• Welcome to the LegalBeagles Consumer and Legal Forum.
    Please Register to get the most out of the forum. Registration is free and only needs a username and email address.
    REGISTER
    Please do not post your full name, reference numbers or any identifiable details on the forum.

ParkingEye Claim Form received

Collapse
Loading...
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • ParkingEye Claim Form received

    Hi

    First of all apologies in advance if I get the forum etiquette or protocols wrong.

    In early May the driver parked the keeper’s car in a Working Men’s Club car park, entered the car’s number plate and paid 80p for an hour. The driver came back late and then the keeper got a parking charge through the post from ParkingEye saying the keeper owed them (can’t remember how much) because the driver had stayed for 1 hour 20 minutes. The letter had two timestamped photos of the front and rear of the car taken as the car entered and exited the car park. The letter was thrown in the bin. Nothing more happened until out of the blue the keeper got a County Court Business Centre Claim Form three weeks ago.

    The keeper has registered with MCOL and put in the AOS. The claim issue date was 31st October so I calculate that the defence has to be done by Sunday (3/12). I am helping the keeper and I have spent the last couple of weeks off and on trying to work out a defence.

    Parking Charge Details (from the ParkingEye online portal)

    Parking Charge Reference: 098765/123456
    Vehicle Registration Number: AB06XYZ
    Contravention Date/Time: 07/05/2017 15:05:09
    Contravention Location: The xxxxxx Working Mens Club Pay & Display, yyyyy Road, xxxxxx, ZZ1 1AA
    Stay Duration: 1 hours 20 minutes
    Allowed Duration: 0 hours 0 minutes
    Paid Duration: 1 hours 0 minutes (£0.80)
    Outstanding Balance: £175.00

    Particulars of Claim

    “Claim for monies outstanding from the defendant, as registered keeper, in relation to a Parking Charge, issued 11/05/2017, for parking on private land in breach of the terms and conditions (the contract). ParhingEye’s ANPR system, monitoring The xxxxxx Working Mens Club Pay & Display, yyyyy Road, xxxxxx, ZZ1 1AA, captured vehicle AB06 XYZ entering and leaving the car park, parking without a valid ticket. The signage, clearly displayed at the entrance to and throughout the car park, states that this is private land, is managed by ParkingEye Ltd, and is a paid parking site, along with other T+C’s by which those who park on site agree to be bound. In accordance with the T+C’s set out in the signage, the Parking Charge became payable. Notice under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 has been given under Sch 4, making the keeper liable. This claim is in reference to Parking Charge(s) 098765/123456.
    Signed Rosanna Breaks (Claimant’s Legal Representative)”

    They are claiming £100 plus £25 court fee plus £50 costs.


    Draft defence


    IN THE COUNTY COURT
    CLAIM No: CXXXXXX

    BETWEEN:

    PARKINGEYE LTD (Claimant)

    -and-

    Dxxxx Lxxxx (nee Dxxxxxx) (Defendant)

    ________________________________________
    DEFENCE STATEMENT
    ________________________________________

    I, Dxxxx Lxxxx (nee Dxxxxxx) am the defendant in this case, and I intend to deny this claim in its entirety. I assert that I am not liable to the Claimant for the sum claimed, or any amount at all.

    1) a) The claimant has not provided enough details in the particulars of claim to file a full defence. In particular, the full details of the contract which it is alleged was broken have never been provided. The claimants ‘particulars of claim’ are nothing more than the terms of a private car park, they do not state what, if any, contravention did occur. The Claim form Particulars were extremely sparse and divulged no cause of action nor sufficient detail.

    b) There was no ‘Letter before County Court Claim’ under the Practice Direction. This is a speculative serial litigant, issuing a large number of identical 'particulars', with the signature of ‘Rosanna Breaks’.

    2) This is a pay and display car park with a VRN to be input on a keypad. I put the Claimant to strict proof that there was no payment made because there is no evidence of any contravention whatsoever. Mere ANPR photos of a car arriving and leaving is no proof of whether a tariff was paid or not and the burden remains that of the claimant to prove their case.

    3) The car park gives access to land not covered by the Claimant’s contract. I put the Claimant to strict proof that the vehicle was parked for the whole duration claimed by the Claimant and that the vehicle had not exited the car park to access this land.

    4) The claimant did not issue a valid notice to keeper. The claimant did not comply with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 and give the registered keeper opportunity at any point to identify the driver. A Notice to Keeper can be served by ordinary post and the Protection of Freedoms Act requires that the Notice, to be valid, must be delivered (where no notice to driver has been served (e.g. ANPR is used)) not later than 14 days after the vehicle was parked.

    No notice to keeper was sent within the 14 days required to comply with POFA 2012 only a speculative invoice which was sent outside of the 14 day period, which did not comply with POFA 2012. This would exclude the registered keeper being liable for any charges. The following are some of the reasons the speculative invoice was not a notice to keeper and did not comply with POFA 2012.

    a) It was not a notice to keeper but a “Parking Charge Notice” as detailed in the title of the invoice.

    b) It did not advise that the driver is liable for the parking charge and that it has not been paid in full.

    c) It did not warn the keeper that if the parking charges remains outstanding after 28 days and the name and address of the driver has not been given, or otherwise known to the person entitled to the parking charge, that “creditor” will be entitled to recover the parking charge from the registered keeper. Schedule 4 also states that the only sum a keeper can be pursued for (if Schedule 4 is fully complied with, which it was not) is the sum on the Notice to Keeper. They cannot conceive a new charge when neither the signs mentioned a possible £175 for outstanding debt and damages.

    d) It did not invite the registered keeper to pay the outstanding parking charge or, if she was not the driver, to provide the name and address of the driver and to pass a copy of the notice on to that driver. Given the passage of time, I can neither confirm nor deny the name of the driver on the day. I put the claimant to proof of that identity.

    e) It was a speculative invoice titled “Parking Charge Notice” and not a notice to keeper and was not sent within the 14 day period to comply with POFA 2012 even if it was deemed to comply with POFA 2012 (which it did not).

    I put to the claimant for proof that they contacted the DVLA for details of the registered keeper within 14 days of 11/05/2017. It is DVLA guidelines that they should request this information 7 days prior to the date the notice has to be issued.

    I also put to the claimant strict proof that they complied with POFA 2012 in issuing a valid notice to keeper to pursue a claim to the registered keeper and a copy of any notices or letters.

    5) The Defendant believes that the Claimant have artificially inflated this claim. The claimant has added unrecoverable sums to the original parking charge. They are claiming legal costs when not only is this not permitted, but the Defendant believes that they have not incurred legal costs as the Defendant has the reasonable belief that the ‘Rosanna Breaks’ is an employee of the Claimant (she is listed as an employee of the Claimant on the Law Society website) and is remunerated by them and that the particulars of claim dated 31 October 2017 are templates, so it is not credible that £50 legal costs were incurred and hence cannot charge the standard £50 fee. According to Ladak v DRC Locums UKEAT/0488/13/LA the claimant can only recover the direct and provable costs of the time spent on preparing the claim in a legal capacity, not any administration cost. If the claimant alleges that this is the cost of its in-house administration, these cannot be recovered - they are staff performing the task that they have been employed for and essential to the claimant's business plan.

    6) This case can be distinguished from ParkingEye v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67 (the Beavis case) which was dependent upon an undenied contract, formed by unusually prominent signage forming a clear offer and which turned on unique facts regarding the location and the interests of the landowner. Strict compliance with the BPA Code of Practice (CoP) was paramount and Mr Beavis was the driver who saw the signs and entered into a contract to pay £85 after exceeding a licence to park free. None of this applies in this case. The charge is an unenforceable penalty based upon a lack of commercial justification. The Beavis case confirmed that the penalty rule is certainly engaged in any case of a private parking charge and was only disengaged due to the unique circumstances of that case, which do not resemble this claim.

    7) The Beavis also case confirmed the fact that, if it is a matter of trespass (not breach of any contract), a parking firm has no standing as a non-landowner to pursue even nominal damages.

    In this Claimant's case, they have no cause of action in any case due to their choice not to use POFA Schedule 4 wording, and unlike some other parking firms this means I am not liable in law. The vague Particulars of Claim disclose no clear cause of action. The court is invited to strike out the claim of its own volition as having no merit and no reasonable prospects of success.

    I believe the facts contained in this Defence Statement are true.

    Signed

    Date

    Tags: None

  • #2
    Re: ParkingEye Claim Form received

    Could you add in the actual references for your POFA failure, ie 9 (2) (f) for the lack of warning.

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: ParkingEye Claim Form received

      suggest you remove all identifying marks: eg PCN number, vehicle registration number

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: ParkingEye Claim Form received

        Originally posted by des8 View Post
        suggest you remove all identifying marks: eg PCN number, vehicle registration number
        These are all dummies not the real onres

        - - - Updated - - -

        Originally posted by ostell View Post
        Could you add in the actual references for your POFA failure, ie 9 (2) (f) for the lack of warning.
        Thanks for the suggestions. I'll give it a try but don't actually know much about it TBH!

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: ParkingEye Claim Form received

          should have read them properly lol

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: ParkingEye Claim Form received

            Originally posted by des8 View Post
            should have read them properly lol
            Yes but understand them

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: ParkingEye Claim Form received

              If that's your defence then you should understand it as you could be asked about it. The references are to Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (POFA), particularly paragraph 9.

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: ParkingEye Claim Form received

                Originally posted by ostell View Post
                If that's your defence then you should understand it as you could be asked about it. The references are to Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (POFA), particularly paragraph 9.
                OK thanks and I've read this a few times and the fog has lifted a little

                I will incorporate the reference and repost the amended defence.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: ParkingEye Claim Form received

                  Thanks [MENTION=39331]ostell[/MENTION] and [MENTION=39710]des8[/MENTION] for your help. I've added these references and also a para about costs and signage.

                  I'm planning on sending it off soon so here's the final draft.

                  ________________________________________
                  DEFENCE STATEMENT
                  ________________________________________

                  I, xxxxxx (née yyyy) am the defendant in this case, and I intend to deny this claim in its entirety. I assert that I am not liable to the Claimant for the sum claimed, or any amount at all.

                  1) The claimant has not provided enough details in the particulars of claim to file a full defence. In particular, the full details of the contract which it is alleged was broken have never been provided. The claimants ‘particulars of claim’ are nothing more than the terms of a private car park, they do not state what, if any, contravention did occur. The Claim form Particulars were extremely sparse and divulged no cause of action nor sufficient detail.

                  2) This is a pay and display car park with a VRN to be input on a keypad. I put the Claimant to strict proof that there was no payment made because there is no evidence of any contravention whatsoever. Mere ANPR photos of a car arriving and leaving is no proof of whether a tariff was paid or not and the burden remains that of the claimant to prove their case.

                  3) The car park gives access to land not covered by the Claimant’s contract. I put the Claimant to strict proof that the vehicle was parked for the whole duration claimed by the Claimant and that the vehicle had not exited the car park to access this land.

                  4) The claimant did not issue a valid notice to keeper. The claimant did not comply with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (“POFA”) Sch 4 para 8 and 9. The claimant did not give the registered keeper opportunity at any point to identify the driver. A Notice to Keeper can be served by ordinary post and the POFA requires that the Notice, to be valid, must be delivered (where no notice to driver has been served (e.g. ANPR is used)) not later than 14 days after the vehicle was parked.

                  No notice to keeper was sent within the 14 days required to comply with POFA only a speculative invoice which was sent outside of the 14 day period, which did not comply with POFA. This would exclude the registered keeper being liable for any charges. The following are some of the reasons the speculative invoice was not a notice to keeper and did not comply with POFA.

                  a) It was not a notice to keeper but a “Parking Charge Notice” as detailed in the title of the invoice.

                  b) It did not advise that the driver is liable for the parking charge and that it has not been paid in full.

                  c) It did not warn the keeper that if the parking charges remains outstanding after 28 days and the name and address of the driver has not been given, or otherwise known to the person entitled to the parking charge, that “creditor” will be entitled to recover the parking charge from the registered keeper. Schedule 4 also states that the only sum a keeper can be pursued for (if Schedule 4 is fully complied with, which it was not) is the sum on the Notice to Keeper. They cannot conceive a new charge when neither the signs mentioned a possible £175 for outstanding debt and damages.

                  d) It did not invite the registered keeper to pay the outstanding parking charge or, if she was not the driver, to provide the name and address of the driver and to pass a copy of the notice on to that driver. Given the passage of time, I can neither confirm nor deny the name of the driver on the day. I put the claimant to proof of that identity.

                  e) It was a speculative invoice titled “Parking Charge Notice” and not a notice to keeper and was not sent within the 14 day period to comply with POFA even if it was deemed to comply with POFA (which it did not).

                  I put to the claimant for proof that they contacted the DVLA for details of the registered keeper within 14 days of 11/05/2017. It is DVLA guidelines that they should request this information 7 days prior to the date the notice has to be issued.

                  I also put to the claimant strict proof that they complied with POFA in issuing a valid notice to keeper to pursue a claim to the registered keeper and a copy of any notices or letters.

                  5) The claimant has added unrecoverable sums to the original parking charge. The Defendant believes that they have not incurred such legal costs as the Defendant has the reasonable belief that the ‘Rosanna Breaks’ is an employee of the Claimant (she is listed as an employee of the Claimant on the Law Society website) and is remunerated by them and that the particulars of claim are templates issued frequently. It is therefore not credible that £50 costs were incurred.

                  6) This case can be distinguished from ParkingEye v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67 (the Beavis case) which was dependent upon an undenied contract, formed by unusually prominent signage forming a clear offer and which turned on unique facts regarding the location and the interests of the landowner. Strict compliance with the British Parking Association (“BPA”) Code of Practice (“CoP”) was paramount and Mr Beavis was the driver who saw the signs and entered into a contract to pay £85 after exceeding a licence to park free. None of this applies in this case. The charge is an unenforceable penalty based upon a lack of commercial justification. The Beavis case confirmed that the penalty rule is certainly engaged in any case of a private parking charge and was only disengaged due to the unique circumstances of that case, which do not resemble this claim.

                  7) In the absence of any proof of adequate signage that contractually bound the Defendant then there can have been no contract and the Claimant has no case.
                  1. The Claimant is put to strict proof that at the time of the alleged event they had both advertisement consent and the permission from the site owner to display the signs.
                  2. In the absence of strict proof I submit that the Claimant was committing an offence by displaying their signs and therefore no contract could have been entered into between the driver and the Claimant.
                  3. Inadequate signs incapable of binding the driver - this distinguishes this case from the Beavis case:
                    1. Sporadic and illegible (charge not prominent nor large lettering) of site/entrance signage - breach of the POFA Schedule 4 and the BPA Code of Practice and no contract formed to pay any clearly stated sum.
                    2. It is believed the signage was not lit and any terms were not transparent or legible; this is an unfair contract, not agreed by the driver.
                    3. No promise was made by the driver that could constitute consideration because there was no offer known nor accepted. No consideration flowed from the Claimant.
                    4. The signs are believed to have no mention of any debt collection additional charge, which cannot form part of any alleged contract.

                  4. BPA CoP breaches - this distinguishes this case from the Beavis case:
                  5. the signs were not compliant in terms of the font size, lighting or positioning.
                  6. there is / was no compliant landowner contract.


                  8) The Beavis also case confirmed the fact that, if it is a matter of trespass (not breach of any contract), a parking firm has no standing as a non-landowner to pursue even nominal damages.

                  In this Claimant's case, they have no cause of action in any case due to their choice not to use POFA Schedule 4 wording, and unlike some other parking firms this means I am not liable in law. The vague Particulars of Claim disclose no clear cause of action. The court is invited to strike out the claim of its own volition as having no merit and no reasonable prospects of success.

                  I believe the facts contained in this Defence Statement are true.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: ParkingEye Claim Form received

                    in 4 add in the the reference to the failures, like the warning to keeper that they could be liable i 9 (2) (f) (I think).

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: ParkingEye Claim Form received

                      Originally posted by ostell View Post
                      in 4 add in the the reference to the failures, like the warning to keeper that they could be liable i 9 (2) (f) (I think).
                      OK thanks. Have added it into 4 c)
                      "c) It did not warn the keeper that if the parking charges remains outstanding after 28 days and the name and address of the driver has not been given, or otherwise known to the person entitled to the parking charge, that “creditor” will be entitled to recover the parking charge from the registered keeper (POFA Sch 4 para 9 (2) (f)). Schedule 4 also states that the only sum a keeper can be pursued for (if Schedule 4 is fully complied with, which it was not) is the sum on the Notice to Keeper. They cannot conceive a new charge when neither the signs mentioned a possible £175 for outstanding debt and damages."

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: ParkingEye Claim Form received

                        Do it for all the POFA fails.

                        Comment

                        View our Terms and Conditions

                        LegalBeagles Group uses cookies to enhance your browsing experience and to create a secure and effective website. By using this website, you are consenting to such use.To find out more and learn how to manage cookies please read our Cookie and Privacy Policy.

                        If you would like to opt in, or out, of receiving news and marketing from LegalBeagles Group Ltd you can amend your settings at any time here.


                        If you would like to cancel your registration please Contact Us. We will delete your user details on request, however, any previously posted user content will remain on the site with your username removed and 'Guest' inserted.
                        Working...
                        X