Parking Eye court summons - advice appreciated

[motorwaymadness]

Comrades, I have news.

 

The landowner’s parking team have just responded with an offer accepting the original £11, plus a £10 administration fee.

 

It’s a carefully-worded email that couldn’t be described as a U-turn, the settlement offer being ‘a goodwill gesture’ that they will arrange with PE if I’m happy to pay that sum.

 

I haven’t responded yet, thinking you guys deserve a say after all your support.

 

But I do quite like this company and I’m happy with their offer. And I’m sure DragonFly’s defence statement and everyone’s advice won’t go to waste, remaining on this thread as a permanent help to others.

 

What do we think? Does this constitute a victory against PE?

 

 

[DragonFly1967]

It's certainly a victory, but the £10 administration charge is a bitter pill to swallow.

 

However, to settle the matter once and for all it might be worth £21, it's certainly a lot less than ParkingLie wanted to charge you. And you can take solace in the fact that although it's cost you £21, you've got one over on PE.

 

 

Be careful that you don't lose that email, print it if you have to, just in case something from WB to PE gets lost in translation, and ask WB for a receipt.

 

 

And well done. Even a shallow victory is still a victory

[ericsbrother]

well, they are demanding less for the admin fee than in the past and so it boils down to how precious your time is. If I was working full time I would consider this a lesson learnt and pay the money-this time. PE can recover most of their expense from the £21 so they are still sufering a small loss but they will be glad to avoid court as well bearing in mind they stand a very good chance of losing an awful lot more than the court fee. They also get a tax break on their costa as well, if you do your own expenses see if you can claim the money back against tax as it is not a fine but a contractual claim.

[motorwaymadness]

Thanks guys. It is a bit of a bitter pill but realistically, worth swallowing. Another time I'd have loved to fight to the end, but on this occasion I have matters more worthy of my attention than pests like PE.

 

The bitterest pill is actually this, in their response email from my acceptance of their offer:

"Please be aware going forward parking at Welcome Break is free for 2 hours, anything after this time frame you do need to pay for."

 

Was it really necessary to try and get the last word in by stating the bleedin obvious when they could have left it amicably?

 

I feel like replying with a massive dose of sarcasm but no, I shall rise above it. A small grumble anyway when they did they right thing. I shall continue to use their services.

 

I'm not daring to close the book on this until the settlement is paid and court action cancelled but I shall update you all on that in due course.

[motorwaymadness]

Hi guys.

 

It's not over until it's over I'm afraid.

 

Received an email this morning from WB saying I failed to mention this was going to court (incorrect, it was mentioned repeatedly in my letter), therefore "You can either file a defence to the courts and have a court date set or if you do not wish to attend court, we can have the court summons and charge dropped but you will need to pay the costs that have already occurred which is £60."

 

Can someone advise on two points:

 

- WB says: "...this is out of Welcome Break's and Parking Eye's hands so the only way to get this cancelled is to pay the £60 or set a court date." Really?

 

- Interestingly, they state clearly the costs already incurred are £60. So where does the £100 come from if they're only allowed to retrieve costs?

 

Look forward to hearing your thoughts.

 

MM

[DragonFly1967]

Well, that's tiresome!

 

I'd reply to unWelcome Berk, including a copy of your original email, highlighting all the bits where you mention court and/or being prosecuted (wrong word really in hindsight, but's that the word you used) in BOLD RED TEXT, tell them that, as can be seen from my original email, I did mention court (now highlighted), and you've made an offer of F&F settlement based on that email.

 

Ask them how they'd like you to pay the £21

 

 

 

I don't really see that they've got any viable choice but to honour their settlement offer, which although made in good faith on their part, was made in full knowledge of the contents of your email.

 

 

Again, print and keep the original email where they've accepted your offer. The subsequent rejection, a copy of your original email to them, this reply to their u-turn and rejection and keep the lot ready to go into your evidence pack if it goes to court.

 

The Judge will probably reject ParkingLie's claim based on that alone!

[motorwaymadness]

I did precisely that already DragonFly! Except that I highlighted it in yellow not red ;-)

 

WB are waiting for me to get back to them on how I wish to proceed. I think I'm much more comfortable going to court now than I was.

 

Shall we go for it?

[DragonFly1967]

Wait and see what response you get from unWelcome Berk first, they may realise that they've screwed up and just swallow it (for £21).

 

Remind me, when did you get that letter from the court?

[DragonFly1967]

Going back to your first post of today, the "costs" that ParkingLie has incurred to date will be...

 

£2.50 to get your details from the Deviant Vehicle Licensing Authority.

The cost of printing and postage to write to you. And

The cost of issuing a claim in the county court, which I think is £35 or £25 if they've used Money Claim Online (which they probably have).

 

So the costs, even being generous for postage are around £40 via MCO, or £50 if they've claimed manually.

[motorwaymadness]

Thanks DragonFly. It arrived Aug 21st. I filed an acknowledgement on moneyclaim.gov.uk yesterday and requested 28 days instead of 14 to file my defence because I'm up to my neck with other work, was grateful for a bit of breathing space when I found that option.

 

What I meant about their costs was they've told their client (who has told me in writing) that £60 will cover their costs to date. So how come they've tried to claim £100 off me already, and are taking me to court for that £100, plus court costs? Does it not help that we now have an admission from them that they're suing for more than they're allowed to?

[DragonFly1967]

It certainly won't hurt your case.

 

Though, if it actually gets as far as court, ParkingLie will be trying to claim £100 PLUS all of the court & solicitors costs.

 

Their actual court claim will break down along the lines of...

 

Parking charge £100.

Issue of county court papers (however they refer to it) (if they've used MCOL) £25

Hearing fee £25

Solicitors (fixed) costs £50

 

Which means, they want their cake twice. But of course, you can't prove that, more's the pity.

[DBC]

Who's "loss" was it anyway. The landowner or PE?

 

As to that "solicitor's fee of £50. PE have an in-house solicitor who is presumably on the payroll. So why are they claiming that money when she is being paid as part of her usual duites. The only time PE employ external legal people is if the case goes to court.

[DragonFly1967]

Who's "loss" was it anyway. The landowner or PE?

 

As to that "solicitor's fee of £50. PE have an in-house solicitor who is presumably on the payroll. So why are they claiming that money when she is being paid as part of her usual duites. The only time PE employ external legal people is if the case goes to court.

 

Well, technically I suppose unWelcome Break (the landowner) has lost £11. Though quite what their actual loss is by a car remaining in an almost completely empty car park for an extra half hour, is anyone's guess. ParkingLie haven't really 'lost' anything yet. And as for the £50. I think they claim it at court "because they can"

[motorwaymadness]

I've found a couple of interesting things on the internet.

 

- Firstly (and you may already be aware of this), the UK's biggest motorway service station owner Moto (WB being the second largest) operates a policy of not enforcing penalty notices against tired drivers.

 

- Then I came across this Press release (link below) about a Driver Fatigue Awareness Day run by council road safety officers and also attended by the fire brigade. It offers advice for people in my situation including: "Find a safe place to stop if you feel drowsy - not the hard shoulder" and "Drink two cups of coffee or a high-caffeine drink, then take a short nap to allow the caffeine to kick in."

 

Where was this Driver Fatigue Awareness Day held? None other than Welcome Break's Newport Pagnell services!

 

The Press release quotes Welcome Break site director Mike Ashton: “This is a great idea which highlights a potentially serious problem. It also highlights that the services at Newport Pagnell have been providing refreshment for all drivers for 50 years.”

 

http://portalconstructor.co.uk/safermk/documents/PR_122_-_fatigue_whilst_driving_release.pdf

[DragonFly1967]

Where was this Driver Fatigue Awareness Day held? None other than Welcome Break's Newport Pagnell services!

 

You really couldn't make it up. Nice find. Print it out.

 

The Press release quotes Welcome Break site director Mike Ashton: "This is a great idea which highlights a potentially serious problem. It also highlights that the services at Newport Pagnell have been providing refreshment for all drivers for 50 years"

 

But only for 2 hours at a time, not a second more

[DBC]

One of the many Ministers of Transport who have come and gone in the last few years did make a proposal that overnight parking in service areas should be free. Nothing came of it, presumably killed off by the BPA and various PPCs.

 

When you think about it, a service area is just a glorified lay-by. You can park in those places for as long as you like and for free, why are service areas any different?

[armadillo71]

I've found a couple of interesting things on the internet.

 

- Firstly (and you may already be aware of this), the UK's biggest motorway service station owner Moto (WB being the second largest) operates a policy of not enforcing penalty notices against tired drivers.

 

- Then I came across this Press release (link below) about a Driver Fatigue Awareness Day run by council road safety officers and also attended by the fire brigade. It offers advice for people in my situation including: "Find a safe place to stop if you feel drowsy - not the hard shoulder" and "Drink two cups of coffee or a high-caffeine drink, then take a short nap to allow the caffeine to kick in."

 

Where was this Driver Fatigue Awareness Day held? None other than Welcome Break's Newport Pagnell services!

 

The Press release quotes Welcome Break site director Mike Ashton: “This is a great idea which highlights a potentially serious problem. It also highlights that the services at Newport Pagnell have been providing refreshment for all drivers for 50 years.”

 

http://portalconstructor.co.uk/safermk/documents/PR_122_-_fatigue_whilst_driving_release.pdf

 

@motorwaymadness

 

The way this has developed, and what you have just discovered, then I think you should contact the Daily Wail.

It would seem to me to be a good story for them to sensationalise.

That's if they are still interested in the parking cowboys...

[motorwaymadness]

Thanks guys.

 

A politician once told me: "The secret to winning a debate is to keep one killer blow up your sleeve and save it for when they've exhausted their arguments."

 

I'm not ruling the Mail out, just taking it one step at a time.

[motorwaymadness]

I would say the Mail are indeed still interested in the parking cowboys, and none more so than ParkingEye.

 

Interesting feature here on our very own claimants (one of several very recent stories on the subject):

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2713646/We-curb-parking-cowboys-says-Cabinet-Minister-Victory-Mail-campaign-official-probe-launched-bully-boys.html

[motorwaymadness]

Hi guys

 

I've sent a number of responses to WB's parking team now and it sounds like her hands are tied (by PE, presumably), though I'm totally unconvinced that this matter is now "out of PE and WB's hands" as is claimed. I think the email conversation is now drawing to a close and I wonder if you can help me formulate a sensible response to the following last email:

 

"Once again please accept my apologies but due to the court summons there is nothing Welcome Break nor Parking Eye can do other than offer you the chance to pay the £60."

 

I would like to respond with what they could do, if they had the will. It's clearly not out of their hands is it? The court isn't forcing them to receive £60 off me before they're allowed to drop it is it?

 

MCOL - which I've used to respond and PE might have used to claim - states in their FAQs:

"I’ve been paid in full, or I want to withdraw the claim – how do I do that?

 

You should contact the Court directly, either by email, letter, fax or telephone. If you are withdrawing your claim you should also confirm that you have notified the defendant."

Sounds pretty simple to me. They would lose the court fee which they willingly paid, but that doesn't mean they can't withdraw it does it? It just means they don't want to. I'm quite sure the only things stopping them are greed and ego - unless I'm missing something?

 

Is it actually more complicated than that or can I help them out and explain exactly what PE could do and what WB could do?

[DragonFly1967]

Try this...

 

Dear unWelcome Break.

 

Thank you for your further email which attempts to explain your position, but I'm afraid that I am still failing to understand the problem that you and/or ParkingLie are having in withdrawing the claim.

 

According to the Money Claim Online (MCOL) website, a withdrawal of the claim is as simple as placing a tick in a box. If you're registered with MCOL (which ParkingLie certainly will be (and I'd assume that unWelcome Break are too)) you can see how to do it here

 

As for the supposed costs to date of £60. I can only presume that this figure is being supplied to you by ParkingLie. I'm afraid that the wool is well & truly being pulled over your eyes.

 

So far, the charges incurred by ParkingLie are:

 

£2.50 DVLA fee for obtaining the registered keeper details.

£25.00 to issue the claim via MCOL and

A small amount for postage to cover the cost of writing to me.

 

At the very most, this amounts to £35. So quite where they are pulling the figure of £60 from, I'm afraid I can only guess. Though I could make an educated guess that it's somewhere warm, sticky & brown. lol

 

I therefore reiterate my offer of paying the £11 (plus your £10 administration charge (which I shall pay begrudgingly)) in full and final settlement as you originally agreed to. The agreement of which I will also be including in my defence pack should ParkingLie not withdraw their spurious claim. And I am confident that I shall win in court based on this evidence (of offer to settle and acceptance of that offer) alone, never mind the rest of my defence, at which point both unWelcome Break and ParkingLie shall get nothing apart from a bill for my costs to defend the claim.

 

 

Your move Sukkas!

 

 

 

Obviously, edit and tidy and remove references to ParkingLie and unWelcome Break replacing them with their proper names.

[motorwaymadness]

Haha, DragonFly you have exceeded my expectations yet again! Thanks for that, it's very cool. ;-)

 

I thought I might add one more bit to that last email, after armadillo's post of last night which got me re-thinking about the Press.

 

Good coverage has been achieved a number of times in The Telegraph, ITV News, The Mail, Guardian and some locals, on ParkingEye pursuing motorists who chose to sleep for safety reasons. But I haven't yet found a reported or unreported case of such a matter getting as far as court.

 

If that makes my case a first - the first time they've actually tried suing a driver for sleeping for safety reasons - then it's more newsworthy than any of the above.

 

I can't find evidence online of any similar case getting that far - but can one my more knowledgeable comrades correct me if they know differently?

[DragonFly1967]

Keep a few rounds in the magazine ready for a court defence. You're only trying to get them to buckle and withdraw the claim at the moment. They'll already be well aware by now that you're a 'fighter' and that they're highly unlikely to get a default judgement against you, so at the moment they're just trying to get what they can (the £60) so that they don't lose everything they've spent and make themselves look foolish into the bargain (not that they need any help with the latter).

 

You don't want to lay all of your cards on the table at this point, as to show your hand now won't keep them guessing as to what you're going to say in chambers. And I'd be frankly amazed if you didn't win on the basis of that offer to settle and acceptance of offer alone. Never mind everything else that you'd throw at them in a full defence.

[motorwaymadness]

Ok, thanks DragonFly. That makes sense. I'll ping off a version of what you said.

[armadillo71]

Haha, DragonFly you have exceeded my expectations yet again! Thanks for that, it's very cool. ;-)

 

I thought I might add one more bit to that last email, after armadillo's post of last night which got me re-thinking about the Press.

 

Good coverage has been achieved a number of times in The Telegraph, ITV News, The Mail, Guardian and some locals, on ParkingEye pursuing motorists who chose to sleep for safety reasons. But I haven't yet found a reported or unreported case of such a matter getting as far as court.

 

If that makes my case a first - the first time they've actually tried suing a driver for sleeping for safety reasons - then it's more newsworthy than any of the above.

 

I can't find evidence online of any similar case getting that far - but can one my more knowledgeable comrades correct me if they know differently?

 

You are trying to get this charge cancelled before going to court.

 

Without knowing the outcome of your last email exchange, I think it is probably in your best interest to get ( or try to get ) the mail involved.

 

It is probably in all our ( the publics ) interest to get what WB and PE are doing to you , the tired motorist, out into the open...

 

Just my thoughts on your situation.