Parking Eye court papers **Discontinued - but no Notification**

[bd1972]

Is this better?also do i mention the strike out before hearing or just wait and apply when it's been allocated? Your help is greatly appreciated.

 

I dispute the entirety of the claim

2. ParkingEye did not send me a letter before claim which was compliant with practice directions. As a result the parties have not been able to able to complete the exchange of information needed for me to file my full defence and have not been able to complete Alternative Dispute Resolution.

3. ParkingEye have not filed enough information in the particulars of claim to establish a cause of action. They have not indicated whether the claim is for a contractual charge, breach of contract or trespass, although the wording ‘parking without authority’ indicates it is for trespass. They are not the landowner and have not established under what authority they bring the claim. In addition to this I have requested sight of the contract with the landowner under CPR 31.14. To date I have not had a response even though I have proof that the request as been recieved and signed for.

4. I therefore request the claim is stayed until ParkingEye provide full particulars of claim.

5. Parking cases explore complex areas of law. I estimate that any hearing will need between a half day to a day to hear all the issues.

6. ParkingEye never attend court personally, but use an advocate from LPC Law who offer a fixed fee service for around £250 for a 3 hour hearing (ParkingEye can confirm the exact amount) or more if the hearing is longer.

7. It is clear therefore, that as legal costs are not normally reclaimable in the small claimsicon court that ParkingEye have no sensible financial basis for pursuing this claim as they will make a loss, whatever the result. Moreover, this case will take a great deal of the court’s time.

9. After parking eyeicon initial letter i reqursted an appeal via POPLA this as been ignoredicon and no reply to date even though its outside their 35 day remit.

10 I would prefer to use the Alternative Dispute Resolution rather than waste the courts busy schedule.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

14.I will then file my defence based on the following points

a. ParkingEye are not the landowner, and have not shown they have the landowner’s permission to take court action in their own name. They therefore have no standing to bring the case. Along with the failure to answer my appeal letter or provide a popla code.

b. As this was a free car park, there is no consideration from driver to ParkingEye and a contract therefore cannot be said to exist. At most, there can only be a licence to park

C. In the event ParkingEye claim they are charging for breach of contract then according to well established case law; and also the British Parking Association code of conduct, which they have agreed to obey; and also which their standard contract with the landowner states they must comply with; then any charge for breach of contract must be a true pre-estimate of loss. The creditor for breach of contract, as shown by ParkingEye’s standard contract, is the landowner. The landowner’s loss in this situation is zero or negligible. As ParkingEye’s standard contract does not pass on recovery costs to the landowner then the landowner has made no loss from recovery costs. In any case, as ParkingEye’s accounts show they make over 30% profit on charges for breach of contract, the charge cannot be a true pre-estimate of loss.

*Further and alternatively, the provision requiring payment of £60, rising to £100 if not paid within 14 days is unenforceable as an unfair term contrary to Regulation 5 of The Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999. This is a term which falls within Schedule 1, paragraph (e) of the Regulations being a term "requiring any consumer who fails to fulfil his obligation to pay a disproportionately high sum in compensation". The term was not individually negotiated and causes a significant imbalance in the parties' respective rights and obligations, because the charge is heavily disproportionate in respect of a short overstay and is imposed even where consumers are legitimately using the car park for its designated purpose.The Genuine Pre-Estimate Of Loss, which of course means the loss that*parking eyeicon*or the landowner has suffered as a result of my vehicle taking up a space. If the parking is free for two hours, and my vehicle was in situ for X hours, given that there is an excess charge made by Welcome Break of £11 (for cars, upto 24 hours) the maximum total of the "loss" would be £11 and not the amount claimed by the Claimant.parking eye*cannot justify the charge of £60 or £100 (or more) when if there were any loss at all it would amount to £11. Anything over and above that, bar perhaps, what it's actually cost ParkingEye to write to me is a penalty and I argue that this penalty is unenforceable as per submission 5 of this defence statement.Parking Eye cannot include (in their genuine pre-estimate of loss) a percentage of their running costs, as they'd incur those whether or not my vehicle had been parked there that day.7. Save as expressly mentioned above, the Particulars of Claim is denied in its entirety. It is denied that the Claimant is entitled to the relief claimed or any relief at all.

d. The failure of parking to here my appeal by themselves or POPLA nor answering or replying to my CPR 31.14 request.

 

 

To the management of this case in the courts we will enter a full defence when Parking Eye send full claim details

[ericsbrother]

All parking companies offer an early payment discount-they are obliged to by law so the removal of the discount offer after a given time is not a penalty but does show that the amount claimed is not a relection of their loss.

Dont go into figures about how much your breach would cost, you will end up losing as you are admitting that there is a breach that has caused a loss and therefore the claim will stand.

Basically you need to say that PE have no interest in the land and it is a free car park. At best they are agents for the landlord so any loss due would go to the landlord.

All of the detail should be part of your bundle for when you exchange documents when you add previous decisions, case law and your photographic evidence of signage etc. You want short and understandable bullet points at this stage.

[bd1972]

Ericsbrother is this ok ive broken it down to plain bullet and removed the overstay charges. As you csn see im not very good at yhis.

 

I dispute the entirety of the claim

 

2. ParkingEye did not send me a letter before claim which was compliant with practice directions. As a result the parties have not been able to able to complete the exchange of information needed for me to file my full defence and have not been able to complete Alternative Dispute Resolution.

3. ParkingEye have not filed enough information in the particulars of claim to establish a cause of action. They have not indicated whether the claim is for a contractual charge, breach of contract or trespass, although the wording ‘parking without authority’ indicates it is for trespass. They are not the landowner and have not established under what authority they bring the claim. In addition to this I have requested sight of the contract with the landowner under CPR 31.14. To date I have not had a response even though I have proof that the request as been recieved and signed for.

4. I therefore request the claim is stayed until ParkingEye provide full particulars of claim.

5. Parking cases explore complex areas of law. I estimate that any hearing will need between a half day to a day to hear all the issues.

6. ParkingEye never attend court personally, but use an advocate from LPC Law who offer a fixed fee service for around £250 for a 3 hour hearing (ParkingEye can confirm the exact amount) or more if the hearing is longer.

7. It is clear therefore, that as legal costs are not normally reclaimable in the small claimsicon court that ParkingEye have no sensible financial basis for pursuing this claim as they will make a loss, whatever the result. Moreover, this case will take a great deal of the court’s time.

9. After parking eyeicon initial letter i reqursted an appeal via POPLAicon this as been ignoredicon and no reply to date even though its outside their 35 day remit.

10 I would prefer to use the Alternative Dispute Resolution rather than waste the courts busy schedule.

 

 

14.I will then file my defence based on the following points

a. ParkingEye are not the landowner, and have not shown they have the landowner’s permission to take court action in their own name. They therefore have no standing to bring the case. Along with the failure to answer my appeal letter or provide a popla code.

b. As this was a free car park, there is no consideration from driver to ParkingEye and a contract therefore cannot be said to exist. At most, there can only be a licence to park

C. In the event ParkingEye claim they are charging for breach of contract then according to well established case law; and also the British Parking Association code of conduct, which they have agreed to obey; and also which their standard contract with the landowner states they must comply with; then any charge for breach of contract must be a true pre-estimate of loss. The creditor for breach of contract, as shown by ParkingEye’s standard contract, is the landowner. The landowner’s loss in this situation is zero or negligible. As ParkingEye’s standard contract does not pass on recovery costs to the landowner then the landowner has made no loss from recovery costs. In any case, as ParkingEye’s accounts show they make over 30% profit on charges for breach of contract, the charge cannot be a true pre-estimate of loss.

Further and alternatively, the provision requiring payment of £60, rising to £100 if not paid within 14 days is unenforceable as an unfair term contrary to Regulation 5 of The Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999. This is a term which falls within Schedule 1, paragraph (e) of the Regulations being a term "requiring any consumer who fails to fulfil his obligation to pay a disproportionately high sum in compensation". The term was not individually negotiated and causes a significant imbalance in the parties' respective rights and obligations, because the charge is heavily disproportionate in respect of a short overstay and is imposed even where consumers are legitimately using the car park for its designated purpose.The Genuine Pre-Estimate Of Loss, which of course means the loss that parking eye or the landowner has suffered as a result of my vehicle taking up a space. If the parking is free for two hours, and my vehicle was in situ for X hours, given that there is an excess charge made by Welcome break.parking eye cannot justify the charge of £60 or £100 (or more) when if there were any loss at all. Anything over and above that, bar perhaps, what it's actually cost ParkingEye to write to me is a penalty and I argue that this penalty is unenforceable as per submission 5 of this defence statement.parking eyeicon cannot include (in their genuine pre-estimate of loss) a percentage of their running costs, as they'd incur those whether or not my vehicle had been parked there that day.7. Save as expressly mentioned above, the Particulars of Claim is denied in its entirety. It is denied that the Claimant is entitled to the relief claimed or any relief at all.

d. The failure of parking to here my appeal by themselves or POPLA nor answering or replying to my CPR 31.14 request.

 

 

To the management of this case in the courts we will enter a full defence when Parking Eye send full claim details

[ericsbrother]

you are still putting too much into it at this stage. Drop everything in para14 and replace it with as PE have failed to supply documents under CPR 31.14 that supposrt a claim to enter into a contract or show any evidence of locus standi it is impossible to submit a full defence at this time.

 

Dont forget, this is just the first step. go into detail at exchange of documents time if need be.

[bd1972]

Thank you ericsbrother I will submit this later tonight. Many thanks I will return when I know more. Unless you think anything else should go in

 

 

I dispute the entirety of the claim

 

2. ParkingEye did not send me a letter before claim which was compliant with practice directions. As a result the parties have not been able to able to complete the exchange of information needed for me to file my full defence and have not been able to complete Alternative Dispute Resolution.

3. ParkingEye have not filed enough information in the particulars of claim to establish a cause of action. They have not indicated whether the claim is for a contractual charge, breach of contract or trespass, although the wording ‘parking without authority’ indicates it is for trespass. They are not the landowner and have not established under what authority they bring the claim. In addition to this I have requested sight of the contract with the landowner under CPR 31.14. To date I have not had a response even though I have proof that the request as been recieved and signed for.

4. I therefore request the claim is stayed until ParkingEye provide full particulars of claim.

5. Parking cases explore complex areas of law. I estimate that any hearing will need between a half day to a day to hear all the issues.

6. ParkingEye never attend court personally, but use an advocate from LPC Law who offer a fixed fee service for around £250 for a 3 hour hearing (ParkingEye can confirm the exact amount) or more if the hearing is longer.

7. It is clear therefore, that as legal costs are not normally reclaimable in the small claimsicon court that ParkingEye have no sensible financial basis for pursuing this claim as they will make a loss, whatever the result. Moreover, this case will take a great deal of the court’s time.

9. After parking eyeicon initial letter i reqursted an appeal via POPLAicon this as been ignoredicon and no reply to date even though its outside their 35 day remit.

10 I would prefer to use the Alternative Dispute Resolution rather than waste the courts busy schedule.

11. As Parking Eye have failed to supply documents under CPR 31.14 that supposrt a claim to enter into a contract or show any evidence of locus standi it is impossible to submit a full defence at this time.

[ericsbrother]

better.

Dont forget, there are more stages to this yet so read the parking prankster's blogs and look at all fo the previous PE cases especially to see how they operate. It is worthwhile because they will do anything to mislead you and the court.

[bd1972]

Many thanks for all the help so far.

We have now entered our defence online do i just wait now ..

[bd1972]

Evening guy's

got home today with a nice and thick letter from Parking Eye with a Notice to proceed. Looking through it quickly they have included the contract between themselves and welcome break but I'm not sure if it's what we want or not. What do I do now?

 

Also there is no N180 form as stated on the parking pranksters website

[ericsbrother]

It is usual for them to send out reams of paperwork that is not actually included or relevant to their claim, it is designed to intimidate you. The notice comes from the court and not PE so they are trying to mislead you as to how far things have gone. They arent going to give up as they have spent a lot of money and are hoping you are so cowed by their expertise that you fold your cards and let them have to pot.

You need to look at the supposed contract and see if it is relevant to the land you were parked on. You may have to spend £3 at the land registry and see who actually owns the land as there is a good chance iyt isnt Welcome Break. If that is the case then their contract is worthless but they will try and persuade a judge that it is the bees knees so you need a copy of the LR documents to show who is the freeholder and what leases apply. You still have plenty of time as no allocation has been set yet.

[bd1972]

Afternoon all. Came in today to this letter. Any ideas how shall I reply?

Edited December 23, 2014 by stu007
PDF Edited

[bd1972]

Anyone please

[Meekyou]

So basically P.Eye have seen your defence and realise they won't win in court, so are backing down, but trying to still get a few quid out of you to cover their costs. Personally I'd refuse their offer, if they do continue with the court case, take this letter as further evidence

[f16]

You need to edit the parking charge number. .... It ID's you !!!!!!

 

Site Team may "lift it " in the meantime.

[stu007]

Post#60 PDF edited

[f16]

Post#60 PDF edited

 

Cheers stu007. ..... Merry Christmas to you and "The Crew".

 

bd1972 :

 

This appears not to be an "offer" in full and final settlement. ......

By paying the £60.00 " costs". .... In my opinion you are accepting you were at fault, and thus the "Claim".

 

You would effectively be paying to take yourself to Court.

 

I don't do the Legal bit ; But see what the "Legal Crew" advise.

[stu007]

@ f16

 

Thanks for bringing it to our attention.

 

Merry Christmas to YOU and ALL OUR CAGGERS

 

@ bd1972 please be patient I am sure the caggers will be along to assist.

[dx100uk]

claimform had it too!

 

 

don't respond to PE from that letter

last ditch attempt before they discontinue.

 

 

dx

[renegadeimp]

That letter is absolutely laughable. In english it reads that they know they are 100% wrong, have absolutely no basis for a claim and they know it, but they STILl are trying to extort money from you in the way of their costs for applying for a claim for something they could never claim in the first place. Therefore it hasnt cost them anything, and still leaves you £60 out of pocket for absolutely no legal reason at all.

 

This joke of a company needs shutting down.

[Conniff]

Any chance you could do a .pdf of the contract and put it up ??

[bd1972]

Hi guys I will do a pdf of contract it is mostly blacked out. But still post it up later

[ericsbrother]

The it is worhtless and they are trying to pull the wool over your (and possibly a judge's) eyes. Point his out by way of a letter as a reply and copy it to the allocated court. Point out that the requirement under CPR hasnt been met and the contract is the ONLY evidence of locus standi.

[SabreSheep]

Let it go to court if *they* dare

I would ignore it and await instructions from the court. Chase any deadlines etc with the court.

[bd1972]

The court as not been allocated. We have just sent the n180 form off and awaiting the allocation.

[ericsbrother]

when you get the allocation fire off the letter. It will be put on the pile with all of the other documents but you can bring it to the judge's attention at the start of proceedings and that will probably be the end of their claim.

[bd1972]

Hi guys came in today with this. It's from Parking Eye about the courts questionaire. It shows they don't want to go to mediation but not sent the fee for allocation. I've logged on to mcol yesterday and no change. What is my next step?