2 x Parkingeye Notices

[Anders]

Hi,

Early this week I received 2 notices for 2 separate overstays in motorway services.

The first is a letter is dated 02/01/15 from DRP Debt Recovery for an alleged overstay at an M11 service station in October 2014 – demand for £150. The second a “LETTER BEFORE COUNTY COURT CLAIM” for an alleged overstay in November 2014 at an M25 service station – demand for £100.

I recall receiving a notice late last year for one of the offences but just ignored it on advice (maybe bad advice), but I can’t remember which one. The house name is actually spelled incorrectly which may explain why I haven’t received all notices and reminders.

The claims are probably legitimate in that I normally stop to eat and then rest. However, I was not aware of a time limit and have never received notices before. I have never seen any parking notices although undoubtedly they are there if I cared to search for them. The penalty amount is obscenely excessive for what is probably minutes over the allotted free period.

From what I have read my right to appeal has now expired? Is this correct or can I appeal the notices? Do I have any recourse from the error in my address?

Many thanks in advance,

Andy

[mystery1]

Re: 2 x Parkingeye Notices

If the driver and registered keeper are the same then respond only to the letter before action. POst a redacted copy of that up please.

M1

[paulajayne]

Re: 2 x Parkingeye Notices

Head over to http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php

The guys and gals will guide you .

They are not fines just an invoice from a private company.

[mystery1]

Re: 2 x Parkingeye Notices

Head over to http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php

The guys and gals will guide you .

They are not fines just an invoice from a private company.

M1

[Anders]

Re: 2 x Parkingeye Notices

Hi, attached are the latest notices from the 2 cases.

Thanks for you help.

If the driver and registered keeper are the same then respond only to the letter before action. POst a redacted copy of that up please.

M1

[mystery1]

Re: 2 x Parkingeye Notices

18th November - They appear to say they only contacted you on 26th December, is that correct ?

If so, is this a site where tickets are placed on a windscreen or is it camera operated with no staff on site ?

M1

[Anders]

Re: 2 x Parkingeye Notices

Both car parks are camera operated. I remember receiving a letter with photographic evidence but discarded it. I have posted letters from 2 different claims at different car parks.

I am the owner.

Thanks

[mystery1]

Re: 2 x Parkingeye Notices

I'll do a reply later for you :okay:

M1

[Anders]

Re: 2 x Parkingeye Notices

Many thanks.

Is the address error of any significance? A "," was used instead of an "m".

Do I need to send 2 separate letters for each claim or can they be combined?

Again, much appreciated.

[mystery1]

Re: 2 x Parkingeye Notices

Many thanks.

Is the address error of any significance? A "," was used instead of an "m".

Do I need to send 2 separate letters for each claim or can they be combined?

Again, much appreciated.

Not really.

Debt recovery i'd leave just now. They're even more full of shit than Parking eye.

M1

[Anders]

Re: 2 x Parkingeye Notices

OK, thanks

Not really.

Debt recovery i'd leave just now. They're even more full of shit than Parking eye.

M1

[mystery1]

Re: 2 x Parkingeye Notices

Dear Parking Eye,

Thank you for your letter dated 10/01/15 headed " Letter before county court claim" the contents of which are noted.

Since receiving your letter i have managed to do some research. I have read the pre action protocols https://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/pr...action_conduct and the SRA guide to Litigants in person http://www.sra.org.uk/solicitors/han...5/content.page as well as finding examples of countless other letters before county court claims and subsequent court documents where you admit you "letter before county court claim" is non compliant with the pre action protocol and that your template has been updated and now complies in all areas which of course as they were submitted to court were signed with a statement of truth.

This leads me to believe either those statements of truth are contempt of court or you are trying to mislead me which is a major breach of the SRA code of practice.

The reason i say this is because your letter before county court claim does not comply with the pre action protocols which dictate that your letter should include those matters listed. Annex A states

2. Claimant’s letter before claim
2.1 The claimant’s letter should give concise details about the matter. This should enable the defendant to understand and investigate the issues without needing to request further information. The letter should include –
(1) the claimant’s full name and address;
(2) the basis on which the claim is made (i.e. why the claimant says the defendant is liable);
(3) a clear summary of the facts on which the claim is based;
(4) what the claimant wants from the defendant; and
(5) if financial loss is claimed, an explanation of how the amount has been calculated.
2.2 The letter should also –
(1) list the essential documents on which the claimant intends to rely;
(2) set out the form of ADR (if any) that the claimant considers the most suitable and invite the defendant to agree to this;
(3) state the date by which the claimant considers it reasonable for a full response to be provided by the defendant; and
(4) identify and ask for copies of any relevant documents not in the claimant's possession and which the claimant wishes to see.
2.3 Unless the defendant is known to be legally represented the letter should –
(1) refer the defendant to this Practice Direction and in particular draw attention to paragraph 4 concerning the court's powers to impose sanctions for failure to comply with the Practice Direction; and
(2) inform the defendant that ignoring the letter before claim may lead to the claimant starting proceedings and may increase the defendant's liability for costs.

When one compares your letter before county court claim to the pre action protocols, it is plainly woefully inadequate. As i have already stated, you have previously been made aware by several defendants of your shortcomings in this regard and as such i can only consider these failures as a deliberate attempt to mislead me as an unrepresented party which is a fundamental breach of the SRA code. This will be reported as such.


The pre action protocols regarding non compliance state

4. Compliance
4.1 The CPR enable the court to take into account the extent of the parties’ compliance with this Practice Direction or a relevant pre-action protocol (see paragraph 5.2) when giving directions for the management of claims (see CPR rule 3.1(4) and (5)) and when making orders about who should pay costs (see CPR rule 44.2(5)(a)).
4.2 The court will expect the parties to have complied with this Practice Direction or any relevant pre-action protocol. The court may ask the parties to explain what steps were taken to comply prior to the start of the claim. Where there has been a failure of compliance by a party the court may ask that party to provide an explanation.
Assessment of compliance
4.3 When considering compliance the court will –
(1) be concerned about whether the parties have complied in substance with the relevant principles and requirements and is not likely to be concerned with minor or technical shortcomings;
(2) consider the proportionality of the steps taken compared to the size and importance of the matter;
(3) take account of the urgency of the matter. Where a matter is urgent (for example, an application for an injunction) the court will expect the parties to comply only to the extent that it is reasonable to do so. (Paragraph 9.5 and 9.6 of this Practice Direction concern urgency caused by limitation periods.)
Examples of non-compliance
4.4 The court may decide that there has been a failure of compliance by a party because, for example, that party has –
(1) not provided sufficient information to enable the other party to understand the issues;
(2) not acted within a time limit set out in a relevant pre-action protocol, or, where no specific time limit applies, within a reasonable period;
(3) unreasonably refused to consider ADR (paragraph 8 in Part III of this Practice Direction and the pre-action protocols all contain similar provisions about ADR); or
(4) without good reason, not disclosed documents requested to be disclosed.
Sanctions for non-compliance
4.5 The court will look at the overall effect of non-compliance on the other party when deciding whether to impose sanctions.
4.6 If, in the opinion of the court, there has been non-compliance, the sanctions which the court may impose include –
(1) staying (that is suspending) the proceedings until steps which ought to have been taken have been taken;
(2) an order that the party at fault pays the costs, or part of the costs, of the other party or parties (this may include an order under rule 27.14(2)(g) in cases allocated to the small claims track);
(3) an order that the party at fault pays those costs on an indemnity basis (rule 44.3(3) sets out the definition of the assessment of costs on an indemnity basis);
(4) if the party at fault is the claimant in whose favour an order for the payment of a sum of money is subsequently made, an order that the claimant is deprived of interest on all or part of that sum, and/or that interest is awarded at a lower rate than would otherwise have been awarded;
(5) if the party at fault is a defendant, and an order for the payment of a sum of money is subsequently made in favour of the claimant, an order that the defendant pay interest on all or part of that sum at a higher rate, not exceeding 10% above base rate, than would otherwise have been awarded.

As well as this CPR 27, assuming this eventually is allocated small claims track status, states at 14 2(g)

(g) such further costs as the court may assess by the summary procedure and order to be paid by a party who has behaved unreasonably

I would also draw your attention to the principle of natural justice. In Al Rawi and others (Respondents) v The Security
Service and others (Appellants) Lord Dyson said

"12. Secondly, trials are conducted on the basis of the principle of natural
justice. There are a number of strands to this. A party has a right to know the case
against him and the evidence on which it is based. He is entitled to have the
opportunity to respond to any such evidence and to any submissions made by the
other side. The other side may not advance contentions or adduce evidence of
which he is kept in ignorance. The Privy Council said in the civil case of Kanda v
Government of Malaya [1962] AC 322, 337:
“If the right to be heard is to be a real right which is worth anything,
it must carry with it a right in the accused man to know the case
which is made against him. He must know what evidence has been
given and what statements have been made affecting him: and then
he must be given a fair opportunity to correct or contradict them.”
13. Another aspect of the principle of natural justice is that the parties should be
given an opportunity to call their own witnesses and to cross-examine the opposing
witnesses. As was said by the High Court of Australia in Lee v The Queen (1998)
195 CLR 594, at para 32: “Confrontation and the opportunity for crossexamination
is of central significance to the common law adversarial system of
trial.”

14. I do not believe that any of this is controversial, but it needs to be
emphasised because, unlike the law relating to PII, a closed material procedure
involves a departure from both the open justice and the natural justice principles.
In recent years, both the courts and Parliament have been exercised by the problem
of how to balance (i) the interest that we all have in maintaining a fair system of
justice which, so far as possible, respects the essential elements of these principles
and (ii) the interest that we also all have in the protection of national security, the
international relations of the United Kingdom and the prevention, detection and
prosecution of crime. Thus, Parliament has reacted to the threat of terrorism to our Page 6
national security interests by introducing a form of closed material procedure (with
the use of special advocates) for use in certain categories of case, for example, by
enacting the Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005 and the Counter-Terrorism Act
2008. "

I would further like to draw you attention to LJ Rix in Expandable Ltd & Anor v Rubin [2008] EWCA Civ 59 (11 February 2008)

"The general ethos of the CPR is for a more cards on the table approach to litigation. If a party thinks it worthwhile to mention a document in his pleadings, witness statements or affidavits, I do not see why, subject as I say to the question of privilege, the court should put difficulties in the way of inspection. I look upon the mention of a document in pleadings etc as a form of disclosure. The document in question has not been disclosed by list, or at any rate not yet, but it has been disclosed by mention in what, for the purposes of litigation, is another important and formal category of documents. If so, then the party deploying that document by its mention should in principle be prepared to be required to permit its inspection, and the other party should be entitled to its inspection. What in such circumstances is the virtue of coyness?"


Returning to the pre action protocols, "1.2 These aims are to be achieved by encouraging the parties to –
(1) exchange information about the issue." I note your letter before county court claim says i should have all the information i require. Even if i had the above shows that should i request it that you are encouraged in the strongest sense to supply it. It will always be the case that the rules only require reproduction of documents that existed previously. Common sense tells you the rules don't expect brand new documents to be fabricated ! I note on one document i did receive that you have an incorrect spelling of my house name which pehaps explains why i think i haven't received some of your mail.

With all this in mind, i require copies of the original parking charge notice, any other correspondence, signs from the site, the contract which allows you to operate on the site and anything else upon which you will seek to rely on.

I would also ask that we refer the matter to POPLA as the most suitable ADR available, failing which, i ask that you hold off on your claim until the Beavis appeal result is known.

Upon receipt of the documents i seek, i will obtain advice from someone with experience in these matters and respond in full within 14 days of receipt of any documents.

Yours etc

M1

[Anders]

Re: 2 x Parkingeye Notices

Many thanks,

Do I have to send via post or can I email this to them?

Thanks

[Kati]

Re: 2 x Parkingeye Notices

Many thanks,

Do I have to send via post or can I email this to them?

Thanks

email's free
(IMO) If you have the email address, send it that way ... you'll even have proof that you sent it

[Anders]

Re: 2 x Parkingeye Notices

Hi, thanks, I have sent this off.

I received another letter from DRP today threatening legal action for the other claim/offence.

Letter attached.

Many thanks

Dear Parking Eye,

Thank you for your letter dated 10/01/15 headed " Letter before county court claim" the contents of which are noted.

Since receiving your letter i have managed to do some research. I have read the pre action protocols https://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/pr...action_conduct and the SRA guide to Litigants in person http://www.sra.org.uk/solicitors/han...5/content.page as well as finding examples of countless other letters before county court claims and subsequent court documents where you admit you "letter before county court claim" is non compliant with the pre action protocol and that your template has been updated and now complies in all areas which of course as they were submitted to court were signed with a statement of truth.

This leads me to believe either those statements of truth are contempt of court or you are trying to mislead me which is a major breach of the SRA code of practice.

The reason i say this is because your letter before county court claim does not comply with the pre action protocols which dictate that your letter should include those matters listed. Annex A states

2. Claimant’s letter before claim
2.1 The claimant’s letter should give concise details about the matter. This should enable the defendant to understand and investigate the issues without needing to request further information. The letter should include –
(1) the claimant’s full name and address;
(2) the basis on which the claim is made (i.e. why the claimant says the defendant is liable);
(3) a clear summary of the facts on which the claim is based;
(4) what the claimant wants from the defendant; and
(5) if financial loss is claimed, an explanation of how the amount has been calculated.
2.2 The letter should also –
(1) list the essential documents on which the claimant intends to rely;
(2) set out the form of ADR (if any) that the claimant considers the most suitable and invite the defendant to agree to this;
(3) state the date by which the claimant considers it reasonable for a full response to be provided by the defendant; and
(4) identify and ask for copies of any relevant documents not in the claimant's possession and which the claimant wishes to see.
2.3 Unless the defendant is known to be legally represented the letter should –
(1) refer the defendant to this Practice Direction and in particular draw attention to paragraph 4 concerning the court's powers to impose sanctions for failure to comply with the Practice Direction; and
(2) inform the defendant that ignoring the letter before claim may lead to the claimant starting proceedings and may increase the defendant's liability for costs.

When one compares your letter before county court claim to the pre action protocols, it is plainly woefully inadequate. As i have already stated, you have previously been made aware by several defendants of your shortcomings in this regard and as such i can only consider these failures as a deliberate attempt to mislead me as an unrepresented party which is a fundamental breach of the SRA code. This will be reported as such.


The pre action protocols regarding non compliance state

4. Compliance
4.1 The CPR enable the court to take into account the extent of the parties’ compliance with this Practice Direction or a relevant pre-action protocol (see paragraph 5.2) when giving directions for the management of claims (see CPR rule 3.1(4) and (5)) and when making orders about who should pay costs (see CPR rule 44.2(5)(a)).
4.2 The court will expect the parties to have complied with this Practice Direction or any relevant pre-action protocol. The court may ask the parties to explain what steps were taken to comply prior to the start of the claim. Where there has been a failure of compliance by a party the court may ask that party to provide an explanation.
Assessment of compliance
4.3 When considering compliance the court will –
(1) be concerned about whether the parties have complied in substance with the relevant principles and requirements and is not likely to be concerned with minor or technical shortcomings;
(2) consider the proportionality of the steps taken compared to the size and importance of the matter;
(3) take account of the urgency of the matter. Where a matter is urgent (for example, an application for an injunction) the court will expect the parties to comply only to the extent that it is reasonable to do so. (Paragraph 9.5 and 9.6 of this Practice Direction concern urgency caused by limitation periods.)
Examples of non-compliance
4.4 The court may decide that there has been a failure of compliance by a party because, for example, that party has –
(1) not provided sufficient information to enable the other party to understand the issues;
(2) not acted within a time limit set out in a relevant pre-action protocol, or, where no specific time limit applies, within a reasonable period;
(3) unreasonably refused to consider ADR (paragraph 8 in Part III of this Practice Direction and the pre-action protocols all contain similar provisions about ADR); or
(4) without good reason, not disclosed documents requested to be disclosed.
Sanctions for non-compliance
4.5 The court will look at the overall effect of non-compliance on the other party when deciding whether to impose sanctions.
4.6 If, in the opinion of the court, there has been non-compliance, the sanctions which the court may impose include –
(1) staying (that is suspending) the proceedings until steps which ought to have been taken have been taken;
(2) an order that the party at fault pays the costs, or part of the costs, of the other party or parties (this may include an order under rule 27.14(2)(g) in cases allocated to the small claims track);
(3) an order that the party at fault pays those costs on an indemnity basis (rule 44.3(3) sets out the definition of the assessment of costs on an indemnity basis);
(4) if the party at fault is the claimant in whose favour an order for the payment of a sum of money is subsequently made, an order that the claimant is deprived of interest on all or part of that sum, and/or that interest is awarded at a lower rate than would otherwise have been awarded;
(5) if the party at fault is a defendant, and an order for the payment of a sum of money is subsequently made in favour of the claimant, an order that the defendant pay interest on all or part of that sum at a higher rate, not exceeding 10% above base rate, than would otherwise have been awarded.

As well as this CPR 27, assuming this eventually is allocated small claims track status, states at 14 2(g)

(g) such further costs as the court may assess by the summary procedure and order to be paid by a party who has behaved unreasonably

I would also draw your attention to the principle of natural justice. In Al Rawi and others (Respondents) v The Security
Service and others (Appellants) Lord Dyson said

"12. Secondly, trials are conducted on the basis of the principle of natural
justice. There are a number of strands to this. A party has a right to know the case
against him and the evidence on which it is based. He is entitled to have the
opportunity to respond to any such evidence and to any submissions made by the
other side. The other side may not advance contentions or adduce evidence of
which he is kept in ignorance. The Privy Council said in the civil case of Kanda v
Government of Malaya [1962] AC 322, 337:
“If the right to be heard is to be a real right which is worth anything,
it must carry with it a right in the accused man to know the case
which is made against him. He must know what evidence has been
given and what statements have been made affecting him: and then
he must be given a fair opportunity to correct or contradict them.”
13. Another aspect of the principle of natural justice is that the parties should be
given an opportunity to call their own witnesses and to cross-examine the opposing
witnesses. As was said by the High Court of Australia in Lee v The Queen (1998)
195 CLR 594, at para 32: “Confrontation and the opportunity for crossexamination
is of central significance to the common law adversarial system of
trial.”

14. I do not believe that any of this is controversial, but it needs to be
emphasised because, unlike the law relating to PII, a closed material procedure
involves a departure from both the open justice and the natural justice principles.
In recent years, both the courts and Parliament have been exercised by the problem
of how to balance (i) the interest that we all have in maintaining a fair system of
justice which, so far as possible, respects the essential elements of these principles
and (ii) the interest that we also all have in the protection of national security, the
international relations of the United Kingdom and the prevention, detection and
prosecution of crime. Thus, Parliament has reacted to the threat of terrorism to our Page 6
national security interests by introducing a form of closed material procedure (with
the use of special advocates) for use in certain categories of case, for example, by
enacting the Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005 and the Counter-Terrorism Act
2008. "

I would further like to draw you attention to LJ Rix in Expandable Ltd & Anor v Rubin [2008] EWCA Civ 59 (11 February 2008)

"The general ethos of the CPR is for a more cards on the table approach to litigation. If a party thinks it worthwhile to mention a document in his pleadings, witness statements or affidavits, I do not see why, subject as I say to the question of privilege, the court should put difficulties in the way of inspection. I look upon the mention of a document in pleadings etc as a form of disclosure. The document in question has not been disclosed by list, or at any rate not yet, but it has been disclosed by mention in what, for the purposes of litigation, is another important and formal category of documents. If so, then the party deploying that document by its mention should in principle be prepared to be required to permit its inspection, and the other party should be entitled to its inspection. What in such circumstances is the virtue of coyness?"


Returning to the pre action protocols, "1.2 These aims are to be achieved by encouraging the parties to –
(1) exchange information about the issue." I note your letter before county court claim says i should have all the information i require. Even if i had the above shows that should i request it that you are encouraged in the strongest sense to supply it. It will always be the case that the rules only require reproduction of documents that existed previously. Common sense tells you the rules don't expect brand new documents to be fabricated ! I note on one document i did receive that you have an incorrect spelling of my house name which pehaps explains why i think i haven't received some of your mail.

With all this in mind, i require copies of the original parking charge notice, any other correspondence, signs from the site, the contract which allows you to operate on the site and anything else upon which you will seek to rely on.

I would also ask that we refer the matter to POPLA as the most suitable ADR available, failing which, i ask that you hold off on your claim until the Beavis appeal result is known.

Upon receipt of the documents i seek, i will obtain advice from someone with experience in these matters and respond in full within 14 days of receipt of any documents.

Yours etc

M1