2 x ParkingEye "fines" in Chelmsford - CLAIM FORM RECEIVED

[peanutsallergy]

A very good starting point, but I was reading another case (not PE) where it was requested, but only delivered in court, at the start of the hearing. This was accepted by the judge as well.

Probably need a bit more detail on Pepipoo, they're going down the "receipts for the shopping" route in one post.

[Surfer01]

A very good starting point, but I was reading another case (not PE) where it was requested, but only delivered in court, at the start of the hearing. This was accepted by the judge as well.

Probably need a bit more detail on Pepipoo, they're going down the "receipts for the shopping" route in one post.

 

If that happen, you could easily get a stay for another date and then claim expenses if you had requested it several weeks earlier and it was not supplied. Can we have details of the case where this happened as I am not aware of any such case and whether it was a win or lose? thanks.

[peanutsallergy]

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=72353&st=380&start=380

 

Bit of an odd one, a PPC bringing a criminal case for a council, but read post 396.

Judge didn't seem to mind the contract was only passed over there and then.

 

PPC lost, but not a hard fix for next time.

[DBC]

Why would PE ask for receipts? It's nothing to do with them if you have spent any money in the shop or not. Haven't they ever heard of "browsing".

[peanutsallergy]

It's possible it would be seen differently if the op was a shopper, or just using the car park everyday while they went to college, with no intention of shopping.

[DBC]

How could you prove to PE that you have actually been browsing if you haven't any receipts to back up your story?

[peanutsallergy]

"What where you doing those mornings?"

 

Depends on how good you are at lying in court.

[DBC]

How are PE going to monitor these errant motorist? Are the going to follow them out of the car-park and note when that they have left site. If so then they will be shooting themselves in the foot. In the VCS / Ibbotson case the judge specifically asked the parking attendant why he didn't tell the motorist that leaving site would break the "rules". It'a called "minimising losses" .

 

Anyway all this is academic. The PPC would have to prove in court that the landowner has suffered an actual pre-estimate of loss, and not some imaginary figure dreamt up by the PPC.

[peanutsallergy]

VCS/Ibottson is the wrong arguement.

The ticket has been issued for overstaying, not leaving the site.

So not a great deal the attendant could do.

 

And this is a car park near a college with no parking of it's own. So consider the fact it may not be empty, and students taking up the car park will stop the regular churn of customers. But they're not complaining about that either, it's the overstay after the free time. If every student did that all day, every day, you may consider a judge deciding there could well be a loss to the store. Since Oct POFA also has introduced figures for "losses", and PE are within them.

 

Best to prepare assuming the PPC has at least addressed a few basics, rather than take it for granted they'll just lose.

And I think it's only fair to post this, rather than just recite the mantra

"They never do court, and when they do they can't ever win"

The op needs to have the right defence here, as all it'll come down to is who convinces the judge on the day, on the balance of probability, not beyond all reasonable doubt.

 

 

As I have said in a different post, I've a feeling it's a new game, but I hope I'm wrong.

 

(And of course it's academic, that's the whole point of these forums. to work through the pro's and cons, and hopefully sort out a decent defence for the op, who is the only one of us it isn't academic for)

[DBC]

But the judge did raise the point about the attendant not speaking to the motorist.

[peanutsallergy]

He did.

Where the attendant watched the motorist leave, then issued a ticket for going off site.

 

I doubt a judge would expect the attendant to find a motorist in a lecture, then bring them back to their car before the free period of parking expired.

 

That's why the correct defence is important here, and why the op has to be made aware of the differences.

[peanutsallergy]

Agree 100% with you about MSE which is why I no longer use it. You get vilified for asking a simple question, however back to the OP. I suggest that the OP requests a full true copy of the contract between the PPC and the LL ASAP to start off the defence.

 

 

I see they've started flaming a poster on the MSE thread already.

Shame, as it's the only poster who appeared to understand the court system.

[Crocdoc]

1) Please provide precise details of the calculation used to establish the sum pursued in this case, taking account of the following statement issued by the Department for Transport.

 

Charges for breaking a parking contract must be reasonable and a genuine pre-estimate of loss. This means charges must compensate the landholder only for the loss they are likely to suffer because the parking contract has been broken. For example, to cover the unpaid charges and the administrative costs associated with issuing the ticket to recover the charges. Charges may not be set at higher levels than necessary to recover business losses and the intention should not be to penalise the driver.

 

2) Can you also provide written confirmation of your entitlement to raise court action on behalf of the land owner and any other evidence that you intend to use in pursuit of this claim.

 

Collated information on parking Eye shows that they avoid the above questions in circumstances where the recipient of an invoice enters into correspondence in the early stages. Therefore I would suggest that you raise these questions in advance of a hearing by recorded delivery and force their hand on these points.

[steveod]

1) Please provide precise details of the calculation used to establish the sum pursued in this case, taking account of the following statement issued by the Department for Transport.

 

Charges for breaking a parking contract must be reasonable and a genuine pre-estimate of loss. This means charges must compensate the landholder only for the loss they are likely to suffer because the parking contract has been broken. For example, to cover the unpaid charges and the administrative costs associated with issuing the ticket to recover the charges. Charges may not be set at higher levels than necessary to recover business losses and the intention should not be to penalise the driver.

 

2) Can you also provide written confirmation of your entitlement to raise court action on behalf of the land owner and any other evidence that you intend to use in pursuit of this claim.

 

Collated information on parking Eye shows that they avoid the above questions in circumstances where the recipient of an invoice enters into correspondence in the early stages. Therefore I would suggest that you raise these questions in advance of a hearing by recorded delivery and force their hand on these points.

 

 

Would also add that you require a vat invoice as this seems to cause them issues, so can they please send such invoice. If they don't then this at least throws

any claim of theirs that it's a service under a contract into doubt.

[Surfer01]

Would also add that you require a vat invoice as this seems to cause them issues, so can they please send such invoice. If they don't then this at least throws

any claim of theirs that it's a service under a contract into doubt.

Haven't PE already had VAT issues?

[GeMoae]

Just a quick update....

 

My defence has been submitted and I'm in the process of typing a letter requesting both the contract confirming their entitlement to bring about court action (are you even allowed to be doing this?) and the calculation used to provide their estimates of loss (why is the proposed estimated loss the same for parking over a white line, overstaying for one hour, overstaying for 10 hours?) as these both form part of my defence.

 

I'm not confident to bring VAT issues into the arena as this does not fall into my defence and is something that I literally have zero knowledge of.

 

Thanks for your input on this, it has been most helpful

[Surfer01]

BTW have you already tried POPLA and appealed to them or are you leaving that until you get a response from the PPC?

[peanutsallergy]

OP took advice to ignore everything, so didn't make any appeals, then they received the court papers.

[EmainMacha]

This seems pretty similar to my own upcoming small claims cort case with Michael Sobell. I will be very interested to hear how you get on GeMoae....

[Chelseafc92]

How often do the PPCs win, excluding default judgements?

[dx100uk]

very very rarely

 

most of the 'wins' were ex employees or 'stoogies'

 

or [as one case] a guy in a wheelchair that couldn't defend himself

 

dx

[Tim Messanger]

Their DPA registration seams a bit woolly -

 

"INCLUDES USE OF CLOSED-CIRCUIT TELEVISION FOR THE MONITORING AND COLLECTION

OF SOUND AND/OR VISUAL IMAGES FOR THE PURPOSE OF MAINTAINING THE SECURITY OF

PREMISES, FOR PREVENTING CRIME AND INVESTIGATING CRIME."

 

There is NO mention of ANPR in their registration and the ICO clearly classes them as different technologies referring to them as "CCTV and ANPR systems" not "CCTV/ANPR systems"

 

Hope this is of some help...