'm not sure if they had a genuine pre-estimate. Would it stand up in court?

They say:

We have calculated the outstanding parking charge amount as a genuine pre-estimate of loss as we incur significant costs in managing this car park to ensure motorists comply with the stated terms and conditions and to follow up any breaches of these. These costs include (but are not restricted to):

Erection and maintenance of site signagem installation, monitoring and maintenance of the ANPR systems, employment of office based admin staff, memebership and other fees required to manage the business effectively including those paid to the BPA, DVLA and ICO, general costs including stationary, postage etc.

And they go on to say the costs have been approved by the landholder etc.


That is pretty much it.
emanresu
QUOTE
And they go on to say the costs have been approved by the landholder etc.


Interesting way to avoid the issue but there is another reference point which is the court case of PE v Somerfield.

This case was about PE lying and though it was proved that they do, it was felt not sufficient for the underlying contract with the landowner to be cancelled. Now lying to your customer is one thing but lying in court has a more significant effect on your ability to take holidays....

In that case, PE were awarded damages based on their costs which were put at 65% of the charge on the sign or £37.50. Nothing like the amounts they are claiming here so once more they know that lying outside of court is fine but inside - that's another matter.
ManxRed
QUOTE (Gymbolina @ Fri, 27 Sep 2013 - 15:40) *
I'm not sure if they had a genuine pre-estimate. Would it stand up in court?

They say:

We have calculated the outstanding parking charge amount as a genuine pre-estimate of loss as we incur significant costs in managing this car park to ensure motorists comply with the stated terms and conditions and to follow up any breaches of these. These costs include (but are not restricted to):

Erection and maintenance of site signagem installation, monitoring and maintenance of the ANPR systems, employment of office based admin staff, memebership and other fees required to manage the business effectively including those paid to the BPA, DVLA and ICO, general costs including stationary, postage etc.

And they go on to say the costs have been approved by the landholder etc.


That is pretty much it.


Just for your info, those are operating costs, not losses. The acid test is 'would the costs have been incurred if you hadn't breached their contract (i.e. hadn't parked in contravention of their terms)? If the answer is 'yes' then they are NOT losses.

That's how losses in contracts are generally calculated. POPLA agree with this. Its a shame PE and the BPA don't.
DBC
The very helpful retired solicitor over on MSE has proposed this:-

When I get a break from personal stuff, I am going to do a step by steps 'Idiots guide to Genuine Pre-estimate of loss' complete with reference and explanation of relevant case law in a language that even a PPC tea boy can understand!


Once that appears I am going to send a copy off to Steve Clark at the BPA to show him how wrong he is.
ManxRed
QUOTE (DBC @ Fri, 27 Sep 2013 - 16:32) *
Once that appears I am going to send a copy off to Steve Clark at the BPA to show him how wrong he is.


I think he already knows. If he admits it, he's out of a job. What would you do? wink.gif
emanresu
QUOTE
What would you do?


Perhaps I would not have made this statement over Twitter

ManxRed
They shouldn't let the little boys in the office play with Twitter methinks!
bama
twatter...
Gymbolina
Hello all - I'm now nearing my day in court. I'm going to go along and see how it plays out, don't really want to give too much away on here as we know PE monitor the forum.

I am interested on one point though - my notice of allocation to the small claims track included the court date & time and also an 'invitation' from the District Judge to enter into mediation which I followed up on. As far as I'm aware PE have made no attempt to do likewise - surely the Judge would not look on this very favorably when I point it out?
CoffeeAddict
I believe the current recommendation is to offer to the parking company to go to POPLA as you haven't been, thus having good chance there, and preventing the parking company the ability to claim costs, as you have offered to use the association recommended arbitration service.
Gymbolina
Thanks for the reply.

Am I not too late for POPLA now? i.e I've been through the whole cycle - I thought the opportunity to appeal was lost when I was ignoring the PPNs etc?
nigelbb
QUOTE (Gymbolina @ Mon, 13 Jan 2014 - 12:41) *
Thanks for the reply.

Am I not too late for POPLA now? i.e I've been through the whole cycle - I thought the opportunity to appeal was lost when I was ignoring the PPNs etc?

The point is that you appear reasonable by offering to submit the case to the parking industry's own specialist forum for resolving disputes rather than go to all the epense of a court case. The PPC then appears unreasonable by refusing to go to POPLA & insisting on court. It's perfectly reasonable for you to have ignored all communication until you received the court papers as that was the advice given by a solicitor on 'Watchdog'. This advice is now out of date but you weren't to know that.
Gymbolina
QUOTE (nigelbb @ Mon, 13 Jan 2014 - 13:30) *
QUOTE (Gymbolina @ Mon, 13 Jan 2014 - 12:41) *
Thanks for the reply.

Am I not too late for POPLA now? i.e I've been through the whole cycle - I thought the opportunity to appeal was lost when I was ignoring the PPNs etc?

The point is that you appear reasonable by offering to submit the case to the parking industry's own specialist forum for resolving disputes rather than go to all the epense of a court case. The PPC then appears unreasonable by refusing to go to POPLA & insisting on court. It's perfectly reasonable for you to have ignored all communication until you received the court papers as that was the advice given by a solicitor on 'Watchdog'. This advice is now out of date but you weren't to know that.


Thanks. Parking Eye's continual criticism of those taking advice from online forums makes my blood boil - people like myself are individuals, this is a business to them. What are we supposed to do?

So with a court date a matter of days away what avenues are open to me suggest a POPLA appeal at this late stage?
jim C
[quote name='Gymbolina' date='Thu, 26 Sep 2013 - 09:44' post='873544']
In my recent correspondence from PE in my own ongoing case they stated they currently have a 92% win rate in such cases where the defendant has ignored initially and then gone to court - following guidance from internet forums.

Is there any way of validating this claim? I would love to be able to throw that back at them as false.
[/quote

At my local court at Barrow I personally know of PE losing the last four out of five cases that they brought, not quite a 92% win rate more like a 80% loss rate, what odd's would one get against these stats appearing on PE web site.
Gymbolina
Hello everyone. Been to court this morning with Bargepole and the Judge dismissed the case on the basis that no contract was formed between the claimant (PE) and my good self.

I was awarded costs too :-)

Many thanks to Bargepole who was a pleasure to meet, and the work you guys & gals do on here and to Parking Eye..... in your face!!!:B)

Happy to share more details if required.

Cheers!
SevenTowers
QUOTE (Gymbolina @ Thu, 23 Jan 2014 - 13:27) *
Hello everyone. Been to court this morning with Bargepole and the Judge dismissed the case on the basis that no contract was formed between the claimant (PE) and my good self.

I was awarded costs too :-)

Many thanks to Bargepole who was a pleasure to meet, and the work you guys & gals do on here and to Parking Eye..... in your face!!!:B)

Happy to share more details if required.

Cheers!

Fantastic!!!

Congratulations to you and to Bargepole (yet again!)

Please share all the details, but check with BP first as he may want to write some sort of update.
ManxRed
Terrific. I love these threads.

Well done you and well done bargepole, who I imagine is not going to be receiving a Christmas Card from Rachel at the end of the year.

Can you share the case number and name? People might want to refer to this in their claim defences.

I'm sure bargepole will give us the details at some point.
jim C
This has just brightened my day up well done for following this through, good to see the PPC's can't bully everyone.
bargepole
Date: 23/01/2014
At: High Wycombe County Court
Before: District Judge Devlin
Claim No.: 3JD02357
Claimant: ParkingEye Ltd (represented by Mrs Newman-Raine, solicitor)
Defendant: Mr James Gosnold (represented by myself)

This was a claim for £165 for an 11 minute overstay of the free parking limit at Wembley Retail Park in Dec.2013. The site has multiple national retailers, and a food court.

The defendant had submitted a Defence Statement based on a template obtained from someone on Pepipoo, which was a bit of an unstructured rant, and focusing on too many irrelevant points, such as identity of the creditor. I put together a Skeleton Argument which was hand delivered to the court on Monday.

We had a brief chat with the solicitor (a very nice lady) beforehand, and it transpired that James had offered £40 to settle out of court, and PE had said they wouldn’t accept less than £95. She also hadn’t seen the Skeleton, so we gave her a copy. She mentioned that this was her second PE case, the previous one having been in Basingstoke, where another Pepipoo rep was in attendance.

The case started on time at 11:30, and Judge Devlin said that before we got into any issues of losses, penalties, etc., he wanted to establish whether PE had standing to bring the claim.

He had open clause 2.1 of Sch.4 of PoFA, and needed to explore whether there was a “relevant contract”. He also had an image of PE’s signage, and thought that it didn’t create any contractual relationship between PE and the driver.

The first document to be examined was the witness statement from the managing agents, Workman LLP, signed by Richard Tapply. I said that I wished to challenge that statement, on the basis that a) we had telephoned Workman and been told that Mr Tapply had left the firm several months ago; b) The statement was not on Workman’s headed paper, so wasn’t valid; and c) The statement did mention any authorisation to pursue claims through the courts, and therefore was not in accordance with BPA CoP 7.1.

The Judge agreed that the document was worthless, and Mrs Newman then produced the most heavily redacted version of PE’s landowner contract I have ever seen, even clause 22 was blanked out. The Judge had difficulty reading it as the print was so small, but he looked at it and decided that it didn’t satisfy the “relevant contract” provisions of PoFA. He asked if I had any comments, I said that I agreed that the claimant had no standing, and in fact a similar case had been decided by DJ Jones recently in the same court. He said he was aware of that case, but did not want to go through the Judgment, he would decide this on its own merits.

He informed Mrs Newman that the claim was doomed to fail on the locus standi issue, and therefore we didn’t need to get into any further arguments about whether any loss was suffered, and if so by whom. He asked if I had anything to add, and I tried to raise the issue of Jonathan Langham committing perjury by stating that PE’s costs were £53 per ticket, when it could be proven from DVLA figures and their own published accounts that the true figure was nearer £15. The Judge said that didn’t relate to the issue of standing, so he wasn’t going to examine that, but if we felt that perjury had been committed, we should inform the Police.

He then summed up, dismissing the claim for the reasons given above, and awarded £90 costs to the defendant for loss of earning.

Afterwards we had a chat with the solicitor, and she agreed when I said PE were asking her to fight a case with one hand tied behind her back, due to the rubbish bundle they gave her.

Then it was off to Costa for a celebratory latte, and 100% success rate against PE still intact.
Salmosalaris
Well done again good sir
emanresu
QUOTE
Perhaps the entire forum is a front for Parking Eye designed to give poor advice and increase their win ratio.


Looks like the plan to be a front for PE has failed again! Sorry.
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 © 2001-2017 Invision Power Services, Inc.