Parking Eye County Court Claim Form!

[li-li]

Hi all

 

Please help!!

 

Today received a county court claim form regarding a parking eye ticket I was issued a while back after parking in my doctors surgery to go the adjoining pharmacy! I have followed advice found on forums and ignored the letters but have now been hit by this!?

 

They are asking for a total of £165 which I cannot afford!

 

What do I do????

 

Li

[i hate bailiffs]

That was old advice to ignore parking eye as you have found out you get a court claim

 

It does Not mean that they will win

What is the exact POC

 

Do not ignore court paperwork acknowledge it and file a defence

 

What is the parking arrangements at the doctors

[esmerobbo]

You have no option now but to defend in full, you should have appealed to them which they would probably have denied and then POPLA where you had a good chance of winning. Now you need a defence for court, apart from paying the claim its all you have left.

 

You need to acknowledge the claim and say you wish to defend it which will buy you more time to get advice.

[li-li]

Hi 'I hate bailiffs', thanks for your response

 

The POC are 'claim for monies outstanding from the defendant in relation to a parking charge, issued....for parking without authority on private land.

 

amount claimed- £100

court fee- £15

solicitors costs- £50

 

the parking at my doctors has always been just normal spaces without monitoring, I therefore didn't look for or notice any parking regulations. I don't attend regularly enough to see these kind of changes and I was actually going to the pharmacy which is part of the surgery. The original parking notice has pictures of my car entering the car park WITHIN practice opening times, its not like I went shopping or anything, I was there 39 minutes which is not time enough to go anywhere else anyway!

 

Thanks

[esmerobbo]

What are the conditions of parking do you have to enter your reg number or something?

[li-li]

yeah you have to enter your reg in the surgery, however this can't be too clear as 2 other people I know have also been to the dr and not realised they had to do it!

[esmerobbo]

Did you receive a letter headed "LETTER BEFORE ACTION" or "LETTER BEFORE CLAIM" prior to the actual claim?

[li-li]

yes but all the advice I saw said to ignore it! now I wish i'd just paid the money grabbing idiots £60!

[esmerobbo]

When it gets to the LBA or LBC stage you should never ignore it, but its done now.

 

Have you spoken to the surgery, Parking Spy have been known to push their authority to pursue these matters. The surgery may not have given them authority to take someone to court.

 

They have been known to offer to withdraw fully or withdraw with admin costs if pushed by the landowner.

 

Although you would have a pretty strong case if you had an appointment at the surgery, any charge they are making can only be a penalty. However county court can be a bit of a lottery.

[li-li]

Thanks both for the advice. I will send the acknowledgement and contact the surgery to see if they will help

 

Arrrrghhh so stressful !!

[li-li]

Hi again

 

Sorry but is anyone able to help with a template for a defence?!

[esmerobbo]

People will help its not wise to use a template defence its best to suit one to counter their claim.

 

It would really help to see the actual signs, a quick drawing of where they are situated in the car park, and if they are able to be seen.

 

You can read through this thread see the sort of arguments you can raise.

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?390479-REceived-Court-Papers-From-A-Private-parking-Speculative-invoice-How-To-Deal-With-It-HERE***(3-Viewing)-nbsp

 

Its best warn you that Parking Spy will be monitoring these posts so be careful what you post up.

[ericsbrother]

You need to post up the exact wording of the claim as PE have changed their claims recently so a defence will have to take this into consideration.

 

We also need to know what the sign says,

where it is in relation to the entrance of the car park,

whose land it is and

what the contract is between the landowner/occupier and PE.

 

The surgery/pharmacy may not actually know as the contract may have been agreed by someone else but it is worth asking them for starters.

 

You will need to request a copy of the contract as part of your defence submission,

there is a court form for this and PE are obliged to provide it

 

but they wont do so voluntarily and will try and bluff it by saying that they have one and it is all above board when someone else may disagree.

[li-li]

Hi all

 

I sent the acknowledgement and spoke to the surgery who were unwilling to help saying that I should have signed in.

 

I have yet to send my defence as have no idea what I am doing or whether I will end up dropping myself in it!

 

I want to say that I have no reason to park there for any other reason as I only work around the corner.

 

I also know of a couple of other people who haven't realised they need to sign in.

 

The claim says:

 

1.Claim for monies outstanding from the defendant, as registered keeper, in relation to a parking charge issued **** for parking without authority on private land.

 

2.ParkingEye?s (yes it does actually have a ? there) automated number plate recognition system monitoring ***** captured vehicle **** entering and leaving the car park, parking without authorisation.

 

3.The signage, clearly displayed at the entrance to and throughout the carpark, states that this is private land, is managed by ParkingEye Ltd, and authorisation is required to park, along with other terms and conditions by which those who park on site agreed to be bound.

 

4.In accordance with the terms and conditions 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.

 

Help please!! xxx

 

Do any of you know whether PE will retract court claim and settle with original amount.

 

I really don't have the time or patience to be doing all of this and think I would rather just pay £60 and get rid of them!?

[esmerobbo]

They have been known to accept admin costs to withdraw their claim it has cost them up to now about £20 and maybe an hours work! The advantage you have is if they go to court and actually win because they use an agency they actually lose money.

 

If you would rather put this to bed and be done with it, and I can understand why you want too, its not everybodies cup of tea going to court no matter how informal it is.

 

I would write to them stating you were using the surgery with proof if possible (the receptionist should be able to verify and give you something remember they work for you!) offer them the initial charge, the worse they can do is say no. At least they will come back with a counter offer, did the £60 raise to £100.

 

Explain in your letter you were ill and did not realise you had to register your car.

 

Another advantage you have is over the last couple of weeks PE's claims have been rather unsuccessful.

A drawback for them in issuing so many when more and more problems with their claims will come to light.

[Surfer01]

Surely if you use the surgery at any time, that means that you are a patient and authorised to park there at any time? State in your defence that Parking Eye need to show how the actions of the motorist has caused a loss, or genuine pre-estimate of loss.

 

A judge found that, in his opinion, a contractual arrangement to manage parking does not give rise to a cause of action to claim for damages. In particular, the lack of ownership of the land meant that the Parking Eye had no standing to bring such an action in their own name.

[li-li]

thanks for the responses esmerobbo and surfer01....I have no idea how to word this defence, can either of you help with a rough guideline?

 

Thanks

[D P Dance]

If you can find it, there is probably a website for the surgery on which you can write your comments. I had a problem getting an appointment and left them excoriating feedback, they were mortified. NHS doctors should not be colluding with theses chancers.

[li-li]

Yeah I probably will write to the practice, thanks D P Dance.... but right now I only have today to write this letter and have no idea what to put!?

 

Can I post my defence on here for people to look at or not? Need to send this asap

 

Please help!

[ericsbrother]

they have used their standard wording in the claim so by saying that you dont have authority is in effect saying that you are trespassing and therefore not covered by their contract and only have to pay damages to the landowner.

 

As they arent the landowner they would need to show that they have the specific authority from the landowner to pursue claims in their own name and they have not provided evidence of this authority.

 

You demand to see the contract in its entirety.

At best they can only claim what they have lost so they need to produce a schedule of loss and this must not include establishment costs such as signage, uniforms, cameras etc.

 

They also try and claim that their claim is one of commercial justification under Lordsvale Finance v Bank of Zambia (1996) but this is not applicable as the judge Cavendish Square Holdings v el Makdessi (2012) makes clear what is commercial justification in a contract is and what is a penalty.

 

For the former there must be a "level playing field" and each party fully negotiating the contract.

As this is not the case any claim for breach must be for the losses incurred otherwise it is a penalty.

 

The demand for £100 is clearly a penalty as per Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Co v New Garage and Motor Co ltd (1912) and Commissioner of Publis Works V Hills (1906) regarding pre-estimate of probable interest or costs.

 

You had the permission of the occupier/landowner to be there and your contract with them should not be interfered with by a third party with whom you have no relationship.

 

The signage does not have planning permission and does not have deemed consent under the Town and Country Planning Regs of 2007 so any contract formed by the wording on that unlawfully sited sign would be unconscionable and thus void.

 

Put up what you have garnered so far and see how anyone can add to it.

 

when exactly did the first letter you receive arrive?

They are claiming from you as the Registered Keeper,

have you admitted you were driving

and did they send the request for details within 14 days of the alleged breach?

If not then the PoFA does not entitle them to pursue you as the RK and then the claim is vexatious.

 

You will need to look up the case law applicable,

including the ones they quote and offer rebuttal of each point of their claim (when they can be bothered to send it to you).

 

For the moment you can return the court form simply saying that you are going to defend the claim in full and will send in your full defence in the prescribed time.

This gives you another fortnight to get your paperwork together and it will also force PE to pay up for the court allocation fee.

If they dont pay up them you can have the claim struck out.

 

When you do need to submit your full defence you need to use the Courts Procedure to demand coies of any documents that PE wish to rely upon and demand copies of their contract with the landowner/occupier.

 

In the meanwhile, spend £3 with the Land Registry and find out who owns the place where you parked and ask for a copy of the contract between them and PE.

 

Speaking to the receptionist in the surgery wont get you anywhere but telling them that you will take them to court using a Norwich Pharmacal Order to get a copy of the contract will amke them listen.

 

You need to throw your stones higher into the tree to get the result you want.

[li-li]

Thank you so much for that!! Heres what i've cobbled together so far...needs shortening!

 

 

• The Defendant admits that she was the registered keeper of a XXXXX car with the registration number XXXXX at the time of the alleged offence. No admissions are made as to who would have been driving the car at the material time. If the Claimant seeks to rely upon the provisions of the Protection of Freedoms Act it will be put to proof as to its compliance with the statutory requirements.

  
  

 

• It is the Defendant’s understanding that the Claimant is (or says that it is) a member of the British Parking Association. If this is the case it must adhere to the Association’s Code of Practice. This Code requires, amongst other things, that the member must have the written authorisation of the landowner (or his appointed agent) which sets out whether or not the landowner authorises the member to pursue legal action through the courts : see clause 7.1 of the Code. It is not admitted that the Claimant has the necessary authorisation from the landowner and the Claimant is put to strict proof of this.

  
  

 

• Even if the Claimant has a contract with the landowner or the landowner’s agent which purports to provide written authority for the claimant to take legal action it is denied that, in the absence of any consideration being provided by the Claimant itself, any alleged contract that it sought to create with a motorist would be enforceable.

  
  

 

• It is the Defendant’s view that if the Claimant’s claim is to proceed further then the landowner should, in any event, be added as a party to the litigation. Ultimately it is the landowner who may stipulate who can come onto his land and upon what terms. If the Claimant purports to act as the landowner’s agent then its principal should be made a party to the litigation. In any event it is important that the landowner should be involved in the litigation so that it may see how its agent deals with its customers and the customers of its tenants. Additionally it is important that the landowner should be added as a party because of costs. The defendant does not know whether the Claimant has sufficient assets to meet any award of costs that it might be ordered to pay. In all probability the Claimant exists as a conduit to funnel money into the pockets and bank accounts of the persons who control it and it will have little in the way of tangible assets. The landowner, by definition, has assets: it owns land. If the landowner does not consent to be a co-claimant then the

  Civil Procedure Rules provide that it would have to be added as a defendant

  
  

 

• Without prejudice to the foregoing the Defendant avers:-

  
   
  5.1. That the driver did not see the signage upon which the Claimant seeks to rely. The car park was dark and/or poorly lit and the signage was not prominent. In the circumstances it is denied that any contract was or could have been formed.
   
  5.2. That it is denied that the sum sought by the Claimant (and even if it were sought by the Claimant’s principal or the landowner) represents a true debt which is properly enforceable. It is clear that the sum sought is, at best, merely a ‘penalty’, rather than being a loss which will genuinely have been incurred. Even if there was a contract, the provision requiring payment of £100 is an unenforceable penalty clause. Following Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Co Ltd v Selfridge & Co Ltd [1915] AC 847, clauses designed to punish a party for breach of contract may only be upheld if they represent a genuine pre-estimate of loss. The provision is a penalty and not a genuine pre-estimate of loss for the following reasons: (a) as the Claimant is not the landowner and suffers no loss whatsoever as a result of a parking overstay; (b) the amount claimed is evidently disproportionate to any loss suffered by the Claimant. As such it is non recoverable.
   
  5.3. Aside from the sum concerned being an unenforceable penalty at common law, any contractual provision by which the sum is sought would, it is averred, be struck down as a result of the operation of the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999. By Regulation 5 of the 1999 regulations, a contractual term which has not been individually negotiated shall be regarded as unfair if, contrary to the requirement of good faith, it causes a significant imbalance in the parties' rights and obligations arising under the contract, to the detriment of the consumer. Regulation 8 provides that an unfair term in a contract concluded with a consumer shall not be binding on the consumer. Schedule 2 of the Regulations provides an indicative and non exhaustive list of terms which may be regarded as unfair. This list includes any terms which have the object or effect of requiring any consumer who fails to fulfil his obligation to pay a disproportionately high sum in compensation. It is obvious that the sum sought is disproportionately high. The car park concerned is a car park on which bona fide customers may park for free. The sum is disproportionately high compared with the hourly and daily rates for parking at the nearest facility where car park users must pay for their time. The sum is disproportionately high compared to the national minimum wage of £6.08 per hour – the sum sought works out at nearly 4 days’ worth of pay for someone on the minimum wage, assuming a seven hour working day.

  
  

 

 

5.4. Any attempt to avoid the recognition of the parking charge as a penalty by describing it as being merely the price of the service being provided is doomed to failure. If it is designed or intended to deter parking then it is clearly a penalty. Ultimately it does not matter whether a contended-for obligation to pay £100 is described as a ‘penalty’ or a ‘genuine pre-estimate of loss’ or dressed up in some other way. The Defendant avers that it is significant that no provision is made on-site for the payment of a parking charge of £100. If the motorist is indeed agreeing to pay £100 to park in some ‘special space’ in what is essentially a free car park intended to be used by the landowner's customers, why is no provision made to enable him to pay there and then. After all the wealthy motorist eager to pay £100 for the use of some particularly wonderful parking space but being thwarted as to how that might be achieved would not wish to simply drive off and run the risk of being charged with dishonestly making off without payment contrary to s3 of the Theft Act 1978.

 

 

6. In the circumstances it is denied that the Defendant is indebted to the Claimant as claimed in the Claim Form or at all

 

7. The Claimant’s entitlement to interest and costs is likewise denied

 

I am a patient of the surgery and was calling in to the chemist to seek advice for my partner. After queuing and discussing with the pharmacist I returned to the vehicle to call my partner and speak about the discussion with the pharmacist.

 

I work approximately 0.2miles from the surgery and therefore have no reason to use the car park for any reason other than visiting the surgery or pharmacy. I would usually walk the short distance, however on this occasion called in when passing to join onto the one way system. This is also the reason for not ‘signing in: 1. I do not usually take my car. 2. I was not aware of the new system and was not made aware.

 

I am aware of at least two other individuals who have visited the pharmacy/surgery and also not been advised to sign in.

 

Statement of Truth

 

I believe that the facts stated in this Defence are true.

 

(Defendant Name)

[Surfer01]

Very long winded and will probably not be read and end up in a bin. Main thrust is the "contract" and whether they have permission from the land owner to enter into a contract and the a loss, or genuine pre-estimate of loss issue.

 

[esmerobbo]

Long winded? Have you ever seen a PE claim bundle?

[ericsbrother]

S5.4- read Cavendish Sqaure Holdings v el Makdessi 2012- the judges comments make it very clear what is a contract and what is a penalty and this is more recent than the cases PE like to quote. especially useful to counter the argument of commercial justification.

S7 is irrelevant to the claimed contract with PE

[li-li]

how do i word this in my letter?

 

sorry for all the questions, i've never had to do this before and i need to send the letter off today! PANICKING!!!