Parking Eye problems

[mystery1]

Re: Parking Eye problems

Ok well i'm not 100% clear what is at the entrance it appears it might be 1a & 1c.

Reading 1a is rather funny. There are different tariffs. Hotel guests are free and blue badge holders have to pay the parking tarriffs. Doesn't actually say that they apply to anyone else ! It also doesn't refer a driver to any other t & c's. See annex B of the code of practice. http://www.britishparking.co.uk/writ..._March2013.pdf they do not comply in my opinion.

Is the reply to defence verified by a statement of truth ? What you posted isn't but is it there on what you were sent ? http://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/pro...es/part15#15.8 also see 15.9 which means that you cannot rebut the reply to defence before court. You should do so at court though. However if they have not verified the reply to defence then they cannot rely upon it at court http://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/pro...es/part22#22.2

As for the reply to defence itself :-

1. I would accept the mediation request although i would not expect it to work. You have to be seen to be reasonable though. I'd ask them within this to refer the matter to popla.

2. The particulars of claim state the parking was "without authority" if there is no authority then there can be no contract.






Everything parking eye say in notices is that there are tariffs and if you don't follow the rules you'll then be liable to a charge. It is not an option to park, as all day parking is £3 or night time is £1. Clearly it's a penalty and fits Thurlow like a glove and that's before you actually raise the fact that the tariffs apply only to blue badge holders !

Vine v London was not a parking charge related matter and the courts only found that the signs were a fair warning of clamping. It makes no comment on whether the content of a sign is a legal contract or if contract law allows penalties.

Guidance on Section 56 and Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 https://www.gov.uk/government/upload...ng-charges.pdf

7.2 Parking contracts, like any contract, must be made in accordance with
the general law – for example, consumer protection law would be
relevant to establishing whether or not the signs at a car park were
sufficient, and the terms and conditions were fair. If it can be shown that
a contractual term was unfair, it follows that the term cannot be relied
upon to enforce a parking charge (see Q6 FAQ).


Read FAQ 1 and 6.

The "losses" they refer to are business costs mainly http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?...post&id=16231)

3. They are not fully compliant. Comapre the signs to annex b as i said above. They also only state the parking tariffs apply to blue badge holder but in any event they have pleaded that the parking is not authorised so no contract.

None of the Combined parking cases are binding on the court. I doubt they have transcripts as they claim.

Parking eye were found not to have authority in http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2012/1338.html 11(iii)

In the: High Wycombe County Court
Before: District Judge Jones
Claim No.: 3QT60598
Claimant: ParkingEye Ltd – represented by Mr Matthews of LPC Law
Defendant: Mrs Victoria Gardam – represented by Bargepole
Date: 14 November 2013

It wasn’t looking too hopeful at this point, but then I referred her to the recent PE vSharma case at Brentford, and handed her a copy of the Judgment. She knew DJ Jenkins personally (he is the secretary of the Judges’ Association), and said that his ruling looked persuasive.

Mr Matthews chipped in with a copy of the landowner contract with EuroGarages, which the Judge scrutinised thoroughly, but said that there was no explicit granting of rights by the landowner to the agent, and therefore she concurred with Jenkins’ view that PE had no standing to bring the claim in their own name.

She announced that, because of this, the Claim stood dismissed. I asked for defendant’s costs, which she said would be capped at £90. Mr Matthews objected, saying that had the defendant used POPLA, she could have avoided a hearing. I countered that by saying that the Claimant would have been aware of the decision in the Brentford case relating to the same site, and could have discontinued the claim because of that.

Claim dismissed. Costs of £90 awarded to Defendant.


Claim No. 3QT62646
In the: Brentford County Court 23/10/2013
Before: District Judge Jenkins
Claimant: ParkingEye Ltd – represented by Mr. Larda (sp?) of LPC Law
Defendant: Ms Anita Sharma – represented by Bargepole
Amount Claimed: £100 Parking Charge + £50 Solicitor Costs + £25 Court Fee = £175.


The Judge then announced that, in his opinion, a contractual arrangement to manage parking does not give rise to a cause of action to claim for damages, and the lack of ownership of the land meant that the claimant had no standing to bring such an action in their own name. He was therefore going to dismiss the claim, and wrote copious notes which he said would appear in the written Judgment.


4. The contract should be presented as it is required for natural justice to prevail. http://www.ashurst.com/publication-i...d_Content=8261 In light of the 3 cases mentioned in 3, above, the defendant has a right to inspect the contract as the claimants word is clearly not good enough. the witness statement does not comply with cpr's.

6. Ask for them.

M1

[Raley]

Re: Parking Eye problems

Thank you M1. In answer to your questions:

1. Looking at their map showing the position of their signs, the sign at the entrance and exit will have been sign 1a.

2. There was no statement of truth included with their Reply to Defence.

In response to their paragraph 5, I was wondering how best to respond.

• They state that they have received no correspondence whatsoever from the defendant - should I refer to my response to LBA dated 14 Oct?
• I presume their reference to 'letter attached' relates to their PCN, their PCN reminder and their LBA as there is no other related letter attached...?

I would be grateful if you could have a look through my draft response below:

Responses to Reply to Defence


1. The Defendant would be happy to accept the mediation request but would request that they refer the matter to POPLA.


2. The particulars of claim state the parking was "without authority”. However if there is no authority then there can be no contract.

• The ParkingEye Ltd car park notices clearly state there are tariffs and if the rules are not followed you will then be liable to a charge.
• It is not an option to park, as all day parking is £3 or evenings after 6pm is £1.
• Clearly it is a penalty as found in the case of OB Services Parking Consultancy Ltd vs Thurlow - Worcs CC Claim No: 0QT34807 where on appeal the judge ruled on 10th February 2011 that:

- sum amounted to an unenforceable penalty clause
- no loss caused by breach of contract
- common discount period reinforces lack of provable loss
- Arthur vs Anker and Vine vs Waltham Forest deemed irrelevant to private ticketing

• Vine v London was not a parking charge related matter and the courts only found that the signs were a fair warning of clamping. It makes no comment on whether the content of a sign is a legal contract or if contract law allows penalties.
• The Department for Transport Guidance on Section 56 and Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 https://www.gov.uk/government/upload...ng-charges.pdf makes it clear how a parking contract is formed:

7.2 Parking contracts, like any contract, must be made in accordance with the general law – for example, consumer protection law would be relevant to establishing whether or not the signs at a car park were sufficient, and the terms and conditions were fair. If it can be shown that a contractual term was unfair, it follows that the term cannot be relied upon to enforce a parking charge (see Q6 FAQ).


FAQ 6: What protection does consumer protection legislation provide in relation to parking on private land?


Consumer protection legislation provides protections to consumers in a number of ways, including protections from misleading information and unfair contract terms. For example, where signs for motorists in a car park are misleading, or other misleading information is given (for example tickets which look like local authority tickets), or necessary information is not provided, there may be a breach of the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 (CPRs). Local authority trading standards services (TSS) and the Office of Fair Trading (OFT) can take enforcement action where they consider the regulations have or may have been breached.
If any terms provided by the landholder as part of the parking contract are deemed unfair by a court they cannot be relied upon against a consumer. TSS, OFT and consumers themselves can challenge unfair terms through the courts under the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999.

• The "losses" referred to are business costs mainly as found in the case of Vehicle Control Services vs Mr R Ibbotson Scunthorpe CC Claim No: ISE09849 - 16 May 2012 - http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?...=post&id=16231).

• A copy of the document entitled “Parking Charge Amount” has not been provided by the Claimant.

3. ParkingEye Ltd are not fully compliant in that their signs fail to comply with Annex B of the BPA Code of Practice by not saying where to find more details about the terms and conditions.

• ParkingEye Ltd only state the parking tariffs apply to blue badge holders but in any event they have pleaded that the parking is not authorised so there is no contract.

• Parking eye were found not to have authority in http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2012/1338.html 11(iii)

• Claim No.: 3QT60598

In the: High Wycombe County Court
Before: District Judge Jones
Claimant: ParkingEye Ltd – represented by Mr Matthews of LPC Law
Defendant: Mrs Victoria Gardam – represented by Bargepole
Date: 14 November 2013


It wasn’t looking too hopeful at this point, but then I referred her to the recent PE vSharma case at Brentford, and handed her a copy of the Judgment. She knew DJ Jenkins personally (he is the secretary of the Judges’ Association), and said that his ruling looked persuasive.


Mr Matthews chipped in with a copy of the landowner contract with EuroGarages, which the Judge scrutinised thoroughly, but said that there was no explicit granting of rights by the landowner to the agent, and therefore she concurred with Jenkins’ view that PE had no standing to bring the claim in their own name.


She announced that, because of this, the Claim stood dismissed. I asked for defendant’s costs, which she said would be capped at £90. Mr Matthews objected, saying that had the defendant used POPLA, she could have avoided a hearing. I countered that by saying that the Claimant would have been aware of the decision in the Brentford case relating to the same site, and could have discontinued the claim because of that.


Claim dismissed. Costs of £90 awarded to Defendant.

• Claim No. 3QT62646

In the: Brentford County Court
Before: District Judge Jenkins
Claimant: ParkingEye Ltd – represented by Mr. Larda (sp?) of LPC Law
Defendant: Ms Anita Sharma – represented by Bargepole
Date: 23 October 2013
Amount Claimed: £100 Parking Charge + £50 Solicitor Costs + £25 Court Fee = £175.


The Judge then announced that, in his opinion, a contractual arrangement to manage parking does not give rise to a cause of action to claim for damages, and the lack of ownership of the land meant that the claimant had no standing to bring such an action in their own name. He was therefore going to dismiss the claim, and wrote copious notes which he said would appear in the written Judgment.




4. The contract should be presented as it is required for natural justice to prevail. http://www.ashurst.com/publication-i...d_Content=8261 In light of the 3 cases mentioned in 3, above, the Defendant has a right to inspect the contract as the claimants word is clearly not good enough.

• The witness statement provided by ParkingEye Ltd does not comply with CPRs.

5. A letter was sent on 14 Oct 13 by the Defendant in response to LBA from ParkingEye Ltd.


6. Transcripts of all cases cited by the Claimant should be presented.


Thank you once again for your help.

aw:

[mystery1]

Re: Parking Eye problems

Thank you M1. In answer to your questions:

1. Looking at their map showing the position of their signs, the sign at the entrance and exit will have been sign 1a.

2. There was no statement of truth included with their Reply to Defence. http://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/procedure-rules/civil/rules/part15#15.8 There needs to be. They cannot rely upon any of the content of it without it. http://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/procedure-rules/civil/rules/part22#22.2http://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/procedure-rules/civil/rules/part22/pd_part22#4.1Do not alert them but use this information if you make it to court !

In response to their paragraph 5, I was wondering how best to respond.

• They state that they have received no correspondence whatsoever from the defendant - should I refer to my response to LBA dated 14 Oct? A witness statement with a copy attached should be fine.
• I presume their reference to 'letter attached' relates to their PCN, their PCN reminder and their LBA as there is no other related letter attached...?

I would be grateful if you could have a look through my draft response below:

Responses to Reply to Defence


1. The Defendant would be happy to accept the mediation request but would request that they refer the matter to POPLA.


2. The particulars of claim state the parking was "without authority”. However if there is no authority then there can be no contract.

• The ParkingEye Ltd car park notices clearly state there are tariffs and if the rules are not followed you will then be liable to a charge.
• It is not an option to park, as all day parking is £3 or evenings after 6pm is £1.
• Clearly it is a penalty as found in the case of OB Services Parking Consultancy Ltd vs Thurlow - Worcs CC Claim No: 0QT34807 where on appeal the judge ruled on 10th February 2011 that:

- sum amounted to an unenforceable penalty clause
- no loss caused by breach of contract
- common discount period reinforces lack of provable loss
- Arthur vs Anker and Vine vs Waltham Forest deemed irrelevant to private ticketing

• Vine v London was not a parking charge related matter and the courts only found that the signs were a fair warning of clamping. It makes no comment on whether the content of a sign is a legal contract or if contract law allows penalties.
• The Department for Transport Guidance on Section 56 and Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 https://www.gov.uk/government/upload...ng-charges.pdf makes it clear how a parking contract is formed:

7.2 Parking contracts, like any contract, must be made in accordance with the general law – for example, consumer protection law would be relevant to establishing whether or not the signs at a car park were sufficient, and the terms and conditions were fair. If it can be shown that a contractual term was unfair, it follows that the term cannot be relied upon to enforce a parking charge (see Q6 FAQ).


FAQ 6: What protection does consumer protection legislation provide in relation to parking on private land?


Consumer protection legislation provides protections to consumers in a number of ways, including protections from misleading information and unfair contract terms. For example, where signs for motorists in a car park are misleading, or other misleading information is given (for example tickets which look like local authority tickets), or necessary information is not provided, there may be a breach of the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 (CPRs). Local authority trading standards services (TSS) and the Office of Fair Trading (OFT) can take enforcement action where they consider the regulations have or may have been breached.
If any terms provided by the landholder as part of the parking contract are deemed unfair by a court they cannot be relied upon against a consumer. TSS, OFT and consumers themselves can challenge unfair terms through the courts under the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999.

• The "losses" referred to are business costs mainly as found in the case of Vehicle Control Services vs Mr R Ibbotson Scunthorpe CC Claim No: ISE09849 - 16 May 2012 - http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?...=post&id=16231).

• A copy of the document entitled “Parking Charge Amount” has not been provided by the Claimant.

3. ParkingEye Ltd are not fully compliant in that their signs fail to comply with Annex B of the BPA Code of Practice by not saying where to find more details about the terms and conditions.

• ParkingEye Ltd only state the parking tariffs apply to blue badge holders but in any event they have pleaded that the parking is not authorised so there is no contract.

• Parking eye were found not to have authority in http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2012/1338.html 11(iii)

• Claim No.: 3QT60598

In the: High Wycombe County Court
Before: District Judge Jones
Claimant: ParkingEye Ltd – represented by Mr Matthews of LPC Law
Defendant: Mrs Victoria Gardam – represented by Bargepole
Date: 14 November 2013


It wasn’t looking too hopeful at this point, but then I referred her to the recent PE vSharma case at Brentford, and handed her a copy of the Judgment. She knew DJ Jenkins personally (he is the secretary of the Judges’ Association), and said that his ruling looked persuasive.


Mr Matthews chipped in with a copy of the landowner contract with EuroGarages, which the Judge scrutinised thoroughly, but said that there was no explicit granting of rights by the landowner to the agent, and therefore she concurred with Jenkins’ view that PE had no standing to bring the claim in their own name.


She announced that, because of this, the Claim stood dismissed. I asked for defendant’s costs, which she said would be capped at £90. Mr Matthews objected, saying that had the defendant used POPLA, she could have avoided a hearing. I countered that by saying that the Claimant would have been aware of the decision in the Brentford case relating to the same site, and could have discontinued the claim because of that.


Claim dismissed. Costs of £90 awarded to Defendant.

• Claim No. 3QT62646

In the: Brentford County Court
Before: District Judge Jenkins
Claimant: ParkingEye Ltd – represented by Mr. Larda (sp?) of LPC Law
Defendant: Ms Anita Sharma – represented by Bargepole
Date: 23 October 2013
Amount Claimed: £100 Parking Charge + £50 Solicitor Costs + £25 Court Fee = £175.


The Judge then announced that, in his opinion, a contractual arrangement to manage parking does not give rise to a cause of action to claim for damages, and the lack of ownership of the land meant that the claimant had no standing to bring such an action in their own name. He was therefore going to dismiss the claim, and wrote copious notes which he said would appear in the written Judgment.

I just copied that for your info. The case number location and parties will suffice the court won't have a clue who Bargepole is and you might struggle to help them


4. The contract should be presented as it is required for natural justice to prevail. http://www.ashurst.com/publication-i...d_Content=8261 In light of the 3 cases mentioned in 3, above, the Defendant has a right to inspect the contract as the claimants word is clearly not good enough.

• The witness statement provided by ParkingEye Ltd does not comply with CPRs.

5. A letter was sent on 14 Oct 13 by the Defendant in response to LBA from ParkingEye Ltd.


6. Transcripts of all cases cited by the Claimant should be presented.


Thank you once again for your help.

aw:

M1

[Raley]

Re: Parking Eye problems

Hi M1

Thank you again for your advice. I do not seem to have a means via MCOL to submit my response. Should I email it to the court or should I send it direct to ParkingEye who sent me their Reply to Defence in the post - or both?

aw:

[mystery1]

Re: Parking Eye problems

Hi M1

Thank you again for your advice. I do not seem to have a means via MCOL to submit my response. Should I email it to the court or should I send it direct to ParkingEye who sent me their Reply to Defence in the post - or both?

aw:

http://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/pro...es/part15#15.8 also see 15.9 which means that you cannot rebut the reply to defence before court. You should do so at court though. However if they have not verified the reply to defence then they cannot rely upon it at court http://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/pro...es/part22#22.2

Like i said you can only rebut what they have said in court or with the courts permission. Given the lowly amount of the claim an application to submit a reply is over the top as you'd be as well paying them. Bring these points up at trial. Besides which you'd object to the reply to defence as it's not verified by a statement of truth.

I had a word with the Prankster regarding parking eye witness statements and he suggests sending something like this attachment to the court with a copy to parking eye. I agree.

letter to oppose landowner witness statement.odt

M1

[Raley]

Re: Parking Eye problems

Hi M1,

Thank for the draft letter opposing the witness statement. I have just sent you an email about it and would be grateful for your guidance.

I also included my draft response to the Reply to Defence. Should I now send this by post to ParkingEye together with the copy of my response to their LBA and my witness statement?


Thanks again.

aw:

[mystery1]

Re: Parking Eye problems

Hi M1,

Thank for the draft letter opposing the witness statement. I have just sent you an email about it and would be grateful for your guidance.

I also included my draft response to the Reply to Defence. Should I now send this by post to ParkingEye together with the copy of my response to their LBA and my witness statement?


Thanks again.

aw:

I would send it to them and the court.

M1

[mystery1]

Re: Parking Eye problems

Another letter to the court courtesy of the legend that is Prankster.

letter to oppose ParkingEye witness statement irregularities.odt

M1

[Raley]

Re: Parking Eye problems

I have just received today a 'Notice of Proposed Allocation to the Small Claims Track' which confirms that this is now a defended claim and that I have filed a defence. It states that this case appears to be suitable for allocation to the small claims track and asks me to whether or not I agree. It requires me to complete an attached Small Claims Directions Questionnaire.

I obviously have to complete the form but do you think I should agree to the case being referred to the Small Claims Mediation Service?

[Raley]

Re: Parking Eye problems

Hi M1,

Many thanks to Prankster for his draft letter. I am unsure as to where I might obtain the exhibits that he lists... I also uncertain that I should include this point: "Their reason that I might post it online is clearly fatuous since many examples of their contracts are already available online, having been released not by defendants but by their own customers in Freedom of Information requests" as they have not made that point to me - yet...

Again, very grateful to all for your advice and would appreciate your guidance.

VVMT

[mystery1]

Re: Parking Eye problems

I have just received today a 'Notice of Proposed Allocation to the Small Claims Track' which confirms that this is now a defended claim and that I have filed a defence. It states that this case appears to be suitable for allocation to the small claims track and asks me to whether or not I agree. It requires me to complete an attached Small Claims Directions Questionnaire.

I obviously have to complete the form but do you think I should agree to the case being referred to the Small Claims Mediation Service?

Other than making you look reasonable to the judge it's pretty pointless as they want cash and you're not giving it to them. I say yes and not expect anything from it.

Hi M1,

Many thanks to Prankster for his draft letter. I am unsure as to where I might obtain the exhibits that he lists... I also uncertain that I should include this point: "Their reason that I might post it online is clearly fatuous since many examples of their contracts are already available online, having been released not by defendants but by their own customers in Freedom of Information requests" as they have not made that point to me - yet...

Again, very grateful to all for your advice and would appreciate your guidance.

VVMT

Well spotted

M1

[Raley]

Re: Parking Eye problems

Do you know where I might find the exhibits referred to by Prankster if I am to include them with my letter?

[mystery1]

Re: Parking Eye problems

You don't need them unless you go to court. I'm sure Prankster will be willing to supply them if needed.

M1

[Raley]

Re: Parking Eye problems

Parking Eye, bless them, have just sent me a 'Supplementary Reply to Defence' comprised of 7 pages plus a further 6 pages on the 'Parking Charge Amount'...! I think they are biting. I am just in the process of scanning it for your attention.

[Raley]

Re: Parking Eye problems

Here are there submissions...:

1. https://www.dropbox.com/s/n7y0s2gpzy...%20Defence.pdf

2. https://www.dropbox.com/s/gokjqyfr3b...e%20Amount.pdf

I have not yet posted anything to them or to the courts. I await your further guidance - I would be lost without you I must say - I have never seen so much paper for such a minor matter but I am determined to see this through!

VVMT

aw: