MissUse
Tue, 4 Mar 2014 - 21:46
Hello all
I'm at the beginning of a road I hoped I'd not be going down, but am buggered if I'm paying these crooks any money at all! I ignored the original parking charge as previously advised, but had not realised that things had moved on and that Parkingeye were now throwing County Court claims at everyone.
Without sharing too much here (happy to by PM if anyone wants to help and advise), I overstayed at The Beehive Centre in Cambridge as when we wanted to leave, the carpark was back to back with cars leaving (Christmas), so we made the decision to go into another shop (I have receipts) rather than join the queue. Neither of us had really clocked the time or the time limit and we have a few mitigating circumstances.
Interestingly, I have never received a Notice Before County Court so was never given the chance to go through POPLA. I can't prove I haven't received one but I haven't! Has this happened to anyone else?? Anywho, what I do have is the Claim Form and am now in the process of buiding a defence (I have responded with the Acknowledgement of Service and extended to 28 days).
I'm massively boggled by the sheer volume of information available to help me fight the claim tbh, but hopefully can get my head around it over the next couple of weeks and can lodge a good defence.
One question I have, is it still worth me trying to get this moved to Cambridge? It's closer and easier for me, and is the city where this all started! I believe I can ask to have the hearing moved when I lodge my defence?
Scared and confused, but bloody determined!!
doreen4161
Tue, 4 Mar 2014 - 21:59
it will be allocated to the court for your area. Plenty to read around on hear.(it will get your grey matter working),but is winnable.
Checkout parking prangster on mse website. Good luck
Jlc
Tue, 4 Mar 2014 - 22:07
You have to appeal to the PPC first before they issue a code for POPLA. One strategy is to get the court to rule that POPLA should adjudicate to save court time/costs etc. and they are 'specialist' in the industry.
Missing paperwork is not unusual - part of your defence should include that a LBCCC was never received at least to limit costs.
Northampton is just the bulk clearing centre - a local court will be allocated later if it gets that far.
They may not be too happy for the claim to be heard in Cambridge depending on the outcome of a mass hearing occurring there later this month.
Providing them proof of genuine customer may see them back down slightly but they will probably send you the £50 'costs incurred' offer to stop court action.
MissUse
Tue, 4 Mar 2014 - 22:15
Thanks
Is it worth emailing rebecca.barton@eu.jll.com and letting her know what happened on that day??
Jlc
Tue, 4 Mar 2014 - 22:21
PE just love their principal being contacted...
I wonder if they has an executed contract at the time of the incident....?
MissUse
Tue, 4 Mar 2014 - 22:29
It was November 2013.
I'm just penning an email now but will hold off sending to Becky until I'm sure it won't shot me in the foot!
Jlc
Tue, 4 Mar 2014 - 22:35
Hmmm, they probably have something in place for that date.
MissUse
Tue, 4 Mar 2014 - 22:43
Gah! Do you know what date they got their contract together? How are we meant to know these things???
Jlc
Tue, 4 Mar 2014 - 22:47
QUOTE (MissUse @ Tue, 4 Mar 2014 - 22:43)
Gah! Do you know what date they got their contract together? How are we meant to know these things???
No, but it's likely one so recent will have an executed contract.
MissUse
Tue, 4 Mar 2014 - 22:50
So I'm dead in the water before I start on this one then?
I presume an email to Becky can't hurt at this point then? Anything I should avoid saying? I have unusual circumstances...
Jlc
Tue, 4 Mar 2014 - 22:54
No, just because they have a contract doesn't mean that.
Is the amount requested a genuine pre-estimate of loss? (PE vs Heggie)
Does the contract give them the right to contract in their own name? (PE vs Sharma) - the landholder should be the claimant.
Is the wording on the signage correct? (PE vs Gosnold)
Was the signage sufficient to form a contract? (PE vs Jones)
These are all cases PE lost....
MissUse
Tue, 4 Mar 2014 - 22:56
I need to do more reading up!!
Jlc
Tue, 4 Mar 2014 - 22:59
The Gosnold transcript is a good read!!!! Google it...
MissUse
Tue, 4 Mar 2014 - 23:11
Haha! Pants
I shall have a read, thank you.
I'm going to send this email to Becky too and hope for the best!
MissUse
Thu, 6 Mar 2014 - 19:16
No reply as yet
Is she normally quite quick?
MissUse
Sun, 23 Mar 2014 - 15:22
Hi all.
I'm just submitting my initial defence and am struggling a tad. Can I PM it to someone here to let them give it the once over before I submit it? That would help my head no end!!
BTW, I never received a reply from Rebecca Barton, which is worrying. I presume the landowner is now backing PE??
EDW
Sun, 23 Mar 2014 - 16:28
QUOTE (MissUse @ Sun, 23 Mar 2014 - 15:22)
Hi all.
I'm just submitting my initial defence and am struggling a tad. Can I PM it to someone here to let them give it the once over before I submit it? That would help my head no end!!
BTW, I never received a reply from Rebecca Barton, which is worrying. I presume the landowner is now backing PE??
Let's be clear - there is no 'initial defence' you can only file one defence unless the other side agrees or the court give permission.
If this was not the case someone could file dozens of defences and drive the judge round the bend.
MissUse
Sun, 23 Mar 2014 - 16:35
I've outlined everything I wish to rely on, so hopefully that is good enough. It only left a few lines free at the end of the online form, so it's fairly full. Maybe initial isn't the right word to use? I've been stuck into Prankster's booklet so that's where my head is at.
Anyway, defence has been submitted. Let the battle commence!
andy_foster
Sun, 23 Mar 2014 - 16:36
You file a very restricted defence in response to the claim form. It is generally good practice to serve a far more substantial skeleton with any witness statements and documentary evidence at least 14 days before the hearing.
MissUse
Sun, 23 Mar 2014 - 16:41
QUOTE (andy_foster @ Sun, 23 Mar 2014 - 16:36)
You file a very restricted defence in response to the claim form. It is generally good practice to serve a far more substantial skeleton with any witness statements and documentary evidence at least 14 days before the hearing.
This is what I understood to be the case and will follow up as required.
I have to say, I have fought and won two employment tribunal cases (one for me, one on behalf of someone else) and they were no where near as involved in law as this process! I'm suddenly appreciating the fee my solicitor charged!!
EDW
Sun, 23 Mar 2014 - 16:48
QUOTE (MissUse @ Sun, 23 Mar 2014 - 16:41)
QUOTE (andy_foster @ Sun, 23 Mar 2014 - 16:36)
You file a very restricted defence in response to the claim form. It is generally good practice to serve a far more substantial skeleton with any witness statements and documentary evidence at least 14 days before the hearing.
This is what I understood to be the case and will follow up as required.
I have to say, I have fought and won two employment tribunal cases (one for me, one on behalf of someone else) and they were no where near as involved in law as this process! I'm suddenly appreciating the fee my solicitor charged!!
If this is a PE case you should serve a part 18 request BEFORE the case gets allocated to small claims track.
andy_foster
Sun, 23 Mar 2014 - 16:59
QUOTE (EDW @ Sun, 23 Mar 2014 - 16:48)
If this is a PE case you should serve a part 18 request BEFORE the case gets allocated to small claims track.
Would you care to elaborate?
EDW
Sun, 23 Mar 2014 - 17:20
QUOTE (andy_foster @ Sun, 23 Mar 2014 - 16:59)
QUOTE (EDW @ Sun, 23 Mar 2014 - 16:48)
If this is a PE case you should serve a part 18 request BEFORE the case gets allocated to small claims track.
Would you care to elaborate?
There's one or two Part 18's drafted by me knocking about on here.
MissUse
Sun, 25 May 2014 - 17:20
Just received the reply to my defence and witness statements through from PE. There is a signed witness statement from Rebecca Barton setting out who the landholder, managing agent and operator are, dated the day this was posted to me. She never replied to my emails.
I'm still hoping to get into mediation if possible. I'd rather not go to court, it's a bit scary!!
MissUse
Sun, 25 May 2014 - 18:29
Jeez, their "pre estimate of loss" bit is 12 whole pages of waffle! Methinks they may be a little on the defensive regarding this matter
hoohoo
Sun, 25 May 2014 - 19:19
are they mentioning the cambridge case yet?
MissUse
Wed, 18 Jun 2014 - 08:55
QUOTE (hoohoo @ Sun, 25 May 2014 - 19:19)
are they mentioning the cambridge case yet?
Funny you should ask this.
This morning I received a letter from HM Courts and Tribunal Service (Peterborough) with the Judgement for the Cambridge case attached. I didn't request this, and they have asked that I could inform the court if my case remains the same by 2nd July or my defence will be struck out and judgement made against me.
Is this how this works? My defence is similar but different, do I not get my day in court because they beat someone else. Seems a but harsh!!
dandyman
Wed, 18 Jun 2014 - 09:02
QUOTE (MissUse @ Wed, 18 Jun 2014 - 09:55)
QUOTE (hoohoo @ Sun, 25 May 2014 - 19:19)
are they mentioning the cambridge case yet?
Funny you should ask this.
This morning I received a letter from HM Courts and Tribunal Service (Peterborough) with the Judgement for the Cambridge case attached. I didn't request this, and they have asked that I could inform the court if my case remains the same by 2nd July or my defence will be struck out and judgement made against me.
Is this how this works? My defence is similar but different, do I not get my day in court because they beat someone else. Seems a but harsh!!
Others with better knowledge of court procedure will be along, but I'd suggest a reply pointing out to them that the Cambridge case is on its way to the Court of Appeal and requesting that your case be stayed until the CoA has decided the matter. The Prankster provides ammunition here:
http://tinyurl.com/oedbyzy
Gan
Wed, 18 Jun 2014 - 09:24
+1 to this
MissUse
Wed, 18 Jun 2014 - 09:24
Brilliant, thank you
anon45
Wed, 18 Jun 2014 - 12:05
Is it worth adding that:
a) the 'Cambridge case' is not case law, and not binding on other county courts;
b) that it is respectfully submitted by the defendant that the ruling is plainly incorrect in law, and contrary to higher authority (include the likes of Dunlop v New Motor Co, Lordsvale Finance v Bank of Zambia, Jeancharm v Barnet Football Club and Brookfield v Van Boekel);
that other judges (including QCs sitting as circuit judges), have come to opposite decisions on the question of whether penalty charges are enforceable, and on the question of whether PE's charges are enforceable (include transcripts from the likes of PE v Heggie, PE v Lemon & Harris, PE v Collins-Daniel, PE v Clarke, PE v Gosnold, OPC v Thurlow, where a QC upheld Mr. Thurlow's appeal, Civil Enforcement Limited v Kerry McCafferty, where Recorder Gibson QC rejected CEL's appeal, despite it being similar to the argument put forward by PE in the Cambridge case);
c) that the defendant respectfully disputes HHJ Maloney's logic on the question of whether there is consideration flowing from the motorist following an overstay in a car park which was free for up to 3 hours (see Andy Foster's post on the Cambridge case thread);
d) that in any case this case can be distinguished from the Cambridge case on the question of whether PE have sufficient interest in the land to form contacts in their own name (the Cambridge case was a special case in this respect);
e) (if applicable) that this case also differs in respect of signage, individual circumstances, etc, and should be considered on its own merits.
I would of course request the claim be stayed pending the CoA ruling to save the court's time, but add that, if the claim is not stayed, the defence nonetheless has strong merit, and deserves a full hearing. I think the OP needs to throw everything at it now to prevent his/her defence from being struck out, otherwise he/she will face an uphill struggle to get the judgment overturned.
andy_foster
Wed, 18 Jun 2014 - 13:17
QUOTE (MissUse @ Wed, 18 Jun 2014 - 09:55)
This morning I received a letter from HM Courts and Tribunal Service (Peterborough) with the Judgement for the Cambridge case attached. I didn't request this, and they have asked that I could inform the court if my case remains the same by 2nd July or my defence will be struck out and judgement made against me.
What
exactly did it say?
MissUse
Wed, 18 Jun 2014 - 22:13
It reads...
"Dear Me,
Parking Eye Ltd blah blah v Me
Please find enclosed judgement of His Honour Judge Moloney dated 19/5/14
Could you inform the court by 2nd July 2014 if your case remailns the same. Failure to respond may result in your defence being struck out and judgement being entered for the amount claimed and costs.
Sincerely,
Blah"
Nothing else! I'm going to call the court tomorrow and ask why it's been sent. Feels like bullying to me!!
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please
click here.