Parking Eye problems

[Raley]

Re: Parking Eye problems

Letter to Rachel now sent...! I shall be interested to see what response I might receive.

Thanks again M1

[mystery1]

Re: Parking Eye problems

Long and scary. Mostly irrelevant too no doubt.

That'd be my guess.

M1

[Raley]

Re: Parking Eye problems

Hi M1,

I posted my letter to Parking Eye on 14 Oct but have yet to hear back from them. Should I be concerned?

[mystery1]

Re: Parking Eye problems

What is the date for filing a defence here ?

M1

[Raley]

Re: Parking Eye problems

I completed the acknowledgement of service online on 14 Oct but the issue date of the claim was 8 Oct 13. According the Acknowledgement of Service form, I need to have submitted my defence 28 days from then i.e. Tue 5 Nov (next week) although, from your earlier advice, you said we had 33 days to enter a defence from the date of the claim form i.e. by Sun 10 Nov. I shall be very grateful for your help...!
aw:

[mystery1]

Re: Parking Eye problems

https://www.moneyclaim.gov.uk/web/mc...nt-information

You have a limited time to respond to a claim against you

You should respond to this claim within 14 days of the date of service. You can respond to the claim using this online service, alternatively, the response pack may be used for this purpose. The date of service is taken as 5 days after the issue date shown on the front of the Claim Form N1.


8th is the last day.

I'm working until Monday so will try to knock something up Tuesday.

M1

[mystery1]

Re: Parking Eye problems

Check this defence and amend to suit. I am not a lawyer.



raley.odt

M1

[Raley]

Re: Parking Eye problems

Hi M1, Thank you very much for your comprehensive assistance without which I would have been lost. I have been through the draft and made changes as appropriate. However, as I am submitting my defence via the MCOL service, I have just discovered that it only allows for 121 lines for the defence... I have therefore extracted and inserted the "Response to Particulars of Claim" and added the supporting elements to which they referred as follows - I do hope this will be OK - not much I can do about it now anyway I guess...:

Response to Particulars of Claim:

1. Defendant parked in contravention … : See point A of Defence

below:

Point A. I was not the driver. ParkingEye Ltd have not complied

with POFA as described below and cannot pursue me as the keeper.

Should I continue to be pursued I will be making an application

for costs under section 27.14 (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

http://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/procedure-rules/civil/rules/part2

7

2. PCN issued on 12/06/13 : I was not the driver and did not

receive a valid NTO: See points A-F of Defence below:

Point A. See above

Point B. The Claimant has not identified the driver and is

therefore pursuing me under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012.

The first condition that must be met in order to do so is:-

5(1)(a) has the right to enforce against the driver of the vehicle

the requirement to pay the unpaid parking charges

Point C. The Claimant states in the Particulars of Claim that the

site “is managed by ParkingEye Ltd”

Point D. The British Parking Association Ltd's Code of Practice,

version 3 section 7 requires the
Claimant to have a contract with

the Landowner. The contract must give the Claimant the right
to

take legal action to recover charges from drivers charged for

unauthorised parking. The
claimant has not provided any evidence

for the existence of such a contract.

Point E. Therefore the Defendant puts the Claimant to strict

proof they have the legal right to enter a
contract on behalf of

the Landowner by providing a full contemporaneous copy of the

signed and dated contract with the landowner.

Point F. Regarding the necessity of such a contract see:

- VCS Ltd v R Ibbotson in the Scunthorpe CC ref 1SE09849

(16/05/2012)

- ParkingEye Ltd v Sharma in the Brentford CC claim no.:3QT62646

(23/10/2013)

- ParkingEye Ltd v Somerfield Stores Ltd [2012] CIV 1338 9

(19/10/2012)

- Bexhill UK Ltd v Razzaq [2012] EWCA Civ 1376 (24/10/2012)

3. Final sum fee of £90 : See Points G and H of Defence:

Point G. If the charge is supposed to be a penalty for “breach of

contract” the penalty of £90 is an unenforceable penalty clause.

Following Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Co Ltd v Selfridge and Co Ltd

[1915], clauses designed to punish a party for breach of contract

may only be upheld if they represent a genuine pre-estimate of

loss.

Point H. The initial charge of £90 is a penalty, not a genuine

pre-estimate of loss since the Claimant is not the landowner and

has suffered no loss.

4. The Defendant responds that the Defendant has no knowledge of

the Claimant's ANPR 
system and cannot admit nor deny the

Claimant's statement.

5. The claimant states the claim is for parking without authority

and that the car park is pay and display. The defendant denies

that someone can be allowed to park and not allowed to park at the

same time. The particulars of claim are confused.

6. The defendant can not make an admission or denial of the signs

having not been present. The claimant is put to strict proof of

same.The initial charge of £90 is a penalty, not a genuine

pre-estimate of loss since the Claimant is not the landowner and

has suffered no loss.

4. The Defendant responds that the Defendant has no knowledge of

the Claimant's ANPR 
system and cannot admit nor deny the

Claimant's statement.

5. The claimant states the claim is for parking without authority

and that the car park is pay and display. The defendant denies

that someone can be allowed to park and not allowed to park at the

same time. The particulars of claim are confused.

6. The defendant can not make an admission or denial of the signs

having not been present. The claimant is put to strict proof of

same.

Many thanks again for your support and guidance.

aw:

[mystery1]

Re: Parking Eye problems

I would email them.

ccbcdefendants@hmcts.gsi.gov.uk

It is permissable to email a defence.

M1

[Raley]

Re: Parking Eye problems

Good thinking - I have now done that too!

VMT again

aw:

[Raley]

Re: Parking Eye problems

Hi M1,

Today I received a 'Notice to Proceed letter' from ParkingEye with their 'Reply to Defence' together with supporting documents including a 'Witness Statement on Behalf of the Claimant' both of which I am attaching. There are also photos of the signage in the car park which I am trying to put into a suitable format to send to you. There are also copies of previous correspondence which I think I have already provided.

I am not sure if it is relevant but I never received a response to my Response to LBA letter dated 14 Oct 13.

As ever, I shall be very grateful for your advice on how next to proceed!

VVMT

aw:

[Raley]

Re: Parking Eye problems

Hi M1

Here is the Witness statement as promised. I will try to send photos shortly.

[Raley]

Re: Parking Eye problems

Hi M1

Here is the ParkingEye signage plan for Watergate Bay. Photos to follow...

[Raley]

Re: Parking Eye problems

Hi M1

Here are the photos - have had to reduce the quality to meet the site's file size restrictions so I hope they will be OK.

Thanks again

aw:

[mystery1]

Re: Parking Eye problems

Hi M1

Here are the photos - have had to reduce the quality to meet the site's file size restrictions so I hope they will be OK.

Thanks again

aw:

Try https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B4OhdEnfNwI

M1