Parking Eye claimform - ANPR PCN Lido car park, Cliftonville, Kent BB on Display

[dx100uk]

your defence is due by 4pm Friday the 17th

 

you'll be using the simple 2 line defence on most claimform threads in this private parking forum.

you don't at this stage put or mention anything else.

 

there a second line to that defence

but you are doing fine

don't worry

yes by 4pm 17 [day 33]

[ericsbrother]

On the claim form all you need to do is put down an outline of what your defence is.

 

Now, if you say for example that there was no breach of contract your witness statement and full details of your defence must be about this point

so you wont be able to raise arguments about something that is completely different.

 

This short defence covers just about everything you may want to say but it would be wise to add an " in any case" and then use a more specific or different point such as the paucity of the signage as that may be interpreted differently by the judge to a breach by being a lack of contract for example

 

one thing missing from your set of pictures is a picture of the payment terminal.

 

Any wording on this is the contract rather than the signs if there are differences.

[yourturntopay]

I have this photo of the ticket machine, which is unlit in the dark so I doubt you’d be able to read anything on it part from the actual payment screen. It appears to be solar powered.

 

Do I need to get a better picture of the ticket machine?

 

So far there has been no response to the letter you kindly advised me to send them (it was sent recorded 1st class)

 

Do I wait till next Weds (15 Nov) and then enter a defence?

 

Thank you for all and any help given x

[dx100uk]

defence not due till/by 4pm Friday

post it up here first

[ericsbrother]

YES, we need to be able to read anything written on it

 

I have this photo of the ticket machine, which is unlit in the dark so I doubt you’d be able to read anything on it part from the actual payment screen. It appears to be solar powered.

 

Do I need to get a better picture of the ticket machine?

 

So far there has been no response to the letter you kindly advised me to send them (it was sent recorded 1st class)

 

Do I wait till next Weds (15 Nov) and then enter a defence?

 

Thank you for all and any help given x

[yourturntopay]

Thanks, I will get a close up photo of the ticket machine and compare the wording between the signs and ticket machine

[yourturntopay]

Just as a side note,

 

I’ve noticed on my local Facebook page a lot of other people are receiving parking charges for the lido.

I hope it’s ok but I have suggested to the Facebook page that they take a look at all the very helpful information on this website and challenge the charges.

 

Sadly it’s too late for some people as they ignored the court papers (many thought they were fake) and now have a CCJ.

 

However they have said that PE haven’t made any further demands about payment since obtaining a CCJ against them.

 

I’ve warned them that they will and it will probably involve baliffs or high court enforcement but many seem to think I’m being over dramatic and PE will drop the matter.

[dx100uk]

cant use bailiffs esp HCEO's - sum is not high enough in value

[yourturntopay]

If PE can’t instruct bailiffs etc what use is a CCJ to PE in terms of applying enforcement?

 

Do PE apply for CCJ just because it screws up somebody’s credit rating?

 

What action do PE take in regards of getting payment?

[dx100uk]

typically they don't

 

its called a speculative claim

hoping for a non contested default judgement where no human ever goes near it and nothing is ever checked.

 

800'000 claimforms are issued every year

85% are for whatever reason never contested..its a numbers game.

many people simply pay them

[yourturntopay]

But if they do get a CCJ why are they not enforcing payment? Why do they bother paying the cost of applying for a CCJ if they don’t do anything with it when it’s granted?

 

I would have thought the whole point of obtaining a CCJ would be to enforce payment?

[dx100uk]

but it costs them too much money...

its a numbers game.

 

85% of people that get a ccj either ignore it or wet themselves and pay up blindly when they get it.

 

those that don't defend and never wet themselves and pay are not worth the financial outlay to progress things further.

 

eventually, some find the ccj and again blindly pay because they think it will remove it

say if they are going for a mortgage etc.

 

 

dx

[ericsbrother]

they can use court bailiffs, whose powers are limited and whose working methods very different to HCEO's.

 

The CCJ will then go on their credit files which is bad news if they apply for a job in the financial sector, the police or even a bookies.

Also it stops them from getting a mortgage, credit cards at a decent rate etc.

 

PE will try and enforce because if they dont then no-one will be paying the £100 in the first place and if you are going to tell a lie make it such a big one no-one will question it.

That is how the parking world works.

 

cant use bailiffs esp HCEO's - sum is not high enough in value

[yourturntopay]

Their behaviour is totally disgusting. It’s a shame that people ignore these charges as if more challenged the companies and charges then perhaps their behaviour would improve. Apart from challenge going them via appeal and in court, is there any other means of challenging PE’s behaviour?

 

I have absolutely no issue with paying for parking, however if you can’t see any signs etc advising that you need to then it just seems as if they are deliberately making it difficult for people to understand when/what/ if parking charges apply. I guess as it’s not profitable to make the motorist aware they aren’t too bothered about illegalities or fairness.

 

It seems that they are in a win win situation with very little negative consequences to them. They aren’t going to change their practice whilst it’s profitable to behave as they are.

 

I refuse to add to their profit margin and will fight this all the way.

[dx100uk]

go read parking prankster site

[yourturntopay]

Please do not think I’m being lazy as I have tried but please could you point me towards the defence template.

 

I’ve looked through the sticky posts at the of the forum section but I could only find the 7 part defence. Is this the correct one I should use please.

 

Also PE have not acknowledged or responded to the CPR letter.

 

Should I mention in the defence we have photos evidencing the signs were not visible at night etc?

 

Thank you for all your help. It is always and deeply appreciated.

 

Please could you advise if this the correct defence to use (I know this isn’t formatted properly, I have a word version that is - should I post that version up instead?)

 

1. It is admitted that Defendant is the owner of

 

2. It is admitted that the Defendant parked at the Lido at the times mentioned in the Particulars

 

3. It is denied that the Claimant entered into a contract with the Defendant. As held by the Upper Tax Tribunal in Vehicle Control Services Limited v HMRC [2012] UKUT 129 (TCC), any contract requires offer and acceptance. The Claimant was simply contracted by the landowner to provide car-park management services and is not capable of entering into a contract with the Defendant on its own account, as the carpark is owned by and the terms of entry set by the landowner. Accordingly, it is denied that the Claimant has authority to bring this claim. The proper Claimant is the landowner.

 

4. If there was a contract, it is denied that the penalty charge is incorporated into the contract. As per Thornton v Shoe Lane Parking [1971] 2 QB 163, the relevant term must be made known before a contract was formed. Here, the charge was not incorporated into the contract because:

 

 

a. The defendant entered the car park at approximately 22:00 and the signage at the entrance of the car park was unlit. The defendant could not see the signs advising that parking was chargeable.

 

b. There was no lighting within any part of the car park and therefore the defendant could not see any signs within the car park itself advising there was a charge for parking

 

c. The defendant parked the lower section of the car park and there is no ticket machine or visible signage advising that parking charges where applicable

 

d. The signs that are visible during daylight are not visible and are unreadable at night due to lack of lighting, both to the signs and in the car park itself.

 

e. Security staff at the venue saw the defendant park but did not advise there was a charge for parking

 

 

5. Alternatively, even if there was a contract, the provision requiring payment of [amount] 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; © the penalty bears no relation to the circumstances because it remains the same no matter whether a motorist overstays by ten seconds or ten years; and (d) the clause is specifically expressed to be a penalty on the Claimant's signs.

 

6. Further and alternatively, the provision requiring payment of [amount] 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 carpark for its designated purpose.

 

 

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."

[dx100uk]

don't use that please its old hat.

 

all you need is the simple 2 line defence with is on nearly every PPC claimform thread here.

[yourturntopay]

Please may I check this is the correct defence use? They have not responded to the CPR letter.

 

No contract offered at the time so no monies can possibly be due

 

The claimant has failed to show any authority from the landowner to enter into contracts with the public or to make civil claims in their own name. It is the defendants belief that the claimant has no locus standing.

[dx100uk]

looks like it

let EB check you tomorrow

[yourturntopay]

At the risk of sounding pushing is there anybody who could check tonight pretty please?

 

Please accept my sincere apologises if I’m presenting as rude or ungrateful, I honestly do not mean to be and I am very sorry if I’ve offended anybody.

 

I’ve a lot happening at present and it’s a huge challenge keeping all balls in the air (sort of speak)

 

My husband has just undergone major surgery that didn’t go well and has encountered complications.

 

On top of that i’m struggling with my own complex and difficult health issues.

 

I’ve been undergoing weekly treatments and they are incredibly painful and they knock me off my feet for a couple of days after each treatment.

 

I don’t think my hubby and I could make up a half decent healthy person between us!

 

I believe that I need to get the defence entered tomorrow by 4pm and I have to go to work tomorrow as I’ve had too much time off recently due to the above events.

 

As always, thank you very much for any and all help given and I apologise if I am presenting as an ungrateful and demanding moobag.

 

We have just had a letter from Parking Eye (was delivered to next door by mistake but dated 15 Nov so no delay in receiving it).

 

The letter focussed mainly on an appeal request (which was never made it was the CPR letter that was sent.....)

 

Does this change the defence at all?

Blank.pdf

[dx100uk]

urm looks like they are worried about the signage

[yourturntopay]

That was my first thought too.....

 

Perhaps they’ve had this point contested before and lost to it? Or they could be reading this post:oops:

 

Would PE have to respond to a Freedom of Information request? It’s temptig to ask how many cases they took to court

Were withdrawn prior to a hearing

Were won at hearing - not by default

 

I bet that would be some very reading but I’m guessing they’d find a way on supplying the info....

actually won

[dx100uk]

concentrate on that defence

 

I see this is a BB issue too.

 

if you look on here theres another recent PE BB claimform thread that has a good defence

I'm not able to search as on remote server access at present due to our far north microwave link being down thru high winds

should be back anytime hopefully the winds have died down

we're told its being realigned now

[yourturntopay]

I’d love to say I uunderstood every word you posted about servers etc but the only thing I really understood was “microwave” but I don’t think it’s the kind of microwave I’m thinking of

 

I need to put the defence in by 4pm tomorrow. How Do I find the thread you mentioned please?

 

Many thanks for all your help. I will be making a donation to the site on payday xx

[dx100uk]

gives me the internet where I am..

anyway back up to full speed now to me server

lets go look see..