Court claim for PCN issued in 2020 by Parking eye ltd.

[Alice1604]

UPDATE on email addresses to contact Parking-eye and DCBL - DONT use this email - info@parkingeye.co.uk - they don't acknowledge it! - They have set it to an automatic replycoming from postmaster@parkingeye.co.uk stating its 'Undeliverable' with the following message:" info@parkingeye.co.uk only accepts messages from people in its organization or on its allowed senders list, and your email address isn't on the list."

So emails I know are working or at least getting through are:

Parkingeye - dpo@parkingeye.co.uk - I received an automated response straight away to show it was delivered.


DCBL - response@dcblegal.co.uk - I received an automatic response to show it had been delivered. Note the response comes from info@dcblegal.co.uk

[Alice1604]

Hi everyone and des8 I am still awaiting paperwork from my SAR and CPR 31.14 requests. My defence is due by the 8th April I believe. Should I/Can I ask for my defence to be delayed until i get the info requested? Or should i file a defence?

[des8]

You need to file your defence.
I did ask for a nudge around 1st April, but I'll try and get something to you by the morning of the 8th.
I'm out later this evening until tomorrow PM so it's going to be a bit of a push.

[Alice1604]

Yes apologies My son has been very poorly and I lost track of dates. If I'm honest I only remembered yesterday. I am working on a defense in case you don't have time. I absolutely understand if you don't, it is my responsibility.

[Alice1604]

If it is helpful here is a run down of the situation. On 06/09/2020 we were visiting my daughter in Leicester. We made a wrong right turn and ended up in a car park. We stayed a few minutes while we checked directions and then left.

The car park was not visible from the main street. It looked like a side road between 2 buildings and the car park entrance was only visible at the bottom of the street after turning. We had no option but to enter as the van was too big to turn safely in the narrow street.

There were no signage visible from the main road to suggest we were turning into a car park with contractual terms.

There was no visible Entrance sign to tell drivers that the car park is managed and that there are terms and conditions they must be aware of.

There were no obvious signs with contractual terms as we came into the car park.

The timestamps show we were 6 minutes between entry to exit.

It was a genuine case of mistaken entry with no intention to park.

Not sure if its useful but:

AOS 13.1 states: 'The driver must have the chance to consider the Terms and Conditions before entering into the ‘parking contract’ with you. If, having had that opportunity, the driver decides not to park but chooses to leave the car park, you must provide them with a reasonable consideration period to leave, before the driver can be bound by your parking contract. The amount of time in these instances will vary dependant on site size and type but it must be a minimum of 5 minutes'


Would be interested in your views. Thanks in advance for any advice.

[des8]

Trust your son is feeling better and fully recovered.

Here's a draft for you to consider.
I've assumed certain things so do not use it blindly, if at all.
It is your defence you will be submitting, so do check it if you use all or just some of it:

I have just copied and pasted from Libre Office and noted the para numbering is jumbled ... my apologies but I can't seem to straighten it out.

1. IN THE CNCB COUNTY COURT
   
   Claim No:
   
   Between:
   
   Parking Eye Ltd (Claimant)
   
   -and-
   
   Alice xxx (Defendant)
   
   
   
   Unless otherwise stated in this Defence:
   i) the Defendant uses the same terminology as the Claimant has employed in the Particulars of Claim; and
   ii) the Defendant denies each and every allegation oand that the Claimant is entitled to any relief.
   iii) all references to paragraph numbers are to paragraph numbers in the Particulars of Claim
2. INTRODUCTION
3. 1 This claim has been issued against the Defendant in connection with the Defendant’s
   
   refusal to pay a private parking charge which the Claimant alleges that the Defendant is
   
   liable to pay either as the driver of the vehicle or as the registered keeper. For the reasons
   
   set out in this Defence, it is denied that the Claimant is entitled to the sums claimed or any
   
   relief at all.
4. CLAIMANT’S NON-COMPLIANCE WITH THE CIVIL PROCEDURE RULES
5. 2 By way of general comment, it should be noted that whilst the Defendant intends to
   
   respond to the issues raised by the Claimant in the Particulars of Claim, he cannot do so
6. with complete accuracy because the Claimant has not pleaded its case in accordance with
   
   CPR 16.4(1)(a).
   
   3. There is not a concise statement of the facts which discloses a cause of action, rather the
   
   Claimant has merely provided a series of generalised statements which in turn makes it
   
   difficult for the Defendant to respond as she does not know or understand the basis of the
   
   Claimant’s case. For example, the particulars allege that the Defendant:
   
   4. The Defendant is surprised by the haziness of the particulars given that the Claimant is
7. 1. i) entered into a contract with the Claimant but does not explain how or on what basis the contract was entered into;
      
      ii)breached the terms and conditions of the contract, but does not state what those terms & conditions were nor how they were reached
      
      iii)is liable as the driver of the vehicle but does not indicate the basis of that allegation
      
      iv)is liable as the registered keeper of the vehicle yet the Claimant has failed to particularise the basis of that allegation.
8. represented professionally by a firm of solicitors and as such, the lack of compliance with
   
   the CPR to formulate proper particulars cannot be excused. If there is insufficient space
   
   on the MCOL for full Particulars they can be served separately within 14 days of the
   
   claim being issued
9. 5. The court is invited to consider its general case management powers pursuant to CPR to:
10. 1. i)make an order that unless the Defendant files and serves an amended Particulars of
       
       Claim compliant with CPR 16.4(1)(a) within 14 days of said order, then the claim
       
       shall be struck out and judgment entered in favour of the Defendant; or
       
       ii)if the court considers it appropriate, to strike out the claim entirely as on the basis
       
       that the claim discloses no reasonable grounds for a cause of action; and
       
       iii)exercise any other case management powers the court sees fit.
11. RELEVANT FACTS
    
    6. On the date in question, the driver drove along Granby Street in Leicester, an area with
    
    which the driver was unfamiliar.
    
    7,Following the satnav instructions the driver turned into Albert Place, which is narrow and
    
    unknown to the driver ends in a car park which is not signposted at the beginning of the lane.
    
    8.Having been misdirected, and driving a large vehicle the driver had no option but to enter
    
    the car park to turn around
    
    9. whilst there Google maps were consulted and the driver then exited the car park within 5 or 6
    
    minutes. The British Parking Association Code of Practice 2020 which was in force at the
    
    time of the alleged event states9Para13.1 that there “must be a [consideration period of a]
    
    minimum of 5 minutes”
    
    10.There was no intention to contract to park
    
    APPLICABLE LAW
12. 11.Section 56 together with Schedule 4 of The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (“POFA”)
    
    provides landowners with powers to manage parking on their land. Paragraph 4 of
    
    Schedule 4 of POFA stipulates that the liability for an unpaid parking charge may only be
    
    transferred from the driver to the registered keeper of the vehicle if certain conditions as
    
    prescribed in Schedule 4 are met.
13. LIABILITY AS THE DRIVER OF THE VEHICLE
    
    12 The defendant denies being the driver of the vehicle, which is a Motability wheelchair
    
    vehicle, which may be driven by a number of licence holders
14. 13.Despite the Defendant requesting proof from the Claimant of the allegation, the Claimant has
    
    so far failed to provide any supporting evidence that the Defendant was the driver of the
    
    vehicle at the relevant time. Accordingly, the Claimant’s allegation is entirely baseless and
    
    nothing more than a fishing expedition in which the Defendant considers to be an abuse of
    
    process.
    
    14.Without prejudice to the foregoing paragraph, a CPR31.14 request was made before
    
    allocation to track for copies of documents the Claimant intends to rely upon to prove his
    
    allegations
    
    15.Despite the request as referred to in paragraph 14, the Claimant has refused or otherwise
    
    failed to respond
    
    16.In the absence of the such response, it is the Defendant’s contention – and the court is invited
    
    to make an inference that – the Claimant has no lawful basis to pursue the Defendant as the
    
    driver of the vehicle.
    
    17.If (which the Defendant denies), the Defendant is found to be liable for the Parking Charge,
    
    the Defendant will say that the Parking Charge is not enforceable on the basis that there was
    
    not adequate notice of the Parking Charge given to the Defendant pursuant to Paragraph 2(2)
    
    of Schedule 4 of POFA 2012.
    
    18. Paragraph 3(b) defines “adequate notice” as the display of one or more notices which:
15. 1. are adequate to bring the charge to the notice of drivers who park vehicles on the relevant
       
       land.
16. 19. The signage at the car park was not sufficient to give the driver adequate notice of the parking charge because:
17. 1. i)There was no clear signage at the entrance of the car park indicating that there
       
       would be a parking charge or that the car park was subject to certain parking
       
       conditions.
       
       ii) there was no signage at the start of the narrow public road known as Albert Place that it terminated in a private car park
       
       iii) no signs were seen from the vehicle, leading to the conclusion signage was inadequate to create a contract
       
       20. The Defendant notes the Claimant has failed to produce any proof that such signage was
       
       present at that time, (September 2020)
18. Recovery of Claimant’s costs associated with the Parking Charge
    
    21.The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to claim the recovery of its costs in respect
    
    of the Parking Charge.
    
    22. As described above, there was no adequate signage giving fair and reasonable notice of the
    
    parking terms and it is trite law that one cannot incorporate terms and conditions after the fact, without giving reasonable notice beforehand.
    
    23.Further and alternatively, if (which is denied) it is found that reasonable notice was given, the
    
    Defendant will say that the term was contrary to the requirement of good faith which causes a
    
    significant imbalance under the contract to the detriment of the Defendant.
    
    24. Consequently, the term is unfair and is not binding on the Defendant pursuant to section 62 of
    
    the Consumer Rights Act 2015.
    
    25. The Defendant will rely on the following points:
    1. i)Section 68 of the CRA requires that every term of a consumer contract must be
       
       transparent and expressed in a plain and intelligible language.
       
       ii)The Defendant contends that no terms referring to the charges on the signage were
       
       transparent as they were not drawn to the driver who did not alight from the vehicle
    
    26. In Parking Eye vs Beavis ([2015] UKSC 67. Case ID. UKSC 2015/0116. The S C found the
    
    parking charge (£85) was a genuine estimate of the costs of operating the parking scheme
    
    including losses suffered by the operator if its terms and conditions were not complied with (see
    
    paras 188 and 193 of the judgment).
    27. In this claim unspecified costs additional to the parking charge may involve an element of
    
    double recovery and is an abuse of process that may taint the entirety of the claim and permit the
    
    Court to strike out the claim (CPR3 4 (2) (b))
    LIABILITY AS THE REGISTERED KEEPER
    28. It is denied that the Claimant is entitled recover the Parking Charge from the Defendant as
    
    registered keeper of the vehicle.
19. 29.The defendant no longer has the original PCN (it is now 5.5 years since it was issued) and no
    
    response was received by the Defendant to the appeal made at that time to the Claimant.
    
    30.The Defendant did not receive a notice of rejection, and so was denied the opportunity to
    
    appeal to POPLA (Parking on Private Land Appeals)
    
    31.The Claimant has failed to supply a copy of the PCN so the Defendant is unable to confirm if
20. the Claimant has complied with the conditions required by POFA 2012 to transfer liability for
    
    any unpaid charge from driver to registered keeper.
    32 Contrary to condition 5(1)(b), the Claimant apparently knew the identity of the driver prior
    
    to the commencement of these proceedings.
    
    33. In the particulars of claim, the Claimant represents that “the Defendant was the driver of the
    
    vehicle”.
    
    34. In light of that allegation, it is implied that the Claimant has actual knowledge of the driver’s
    
    identity and so the Defendant cannot be held liable for the Parking Charge as the registered
    
    keeper, and the Claimant must pursue the driver of the vehicle only.
    
    35 The Defendant will seek to rely on paragraph 221 of the POFA 2012 Explanatory Notes,
    
    which states that:
    
    … The creditor is not obliged to pursue unpaid parking charges through this scheme and may seek to do so through other means but they may not use the scheme provided for here to secure double recovery of unpaid parking charges (paragraph 4(6)), nor will they have the right to pursue the keeper, as opposed to the driver, of the vehicle where they have sufficient details of the driver’s identity (emphasis added)
    
    36. Whilst not binding on this court the Defendant respectfully refers to the following case:
    
    G4QZ465V (Excel Parking Services Ltd vs Wilkinson – 01.07.2020) where District Judge
    
    Jackson considered a similar claim to be an abuse of process under the Consumer Rights Act
    
    2015. He found that striking out the claim was the only appropriate manner in which the
    
    disapproval of the court could be shown
    
    Recovery of Claimant’s costs associated with the Parking Charge
    
    37.To the extent that the Claimant seeks to recover the costs incurred in pursuing the Parking
    
    Charge, the Defendant denies that such sums are recoverable for the following reasons:
    1. i)The costs sought by the Claimant are based upon a contractual right under the alleged terms of a parking contract. It is well established under the doctrine of privity that a person who is not party to the contract cannot sue or be sued. Any contractual relationship in respect of the parking and the alleged contravention was solely between the Claimant and the driver of the vehicle, not the registered keeper;
    
    ii)Schedule 4 condition 4(5) of POFA 2012 provides that the maximum amount th can be recovered from the registered keeper is the total amount of the unpaid parking charges specified in the notice to the registered keeper. The Defendant assumes the unpaid parking charges specified in the notice were £100.
    
    37. It follows that any liability owed by the keeper to the Claimant is several to the driver’s
    
    liability and is limited to an amount that does not exceed the unpaid parking charges.
    
    38. The Claimant’s pursuit of these contractual costs is not recoverable and amounts to an abuse
    
    of process.
    
    CONCLUSION
    
    39. By reason of the Defendant’s non-compliance with the POFA requirements as set out in this
    
    Defence, the Claimant is not entitled to pursue the Defendant as either the registered keeper or
    
    the driver of the vehicle for the Parking Charge.
21. 40. The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to the relief or at all
    
    
    
    
    Statement of truth etc……….

[des8]

I have just spotted on Google Earth that there is (as at October 2025!) a road sign indicating a car park somewhere up Albert Place.
It doesn't show that one would have to enter the car park to turn around!

So suggest your wording in post 20 is the more appropriate