ParkingEye Fistral Court Claim

[Corkers]

Good Morning!

On the 17th July 2014, I was issued a parking ticket from Fistral Car park of £100. (ParkingEye) With the added court fee's I am now looking at £175.
Long story short - I'm filling out my questionnaire to agree to the 'Small claims track' which I need to return by the 2nd Feb 2015.
I defended my case initially, with the following points:
- Lack of standing by claimant
- Original charge is not a true-estimate of loss
- Parking eye use an advocate that charge more than they claim and the case is therefore not financially sensible.
- As Fistral is a paid car park there is no commercial justification
- The site has a lack of signage visible from where I was parked
- As there are a few points to review I suggested the case by handed over to POPLA

ParkingEye are still proceeding to court.

Working against my case ... I had ignored the initial parking charge, until they threatened with court action.

Any advice would be hugely appreciated, I am also willing to pay somebody to help in a situation where we will win or majorly reduce the cost. I know who I'd rather give my money too!!
A final question - Defending the case further from this point, am I likely to incur further costs?

Thankyou very much for your time,

Corkers

[mystery1]

Re: ParkingEye Fistral Court Claim

Good Morning!

On the 17th July 2014, I was issued a parking ticket from Fistral Car park of £100. (ParkingEye) With the added court fee's I am now looking at £175.
Long story short - I'm filling out my questionnaire to agree to the 'Small claims track' which I need to return by the 2nd Feb 2015.
I defended my case initially, with the following points:
- Lack of standing by claimant
- Original charge is not a true-estimate of loss
- Parking eye use an advocate that charge more than they claim and the case is therefore not financially sensible.
- As Fistral is a paid car park there is no commercial justification
- The site has a lack of signage visible from where I was parked
- As there are a few points to review I suggested the case by handed over to POPLA

ParkingEye are still proceeding to court.

Working against my case ... I had ignored the initial parking charge, until they threatened with court action.

Any advice would be hugely appreciated, I am also willing to pay somebody to help in a situation where we will win or majorly reduce the cost. I know who I'd rather give my money too!!
A final question - Defending the case further from this point, am I likely to incur further costs?

Thankyou very much for your time,

Corkers

It's hard without seeing the defence and knowing your circumstances. Your brief synopsis does indicate you have a decent grasp of it.

Working against my case ... I had ignored the initial parking charge, until they threatened with court action.

It shouldn't matter too much but the wrong judge may be annoyed.

I am also willing to pay somebody to help in a situation where we will win or majorly reduce the cost.

On this site everything is free barring VIP which really only gets privacy and certainly not any benefits in the "help" sense. If i was near enough i'd go to your court and help but i'm in Scotland so that's not going to happen.

http://www.bmpa.eu/ are able sometimes able to assist with hearings, i believe, and only take expenses.

My opinion is you can do it yourself though.

Costs on the small claims track are limited unless you act unreasonably. Given http://nebula.wsimg.com/de2566ded6f0...&alloworigin=1 is similar to you then it can hardly be unreasonable to defend.

Costs on small claims are

http://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/pro...s/part27#27.14


Costs on the small claims track
27.14
(1) This rule applies to any case which has been allocated to the small claims track unless paragraph (5) applies.
(Rules 46.11 and 46.13 make provision in relation to orders for costs made before a claim has been allocated to the small claims track)
(2) The court may not order a party to pay a sum to another party in respect of that other party’s costs, fees and expenses, including those relating to an appeal, except –
(a) the fixed costs attributable to issuing the claim which –
(i) are payable under Part 45; or
(ii) would be payable under Part 45 if that Part applied to the claim;
(b) in proceedings which included a claim for an injunction or an order for specific performance a sum not exceeding the amount specified in Practice Direction 27 for legal advice and assistance relating to that claim;
(c) any court fees paid by that other party;
(d) expenses which a party or witness has reasonably incurred in travelling to and from a hearing or in staying away from home for the purposes of attending a hearing;
(e) a sum not exceeding the amount specified in Practice Direction 27 for any loss of earnings or loss of leave by a party or witness due to attending a hearing or to staying away from home for the purposes of attending a hearing;
(f) a sum not exceeding the amount specified in Practice Direction 27 for an expert’s fees;
(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; and
(h) the Stage 1 and, where relevant, the Stage 2 fixed costs in rule 45.18 where –
(i) the claim was within the scope of the Pre-Action Protocol for Low Value Personal Injury Claims in Road Traffic Accidents (‘the RTA Protocol’) or the Pre-action Protocol for Low Value Personal Injury (Employers’ Liability and Public Liability) Claims (‘the EL/PL Protocol’);
(ii) the claimant reasonably believed that the claim was valued at more than the small claims track limit in accordance with paragraph 4.1(4) of the relevant Protocol; and
(iii) the defendant admitted liability under the process set out in the relevant Protocol; but
(iv) the defendant did not pay those Stage 1 and, where relevant, Stage 2 fixed costs; and
(i) in an appeal, the cost of any approved transcript reasonably incurred.
(3) A party’s rejection of an offer in settlement will not of itself constitute unreasonable behaviour under paragraph (2)(g) but the court may take it into consideration when it is applying the unreasonableness test.
(4) The limits on costs imposed by this rule also apply to any fee or reward for acting on behalf of a party to the proceedings charged by a person exercising a right of audience by virtue of an order under section 11 of the Courts and Legal Services Act 19901 (a lay representative).



http://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/pro.../pd_part27#7.1

Costs
7.1 Attention is drawn to Rule 27.14 which contains provisions about the costs which may be ordered to be paid by one party to another.
7.2 The amount which a party may be ordered to pay under rule 27.14(2)(b) (for legal advice and assistance in claims including an injunction or specific performance) is a sum not exceeding £260.
7.3 The amounts which a party may be ordered to pay under rule 27.14(3)(c) (loss of earnings) and (d) (experts’ fees) are:
(1) for the loss of earnings or loss of leave of each party or witness due to attending a hearing or staying away from home for the purpose of attending a hearing, a sum not exceeding £90 per day for each person, and
(2) for experts’ fees, a sum not exceeding £750 for each expert.
(As to recovery of pre-allocation costs in a case in which an admission by the defendant has reduced the amount in dispute to a figure below £10,000, reference should be made to paragraph 7.4 of Practice Direction 26 and to paragraph 7.1(3) of Practice Direction 46.)


I'd say it's highly unlikely you'd lose much more. Really all they can claim is the filing fee because they have no witnesses or experts and LPC don't charge travelling expenses. Youu could argue Rachel Ledson is an employee so they should not even get the £50 they put on the claim form.



http://www.parking-prankster.com/fistral-beach.html


Make sure you file and serve ALL required info in accordance with the court order.

M1

[Corkers]

Re: ParkingEye Fistral Court Claim

M1 Thankyou for your time and detailed reply, its really good having your opinion and the extra info - it gives me more confidence to stand my ground.
Scotland is a while away from here, but the gesture is very much appreciated!!

I have e-mailed parking eye with a settlement offer, which would save both parties the time and effort. However, if they are after the full amount I will make the best case I can and go forwards with it.

I will let you know how it goes,
Thanks again
Corkers

[Corkers]

Re: ParkingEye Fistral Court Claim

Hope you are well. A huge thanks for all of your help. I'm emailing to update you on yesterdays result in court.
A solicitor from LPC law was there on behalf of parking eye. (Truro county court)
The overall conclusion is as follows:


- Signage was seen to be sufficient at Fistral beach car park
- They have the right to be the claimant on behalf of the Briants
- Their claimed profit margins are seen as acceptable at 7.1%
- The fixed £50 solicitor fee was seen as fair - Judge wasn't interested in Ledson being an employee - should be a millionaire etc. He said it was speculation.
- It was noted the costs at Fistral beach car park have been significantly lowered since last year. not sure why!!?


The interesting part..


- I focused on the carguis case. The judge disagreed with the outcome of the case being dismissed based on it being a 'paid car park' and management fee's being regained through this avenue. His opinion was free / paid car park - there's no difference. The 'penalties' issued by parking eye to non-payers are to reclaim the costs of camera's / policing of car parks. These costs shouldn't be associated with paying car park users as if everyone paid there would be no requirement for them.
He did however agree my case was reasonable to fight, considering cases like carguis are available.


Focusing on Beavis - He noted in current circumstances, I would have lost this case. However judgement is reserved until we know the outcome of the Beavis case. If the charge in this case is found to be unreasonable - the same applies to my case. This in turn, will stop the case returning to court at any stage. As I stated I would be looking to reclaim against parking eye if the penalties issued are proven unreasonable.


So there we have it! - Well worth the fight. Pending the results of Beavis... I either have to pay £0.00 or £200 in installments, preferably within a year (based on financial circumstances at the time).


Thanks again. Kindest Regards,

Corkers

[Amethyst]

Re: ParkingEye Fistral Court Claim

Beavis is being handed down on Thursday 10.30 am.