Parking eye

[essexman1]

I have recived a letter from parking eye saying letter before court claim, this is the first letter i have had from them as they were gettin sent to old address, do i ignor the letters or do i pay the fine, as it dont say much onit but said i broke the tc on the seafront,i have always paid tickets for the carpark,i dont understand what they on about, any help please

[mystery1]

Re: Parking eye

I wouldn't ignore them. That advice is out of date.

Post up some details, but not your name and address.

If the registered keeper is being chased and is not the driver then write to them with the name and address of the driver so that parking eye chase them and they can appeal and probably win via popla.

M1

[essexman1]

Re: Parking eye

i was livin at old address and moved and didnt change car over till 2 months later as lost log book,but old address forwad the letter to me,

[mystery1]

Re: Parking eye

So the driver and registered keeper were the same person ?

Why was the vehicle parked there ? If you know complain to the business and see if they'll get this cancelled.

I'll knock up a reply to the letter shortly.

M1

[essexman1]

Re: Parking eye

yea the car was mine and the driver was me. we were parked there as took kids out for a bit. but I also never had a yellow sticker on the window either.

[mystery1]

Re: Parking eye

Dear Parking Eye,

I received your letter headed xxxxx on xxxx the contents of which are noted. It would appear that this is a letter before action although it is not compliant with the pre action protocols.

The pre action protocols dictate that in a letter before action the claimant should set out the details of the matter in writing and a clear summary of the facts on which the claim is based.

The claimant should also list the essential documents on which the claimant intends to rely,set out the form of ADR (if any) that the claimant considers the most suitable and invite the defendant to agree to this and refer the defendant to the 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.

I would suggest that popla is an appropriate method of of ADR as they are the specialist body who only holding private parking appeals. It is also the same ADR as was referred to by judges in 3JD05448 ParkingEye v Gilmartin, 3JD00719 ParkingEye v Mr O, 3JD10502 ParkingEye v Mrs P, Blackburn County Court for example

Obviously you may not know exactly what documents you will require to rely on at this time however, as claimant, it is your duty to prove your claim. As such there are certain documents that you will have to produce such as the contract you say that has been entered into between yourself and the driver, copies of your contract with the land holder which allows you to take legal action in your own name as well as the original parking charge notice. I note that in the cases of Gardam, Sharma, Clarke and Gosnold amongst others there were issues with these.


If financial loss is claimed, an explanation of how the amount has been calculated.


I would point you to the supreme court case of Al Rawi & Ors v The Security Service & Ors [2011] UKSC 34 (13 July 2011)


Lord Kerr stated "As I have observed in the associated case of Tariq v Home Office [2011] UKSC 35, the right to know and effectively challenge the opposing case has long been recognised by the common law as a fundamental feature of the judicial process. I referred in my judgment in that case to various celebrated expressions of that principle and I need not repeat them here. The right to be informed of the case made against you is not merely a feature of the adversarial system of trial, it is an elementary and essential prerequisite of fairness. Without it, as Upjohn LJ put it in In re K (Infants) [1963] Ch 381, a trial between opposing parties cannot lay claim to the marque of judicial proceedings."


I firmly believe that your normal modus operandi to refuse to disclose contracts due to commercial sensitivity is contrary to natural justice. I will an objection to any attempt to introduce it in a redacted form on this basis. It is quite clearly a required piece of evidence. You know you need it to make your case The pre action protocols dictate that you should give me a copy. The over riding objective dictates you should give me a copy. Should you not produce a copy for me i will certainly be making a case that your actions be unreasonable and seeking full costs of trial should i win citing both the pre action protocols and CPR 27.14 2 (g).

Please take this response as an acknowledgement of your LBA to which a full response will be provided within 14 days of rectification of the flaws in your letter. I am taking advice from persons with experience in these matters however that advice is limited until compliance with the above faults is achieved.


Yours etc

M1

[essexman1]

Re: Parking eye

thank u. shill I copy and past all of this and send it to them

[mystery1]

Re: Parking eye

:okay:

M1

[essexman1]

Re: Parking eye

Also would it be easer to email them or send them a letter,as either way they prob say they never got either.

[mystery1]

Re: Parking eye

Easier to email and then the next day phone up and ask or recorded delivery but that costs money.

M1

[essexman1]

Re: Parking eye

Hi i emailed them and this is what they emailed me back, what shill i say and do next please

We recently sent you a Letter Before County Court Claim, informing you that the above Parking Charge remains outstanding and has now been processed for further action. This is because we had not received an appeal or payment from you within the time period stated on the first Parking Charge Notice. This notice informed you that all appeals should be put in writing and submitted to ParkingEye within 28 days of our initial correspondence. Appealing at this stage would have also given you the chance to appeal your charge at POPLA ( the Parking on Private Land Appeals Service) had your appeal to ParkingEye been unsuccessful.

You were also notified that, if you were not the driver of the vehicle at the time of the Parking Event, you must provide ParkingEye with the name and postal address of the correct driver, under Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, within 28 days of the Date Given. Again this was not received. You consequently became responsible for the outstanding amount detailed on the Parking Charge. We must therefore inform you that the amount, as outlined in the Letter Before County Court Claim remains outstanding from you, as the registered keeper.

As a member of the British Parking Association, ParkingEye obtains all its Registered Keeper information from the DVLA. ParkingEye’s correspondence has been sent to the correct address, and we cannot reasonably have known that the defendant was not receiving mail sent there. If the Registered Keeper was away from the address held by the DVLA for a significant period of time, they should have ensured that they received mail sent to this address.

After investigating, there are no vehicle details within the parking system that in anyway resemble your vehicle registration.

ParkingEye is prepared to pursue this matter through the County Court if necessary. Should court proceedings be issued, further costs incurred by ParkingEye will be added. These will include the cost of issuing the court claim and our solicitors fees. Please find details of how to make payment below.

Yours faithfully,ParkingEye Enforcement Team.
(Payment can be made by telephoning our offices on 0844 247 2981 or by visiting www.parkingeye.co.uk or by posting a cheque or postal order to the address detailed below (you must quote the above reference on the reverse of the cheque or postal order)









Enforcement

ParkingEye Ltd
40 Eaton Avenue | Matrix Park | Buckshaw Village | Chorley | PR7 7NA
Tel: 01772 450970 | Fax: 01772 450979 |
Registered in England and Wales, No: 5134454




The contents of this e-mail and any attachments are intended for the named addressee(s) only. It contains information which may be confidential and which may also be legally privileged. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information is prohibited. If you have received this message in error please contact ParkingEye Ltd immediately on +44 (0)1772 450970 and then delete it. Although this e-mail and any attachments are believed to be free from any virus or other defect, it is the responsibility of the recipient to ensure that they are virus free. The views or opinions expressed may not be that of the Officers and Directors of ParkingEye Ltd, but the personal views or opinions of the originator.

[mystery1]

Re: Parking eye

Dear sirs,

I refer you to my earlier response to your LBCC a copy of which is below. Your procedures are wholly irrelevant when it comes to CPRs. I did not get your earlier missives due to a change of address and in any event this would not release you from your CPR duties. Failure to perform CPR duties will be raised with the court in order that you are penalised in costs.

I strongly urge you to read my letter and respond appropriately.

I further note "After investigating, there are no vehicle details within the parking system that in anyway resemble your vehicle registration." and question why you have contacted me at all if you investigation has found no details of my vehicle.

Yours etc


Copy and paste the letter from before.

M1

[essexman1]

Re: Parking eye

all done thank you will update you when they reply

[essexman1]

Re: Parking eye

hi i got a email back from them and this is what they said

Thank you for your further correspondence in relation to this matter,

Please refer to our correspondence dated 15/05/2014, we believe this answered all points that had been raised previously.

In response to the further points you have raised in this correspondence, we also do not consider POPLA to be a suitable method for alternate dispute resolution at this stage, especially as you have failed to engage with the appeals process prior to this case being processed for further action. POPLA decisions are binding upon ParkingEye but not upon the appellant, and appealing to POPLA is done at ParkingEye’s expense. It is therefore necessary for ParkingEye to have the opportunity to consider an appeal before one is made to POPLA. ParkingEye upholds over 55% of appeals, and so it is necessary for us to actively reject an appeal before further costs are incurred in a POPLA appeal. Furthermore, over 50% of motorists whose appeals are rejected by POPLA continue to dispute the charge and court proceedings are still required to resolve the matter. We therefore consider this an inappropriate form of dispute resolution at this stage of proceedings.

[mystery1]

Re: Parking eye

Well the only options now really, are

1. Wait to go to court.

2. Email back offering popla as binding and perhaps offer to pay half the costs.

M1