Parking Eye Court Claim - Stratford Morrisons

[arifwb]

Hi there,

Hope you can assist. I recently received a court claim letter from Parking Eye asking for £100 plus £25+£50 of solicitor fees.
The claim was raised on the grounds of "breach of contract", which I believe is entirely false.

I have since submitted my defence on three particular reasons:

1) Parking eye are not the landowner, and therefore have no standing to raise the claim in their own name.
2) Monies asked is not a true pre-estimate of loss (pay and display is £1 for 2 hours at this car park)
3) Unfortunate circumstance that my vehicle was making strange noises so needed to park up for my own safety. I did not even exit my vehicle.

In response, Parking Eye have now submitted a defence of 50 pages!!! Talk about trying to daunt people, just so they get scared and pay up.
On their defence, they state that the defendant should use the N244 form if they wish to extend their defence.

Can anyone provide advice on this?
Any help would be most appreciated. I have attached pictures of the signage.

Thanks,
arifwb

[mystery1]

Re: Parking Eye Court Claim - Stratford Morrisons

Can you post the defence up ?

M1

[arifwb]

Re: Parking Eye Court Claim - Stratford Morrisons

Can you post the defence up ?

M1

Thank you for responding. I will take pictures of the defence for you to read tonight. Be warned - it is nearly 50 pages!!!

Many thanks,
Arif

[mystery1]

Re: Parking Eye Court Claim - Stratford Morrisons

Thank you for responding. I will take pictures of the defence for you to read tonight. Be warned - it is nearly 50 pages!!!

Many thanks,
Arif

I meant your defence not the reply to defence but if you're doing them too i'll have a read

M1

[arifwb]

Re: Parking Eye Court Claim - Stratford Morrisons

I meant your defence not the reply to defence but if you're doing them too i'll have a read

M1

I am unable to get the EXACT defence I submitted via the money claims website. (Bit weird actually).
But essentially, I gave three fundamental reasons for my defence:

1) There is no standing which Parking eye can bring this case in their own name (they are not the landowner).
2) The monies asked (£175) is not a true pre-estimate of loss, as the pay and display is only £1 for 2 hours. I was seen in the car park for just over 1 hour.
3) Unfortunate circumstance - My car was making unusual sounds. For the safety of myself and other drivers, I parked into the nearest car park and never left my vehicle for that whole hour I remained in the car park.

[mystery1]

Re: Parking Eye Court Claim - Stratford Morrisons

Ask the court to email you a copy

I'm interested in what you put for 2 especially. Penalty ?

M1

[arifwb]

Re: Parking Eye Court Claim - Stratford Morrisons

Ask the court to email you a copy

I'm interested in what you put for 2 especially. Penalty ?

M1

Hi.

I have just contacted the court who have said they are unable to email across the defence I submitted. They can however post it to me, which I should receive in the next few days. I will be receiving a questionnaire in the next few days as well.

The penalty was initially £60, raised to £100 (2 weeks later) + £25 (court fee) + £50 (Solicitor's costs). So, £175 in total.

I have attached the "reply to defence" for you to take a read. You may have to zoom into the text as they are JPEG files.

Any help with this would be most appreciated.
Thank you so much again!

Arifwb

[arifwb]

Re: Parking Eye Court Claim - Stratford Morrisons

Ask the court to email you a copy

I'm interested in what you put for 2 especially. Penalty ?

M1

Hi there,

Managed to get hold of the actual defence I submitted:

1) Lack of Standing by Claimant: The Claimant is not the landowner of the car
park, and has no proprietary interest in it. This means that the Claimant, as a
matter of law, has no locus standi to litigate in their own name.


2) No Loss Suffered by Claimant: the claim is based on damages for alleged
breach of contract. It is a fundamental principle of English Law that a party
who suffers damages through breach of contract, can only seek through court
action to be put back in the same position as they would have been if the
breach had not occurred. In order to do so, they must demonstrate their
actual, or genuine pre-estimate of, loss. I submit that no loss has been
suffered by the Claimant as a result of any alleged breaches of contract on my
part. In addition, it is the landowner to whom any damages would be owed,
not the claimant.

[mystery1]

Re: Parking Eye Court Claim - Stratford Morrisons

That's pretty weak. Hopefully you can get away with expanding on that because paying a fee to amend it isn't worth it. The reply to defence they seny, bizarrely, raises some of the points you should have raised in your defence which helps.

In any event as they rely so heavily on Beavis http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co...urt-cases.html

It's a case of waiting for the directions questionnaire now.

M1

[arifwb]

Re: Parking Eye Court Claim - Stratford Morrisons

That's pretty weak. Hopefully you can get away with expanding on that because paying a fee to amend it isn't worth it. The reply to defence they seny, bizarrely, raises some of the points you should have raised in your defence which helps.

In any event as they rely so heavily on Beavis http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co...urt-cases.html

It's a case of waiting for the directions questionnaire now.

M1

Thanks for your response.
I phoned up the court and they advised that the expansion of my initial defence can be provided on the questionnaire. They did mention that expanding too much may incur a fee of £50 though.

When the questionnaire arrives, can you advise what I should do? I did read up that I should include a covering letter, requesting the court to order the POPLA to decide the outcome of the case to prevent wasting any more of their time.

Arif