Parking Eye multiple tickets from July 2014 plus new Letter Before County Court Claim

[Elmo4444]

Hello,

I am completely new to all of this and am so nervous I feel sick.

I have a couple of PCNs from Parking Eye dating back to July 2014 which I responded to and didnt hear anything back from until January 2015 stating that the 14 days are up, provide evidence.

I have now just received a Letter Before County Court Claim regarding a ticket I got at hospital for overstaying by 4 mins in January 2015.

I have no idea what to do. I'm 25 and dont have a clue how to tackle this, I really dont want to be taken to court but I'm too poor to pay them =(

Please help me

[mystery1]

Re: Parking Eye multiple tickets from July 2014 plus new Letter Before County Court C

Do 2 posts as each one is seperate. POst up all the documents you can and any pictures you have/can get of the signs. Also anything you wrote to them.

Reg number, ticket number, name and address should be removed but not times dates.

I may be offline most of tomorrow but i'm not ignoring you.

M1

[Elmo4444]

Re: Parking Eye multiple tickets from July 2014 plus new Letter Before County Court C

Hi M1,

Thank you very much for your reply. I will start with the Letter Before Court Claim:

The initial PCN was dated for 3/12/14. Time of arrival: 12:07:18 - Time of Departure 12:42:09. The sign stated that the first half hour was free but the car park is incredibly confusing to exit (I'm sure that doesnt matter at all). The PCN was the generic one they send out:

Parking charge amount due: £70. Payment to be made by: 5/1/2015. This Parking Charge is discounted to £40 if paid by 22/12/14.

Date of event: 3/12/2014
Date Issued: 9/12/2014
Date: 18/12/2014

Further to the recent PCN, this parking charge remains outstanding and you have until 22 December 2014 or the amount due will increase.

On the 3 December 2014 vehicle xxxxxx entered xxxxxxx car park at 12:07:18 and departed at 12:42:09 on 3 December 2014.

The signage, which is clearly displayed at the entrance to and throughout the car park, states that this is private land, the car park is managed by ParkingEye LTD, and parking tariffs apply or a Parking Charge will be incurred, along with other terms and conditions of the car park by which those who park in the car park agree to be bound.

By either not purchasing the appropriate parking time or by remaining at the car park for longer than permitted, in accordance with the terms and conditions set out in the signage, the Parking Charge is now payable to ParkingEye LTD (as the creditor)

We would remind you that, if you were the driver at the time of the parking event you are required to pay or appeal the parking charge.

My Response to this:

Dear Sir/Madame

I refer to your Contractual Parking Charge Notice number: xxxxxxxxx

At this stage I am unable to confirm if I was the driver of the vehicle at the date shown. I am unable to recall any action of mine that may have contributed to the alleged contractual contravention and cannot remember entering into any parking contract with yourselves.

I am therefore unable to make an informed assessment of the circumstances surrounding this case since I am unsure if it was myself who agreed any contract with you. I am unwilling to make any payment on notification from a company I do not know, for a sum of money I cannot remember agreeing to, on a contract I didn't have any knowledge of, and for which I have no copy for my own records.
Unfortunately we live in a current climate in which scam messages requiring money and/or bank details are significantly rising. Due to the nature of my employment, I am aware of various scams surrounding parking charges and the custodial sentences that are being handed out to the alleged perpetrators.

It is against my nature to make payment for any speculative demand without proof of the existence of any supposed contract between us, and your legal right to make such a contract with me in the first place.

As you have contacted me as the registered keeper of the vehicle you will be aware of the requirements and restrictions placed upon you by the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012.

It is not the remit of the keeper to make payment for anything other than actual parking charges that at the time of the issue of the PCN, not following issue.

If you would kindly send details as follows I will then be able to consider this matter fully and my own liability for any alleged contractual breach.

1. Proof of your right to make a contract with a driver using the said car park facility. This to be in the form of your copy of landowner rights or any contract with the landowner giving you the right of occupation of the land rather than a right of access for monitoring the said area, or a lease agreement for the land in question.
2. A copy of the contract between yourself and the Landowner showing your responsibilities in monitoring the car park on their behalf, and your right to pursue any matter to legal proceedings if no payment is forthcoming.
3. A copy of any contract that you allege exists between yourself or Landowner client and myself; such contract to be shown to have been properly offered and then accepted by myself or any other driver who may have been involved in this matter.
4. The reasoning of the alleged contravention. Please advise as to whether this alleged offence was supposedly for a Breach of a Contractual Parking arrangement or for trespass. If no contractual agreement was made or accepted by either party then an explanation as to why you consider trespass was committed in an area where there is free access by the landowner to members of the public.
5. In the unlikely event that you do have full rights to make contracts with individual drivers, either on behalf of the landowner, or at your own behest due to some contractual arrangement with your client, then I need a breakdown of what charges have been made in connection with the alleged contravention or trespass and how they have been calculated in accordance with the necessity to make a charge for a known financial loss to the landowner.
6. An explanation or breakdown of the charges as to whether they are are actual parking charges or charges for a breach of conditions of parking

I am aware of the legal aspects of the monitoring of such premises and am keen to avoid any doubt as to whether or not you have a legal right to demand payment, and whether I am equally liable to make that payment as demanded.

I note on your correspondence that you are placing responsibility for the alleged charge against myself as the registered keeper of the car concerned. You are no doubt aware that under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 there is a set of strict conditions which you must comply with to do so. One of these is that any correspondence in relation to this matter, the full identity of the actual creditor must be made known. Since you are invoking the PoFA then you will note that you have failed compliance with the conditions of it yourself so are not legally able to pursue this matter against the registered keeper.

I am aware of the existence of various cases in courts which have shown that the vast majority of such demands are made by companies who have no authority to make them in the first place. Whether this is for their inability of being able to make an independent contract with a driver or for lack of compliance to PoFA etc, I need to remove that doubt in this case to progress it any further.

Failure to provide the information requested in support of your claim will mean that I will not consider this particular charge to have any merit and will therefore refuse payment accordingly.
I may also make a complaint of harassment if demands continue in any form if you do not send me the information requested.

Regards,


The letter I received back:

Dated 27/1/15

LETTER BEFORE COUNTY COURT CLAIM

On the 12 January 2015 we notified you that, as the registered keeper of this vehicle, you had become liable for this PCN, which concerned a breach of the terms and conditions at xxxxxxx , on 3/12/14. This charge is therefore levied for breach of contract. This was because the requirements of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 required for Keeper Liability had been satisfied. Further to this, we advised you that the amount payable was £70 for the PCN and that you were required to make this payment or further action would be taken.

ParkingEye is still not in receipt of this payment. As such, we must inform you that unless payment of £70.00 is made within the next 14 days further action will be taken and court proceedings will be issued, which will incur further costs. These costs will include, but are not limited to £50 solicitors costs and £25.00 court claim issue fee. Should you wish to contact ParkingEye (details above and below), you must do so within 14 days of the date of this Letter Before Claim

Yours Faithfully

ParkingEye Legal Department.





Arghhhhhhhh!!!!! Serves me right for trying to be a smart arse but it just seems really extreme. I know this is probably due to me being an accidental repeated offender with them, but my job means I have to park in these places and I work with difficult people that you cant always predict. I know that part doesnt matter, I just didnt want people thinking I was a wally who likes getting threatening letters to my home address.

If the only advise is to pay, is it possible to pay in installments?

Thank you very very much for your time

[mystery1]

Re: Parking Eye multiple tickets from July 2014 plus new Letter Before County Court C

I'll have a better look when off from tomorrow afternoon for 3 days :okay:

M1

[Elmo4444]

Re: Parking Eye multiple tickets from July 2014 plus new Letter Before County Court C

Thank you so so much. I've received another letter off them today dated 28/1/15 stating my complaints are of a generic nature and have referred me to their FAQS.

Have a lovely few days off!

Thanks again ☺

[mystery1]

Re: Parking Eye multiple tickets from July 2014 plus new Letter Before County Court C

Thank you so so much. I've received another letter off them today dated 28/1/15 stating my complaints are of a generic nature and have referred me to their FAQS.

Have a lovely few days off!

Thanks again ☺

Cheeky b'stards.

M1

[Elmo4444]

Re: Parking Eye multiple tickets from July 2014 plus new Letter Before County Court C

Cheeky b'stards.

M1

I know! Totally the wrong way round too. Surely I should have been sent the reply to my letter and referral to the FAQS prior to the LBA? Spineless.

I have to acknowledge the LBA by Monday, so I think I'm just going to suck this one and arrange payment by installments if they'll accept that.

I'd lose my marbles and job if I went to court.

Thank you so much for taking the time to listen to Me whinge. I really appreciate it, what a lovely person you are

[mystery1]

Re: Parking Eye multiple tickets from July 2014 plus new Letter Before County Court C

Your call. I'll sort a reply later tonight if you want.

M1

[Elmo4444]

Re: Parking Eye multiple tickets from July 2014 plus new Letter Before County Court C

I feel really awful and cheeky for taking up your time. I get the impression off them that I'm b*ll*cksed =)

[mystery1]

Re: Parking Eye multiple tickets from July 2014 plus new Letter Before County Court C

I feel really awful and cheeky for taking up your time. I get the impression off them that I'm b*ll*cksed =)

They wouldn't tell you you were going to win because they wouldn't get their hands on your money

M1

[mystery1]

Re: Parking Eye multiple tickets from July 2014 plus new Letter Before County Court C

Dear Parking Eye,

Thank you for your letter dated 27/01/15 headed " Letter before county court claim" the contents of which are noted.

Since receiving your letter i have managed to do some research. I have read the pre action protocols https://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/pr...action_conduct and the SRA guide to Litigants in person http://www.sra.org.uk/solicitors/han...5/content.page as well as finding examples of countless other letters before county court claims and subsequent court documents where you admit you "letter before county court claim" is non compliant with the pre action protocol and that your template has been updated and now complies in all areas which of course as they were submitted to court were signed with a statement of truth.

This leads me to believe either those statements of truth are contempt of court or you are trying to mislead me which is a major breach of the SRA code of practice.

The reason i say this is because your letter before county court claim does not comply with the pre action protocols which dictate that your letter should include those matters listed. Annex A states

2. Claimant’s letter before claim
2.1 The claimant’s letter should give concise details about the matter. This should enable the defendant to understand and investigate the issues without needing to request further information. The letter should include –
(1) the claimant’s full name and address;
(2) the basis on which the claim is made (i.e. why the claimant says the defendant is liable);
(3) a clear summary of the facts on which the claim is based;
(4) what the claimant wants from the defendant; and
(5) if financial loss is claimed, an explanation of how the amount has been calculated.
2.2 The letter should also –
(1) list the essential documents on which the claimant intends to rely;
(2) set out the form of ADR (if any) that the claimant considers the most suitable and invite the defendant to agree to this;
(3) state the date by which the claimant considers it reasonable for a full response to be provided by the defendant; and
(4) identify and ask for copies of any relevant documents not in the claimant's possession and which the claimant wishes to see.
2.3 Unless the defendant is known to be legally represented the letter should –
(1) refer the defendant to this 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; and
(2) inform the defendant that ignoring the letter before claim may lead to the claimant starting proceedings and may increase the defendant's liability for costs.

When one compares your letter before county court claim to the pre action protocols, it is plainly woefully inadequate. As i have already stated, you have previously been made aware by several defendants of your shortcomings in this regard and as such i can only consider these failures as a deliberate attempt to mislead me as an unrepresented party which is a fundamental breach of the SRA code. This will be reported as such.


The pre action protocols regarding non compliance state

4. Compliance
4.1 The CPR enable the court to take into account the extent of the parties’ compliance with this Practice Direction or a relevant pre-action protocol (see paragraph 5.2) when giving directions for the management of claims (see CPR rule 3.1(4) and (5)) and when making orders about who should pay costs (see CPR rule 44.2(5)(a)).
4.2 The court will expect the parties to have complied with this Practice Direction or any relevant pre-action protocol. The court may ask the parties to explain what steps were taken to comply prior to the start of the claim. Where there has been a failure of compliance by a party the court may ask that party to provide an explanation.
Assessment of compliance
4.3 When considering compliance the court will –
(1) be concerned about whether the parties have complied in substance with the relevant principles and requirements and is not likely to be concerned with minor or technical shortcomings;
(2) consider the proportionality of the steps taken compared to the size and importance of the matter;
(3) take account of the urgency of the matter. Where a matter is urgent (for example, an application for an injunction) the court will expect the parties to comply only to the extent that it is reasonable to do so. (Paragraph 9.5 and 9.6 of this Practice Direction concern urgency caused by limitation periods.)
Examples of non-compliance
4.4 The court may decide that there has been a failure of compliance by a party because, for example, that party has –
(1) not provided sufficient information to enable the other party to understand the issues;
(2) not acted within a time limit set out in a relevant pre-action protocol, or, where no specific time limit applies, within a reasonable period;
(3) unreasonably refused to consider ADR (paragraph 8 in Part III of this Practice Direction and the pre-action protocols all contain similar provisions about ADR); or
(4) without good reason, not disclosed documents requested to be disclosed.
Sanctions for non-compliance
4.5 The court will look at the overall effect of non-compliance on the other party when deciding whether to impose sanctions.
4.6 If, in the opinion of the court, there has been non-compliance, the sanctions which the court may impose include –
(1) staying (that is suspending) the proceedings until steps which ought to have been taken have been taken;
(2) an order that the party at fault pays the costs, or part of the costs, of the other party or parties (this may include an order under rule 27.14(2)(g) in cases allocated to the small claims track);
(3) an order that the party at fault pays those costs on an indemnity basis (rule 44.3(3) sets out the definition of the assessment of costs on an indemnity basis);
(4) if the party at fault is the claimant in whose favour an order for the payment of a sum of money is subsequently made, an order that the claimant is deprived of interest on all or part of that sum, and/or that interest is awarded at a lower rate than would otherwise have been awarded;
(5) if the party at fault is a defendant, and an order for the payment of a sum of money is subsequently made in favour of the claimant, an order that the defendant pay interest on all or part of that sum at a higher rate, not exceeding 10% above base rate, than would otherwise have been awarded.

As well as this CPR 27, assuming this eventually is allocated small claims track status, states at 14 2(g)

(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

I would also draw your attention to the principle of natural justice. In Al Rawi and others (Respondents) v The Security
Service and others (Appellants) Lord Dyson said

"12. Secondly, trials are conducted on the basis of the principle of natural
justice. There are a number of strands to this. A party has a right to know the case
against him and the evidence on which it is based. He is entitled to have the
opportunity to respond to any such evidence and to any submissions made by the
other side. The other side may not advance contentions or adduce evidence of
which he is kept in ignorance. The Privy Council said in the civil case of Kanda v
Government of Malaya [1962] AC 322, 337:
“If the right to be heard is to be a real right which is worth anything,
it must carry with it a right in the accused man to know the case
which is made against him. He must know what evidence has been
given and what statements have been made affecting him: and then
he must be given a fair opportunity to correct or contradict them.”
13. Another aspect of the principle of natural justice is that the parties should be
given an opportunity to call their own witnesses and to cross-examine the opposing
witnesses. As was said by the High Court of Australia in Lee v The Queen (1998)
195 CLR 594, at para 32: “Confrontation and the opportunity for crossexamination
is of central significance to the common law adversarial system of
trial.”

14. I do not believe that any of this is controversial, but it needs to be
emphasised because, unlike the law relating to PII, a closed material procedure
involves a departure from both the open justice and the natural justice principles.
In recent years, both the courts and Parliament have been exercised by the problem
of how to balance (i) the interest that we all have in maintaining a fair system of
justice which, so far as possible, respects the essential elements of these principles
and (ii) the interest that we also all have in the protection of national security, the
international relations of the United Kingdom and the prevention, detection and
prosecution of crime. Thus, Parliament has reacted to the threat of terrorism to our Page 6
national security interests by introducing a form of closed material procedure (with
the use of special advocates) for use in certain categories of case, for example, by
enacting the Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005 and the Counter-Terrorism Act
2008. "

I would further like to draw you attention to LJ Rix in Expandable Ltd & Anor v Rubin [2008] EWCA Civ 59 (11 February 2008)

"The general ethos of the CPR is for a more cards on the table approach to litigation. If a party thinks it worthwhile to mention a document in his pleadings, witness statements or affidavits, I do not see why, subject as I say to the question of privilege, the court should put difficulties in the way of inspection. I look upon the mention of a document in pleadings etc as a form of disclosure. The document in question has not been disclosed by list, or at any rate not yet, but it has been disclosed by mention in what, for the purposes of litigation, is another important and formal category of documents. If so, then the party deploying that document by its mention should in principle be prepared to be required to permit its inspection, and the other party should be entitled to its inspection. What in such circumstances is the virtue of coyness?"


Returning to the pre action protocols, "1.2 These aims are to be achieved by encouraging the parties to –
(1) exchange information about the issue." I note your letter before county court claim says i should have all the information i require. Even if i had the above shows that should i request it that you are encouraged in the strongest sense to supply it. It will always be the case that the rules only require reproduction of documents that existed previously. Common sense tells you the rules don't expect brand new documents to be fabricated ! I note on one document i did receive that you have an incorrect spelling of my house name which pehaps explains why i think i haven't received some of your mail.

With all this in mind, i require copies of the original parking charge notice, any other correspondence, signs from the site, the contract which allows you to operate on the site and anything else upon which you will seek to rely on.

I would also ask that we refer the matter to POPLA as the most suitable ADR available, failing which, i ask that you hold off on your claim until the Beavis appeal result is known.

I would point out that it appears that parking was free for 30 minutes and the apparent breach is 4 minutes and 51 seconds. Your trade code of practice states :-

13 Grace periods
13.1 Your approach to parking management must allow a
driver who enters your car park but decides not to park,
to leave the car park within a reasonable period without
having their vehicle issued with a parking charge notice.
13.2 You should allow the driver a reasonable ‘grace period’
in which to decide if they are going to stay or go. If the
driver is on your land without permission you should still
allow them a grace period to read your signs and leave
before you take enforcement action.
13.3 You should be prepared to tell us the specific grace period
at a site if our compliance team or our agents ask what it is.
13.4 You should allow the driver a reasonable period to leave
the private car park after the parking contract has ended,
before you take enforcement action.


4 Minutes 51 seconds when the cameras are located at the entry and exit is not an unreasonable time particularly when you take in to account that the driver would also have to either stop or get out of the vehicle to read the signage.

Upon receipt of the documents i seek, i will obtain advice from someone with experience in these matters and respond in full within 14 days of receipt of any documents.

Yours etc

M1

[Elmo4444]

Re: Parking Eye multiple tickets from July 2014 plus new Letter Before County Court C

Dear Parking Eye,

Thank you for your letter dated 27/01/15 headed " Letter before county court claim" the contents of which are noted.

Since receiving your letter i have managed to do some research. I have read the pre action protocols https://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/pr...action_conduct and the SRA guide to Litigants in person http://www.sra.org.uk/solicitors/han...5/content.page as well as finding examples of countless other letters before county court claims and subsequent court documents where you admit you "letter before county court claim" is non compliant with the pre action protocol and that your template has been updated and now complies in all areas which of course as they were submitted to court were signed with a statement of truth.

This leads me to believe either those statements of truth are contempt of court or you are trying to mislead me which is a major breach of the SRA code of practice.

The reason i say this is because your letter before county court claim does not comply with the pre action protocols which dictate that your letter should include those matters listed. Annex A states

2. Claimant’s letter before claim
2.1 The claimant’s letter should give concise details about the matter. This should enable the defendant to understand and investigate the issues without needing to request further information. The letter should include –
(1) the claimant’s full name and address;
(2) the basis on which the claim is made (i.e. why the claimant says the defendant is liable);
(3) a clear summary of the facts on which the claim is based;
(4) what the claimant wants from the defendant; and
(5) if financial loss is claimed, an explanation of how the amount has been calculated.
2.2 The letter should also –
(1) list the essential documents on which the claimant intends to rely;
(2) set out the form of ADR (if any) that the claimant considers the most suitable and invite the defendant to agree to this;
(3) state the date by which the claimant considers it reasonable for a full response to be provided by the defendant; and
(4) identify and ask for copies of any relevant documents not in the claimant's possession and which the claimant wishes to see.
2.3 Unless the defendant is known to be legally represented the letter should –
(1) refer the defendant to this 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; and
(2) inform the defendant that ignoring the letter before claim may lead to the claimant starting proceedings and may increase the defendant's liability for costs.

When one compares your letter before county court claim to the pre action protocols, it is plainly woefully inadequate. As i have already stated, you have previously been made aware by several defendants of your shortcomings in this regard and as such i can only consider these failures as a deliberate attempt to mislead me as an unrepresented party which is a fundamental breach of the SRA code. This will be reported as such.


The pre action protocols regarding non compliance state

4. Compliance
4.1 The CPR enable the court to take into account the extent of the parties’ compliance with this Practice Direction or a relevant pre-action protocol (see paragraph 5.2) when giving directions for the management of claims (see CPR rule 3.1(4) and (5)) and when making orders about who should pay costs (see CPR rule 44.2(5)(a)).
4.2 The court will expect the parties to have complied with this Practice Direction or any relevant pre-action protocol. The court may ask the parties to explain what steps were taken to comply prior to the start of the claim. Where there has been a failure of compliance by a party the court may ask that party to provide an explanation.
Assessment of compliance
4.3 When considering compliance the court will –
(1) be concerned about whether the parties have complied in substance with the relevant principles and requirements and is not likely to be concerned with minor or technical shortcomings;
(2) consider the proportionality of the steps taken compared to the size and importance of the matter;
(3) take account of the urgency of the matter. Where a matter is urgent (for example, an application for an injunction) the court will expect the parties to comply only to the extent that it is reasonable to do so. (Paragraph 9.5 and 9.6 of this Practice Direction concern urgency caused by limitation periods.)
Examples of non-compliance
4.4 The court may decide that there has been a failure of compliance by a party because, for example, that party has –
(1) not provided sufficient information to enable the other party to understand the issues;
(2) not acted within a time limit set out in a relevant pre-action protocol, or, where no specific time limit applies, within a reasonable period;
(3) unreasonably refused to consider ADR (paragraph 8 in Part III of this Practice Direction and the pre-action protocols all contain similar provisions about ADR); or
(4) without good reason, not disclosed documents requested to be disclosed.
Sanctions for non-compliance
4.5 The court will look at the overall effect of non-compliance on the other party when deciding whether to impose sanctions.
4.6 If, in the opinion of the court, there has been non-compliance, the sanctions which the court may impose include –
(1) staying (that is suspending) the proceedings until steps which ought to have been taken have been taken;
(2) an order that the party at fault pays the costs, or part of the costs, of the other party or parties (this may include an order under rule 27.14(2)(g) in cases allocated to the small claims track);
(3) an order that the party at fault pays those costs on an indemnity basis (rule 44.3(3) sets out the definition of the assessment of costs on an indemnity basis);
(4) if the party at fault is the claimant in whose favour an order for the payment of a sum of money is subsequently made, an order that the claimant is deprived of interest on all or part of that sum, and/or that interest is awarded at a lower rate than would otherwise have been awarded;
(5) if the party at fault is a defendant, and an order for the payment of a sum of money is subsequently made in favour of the claimant, an order that the defendant pay interest on all or part of that sum at a higher rate, not exceeding 10% above base rate, than would otherwise have been awarded.

As well as this CPR 27, assuming this eventually is allocated small claims track status, states at 14 2(g)

(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

I would also draw your attention to the principle of natural justice. In Al Rawi and others (Respondents) v The Security
Service and others (Appellants) Lord Dyson said

"12. Secondly, trials are conducted on the basis of the principle of natural
justice. There are a number of strands to this. A party has a right to know the case
against him and the evidence on which it is based. He is entitled to have the
opportunity to respond to any such evidence and to any submissions made by the
other side. The other side may not advance contentions or adduce evidence of
which he is kept in ignorance. The Privy Council said in the civil case of Kanda v
Government of Malaya [1962] AC 322, 337:
“If the right to be heard is to be a real right which is worth anything,
it must carry with it a right in the accused man to know the case
which is made against him. He must know what evidence has been
given and what statements have been made affecting him: and then
he must be given a fair opportunity to correct or contradict them.”
13. Another aspect of the principle of natural justice is that the parties should be
given an opportunity to call their own witnesses and to cross-examine the opposing
witnesses. As was said by the High Court of Australia in Lee v The Queen (1998)
195 CLR 594, at para 32: “Confrontation and the opportunity for crossexamination
is of central significance to the common law adversarial system of
trial.”

14. I do not believe that any of this is controversial, but it needs to be
emphasised because, unlike the law relating to PII, a closed material procedure
involves a departure from both the open justice and the natural justice principles.
In recent years, both the courts and Parliament have been exercised by the problem
of how to balance (i) the interest that we all have in maintaining a fair system of
justice which, so far as possible, respects the essential elements of these principles
and (ii) the interest that we also all have in the protection of national security, the
international relations of the United Kingdom and the prevention, detection and
prosecution of crime. Thus, Parliament has reacted to the threat of terrorism to our Page 6
national security interests by introducing a form of closed material procedure (with
the use of special advocates) for use in certain categories of case, for example, by
enacting the Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005 and the Counter-Terrorism Act
2008. "

I would further like to draw you attention to LJ Rix in Expandable Ltd & Anor v Rubin [2008] EWCA Civ 59 (11 February 2008)

"The general ethos of the CPR is for a more cards on the table approach to litigation. If a party thinks it worthwhile to mention a document in his pleadings, witness statements or affidavits, I do not see why, subject as I say to the question of privilege, the court should put difficulties in the way of inspection. I look upon the mention of a document in pleadings etc as a form of disclosure. The document in question has not been disclosed by list, or at any rate not yet, but it has been disclosed by mention in what, for the purposes of litigation, is another important and formal category of documents. If so, then the party deploying that document by its mention should in principle be prepared to be required to permit its inspection, and the other party should be entitled to its inspection. What in such circumstances is the virtue of coyness?"


Returning to the pre action protocols, "1.2 These aims are to be achieved by encouraging the parties to –
(1) exchange information about the issue." I note your letter before county court claim says i should have all the information i require. Even if i had the above shows that should i request it that you are encouraged in the strongest sense to supply it. It will always be the case that the rules only require reproduction of documents that existed previously. Common sense tells you the rules don't expect brand new documents to be fabricated ! I note on one document i did receive that you have an incorrect spelling of my house name which pehaps explains why i think i haven't received some of your mail.

With all this in mind, i require copies of the original parking charge notice, any other correspondence, signs from the site, the contract which allows you to operate on the site and anything else upon which you will seek to rely on.

I would also ask that we refer the matter to POPLA as the most suitable ADR available, failing which, i ask that you hold off on your claim until the Beavis appeal result is known.

I would point out that it appears that parking was free for 30 minutes and the apparent breach is 4 minutes and 51 seconds. Your trade code of practice states :-

13 Grace periods
13.1 Your approach to parking management must allow a
driver who enters your car park but decides not to park,
to leave the car park within a reasonable period without
having their vehicle issued with a parking charge notice.
13.2 You should allow the driver a reasonable ‘grace period’
in which to decide if they are going to stay or go. If the
driver is on your land without permission you should still
allow them a grace period to read your signs and leave
before you take enforcement action.
13.3 You should be prepared to tell us the specific grace period
at a site if our compliance team or our agents ask what it is.
13.4 You should allow the driver a reasonable period to leave
the private car park after the parking contract has ended,
before you take enforcement action.


4 Minutes 51 seconds when the cameras are located at the entry and exit is not an unreasonable time particularly when you take in to account that the driver would also have to either stop or get out of the vehicle to read the signage.

Upon receipt of the documents i seek, i will obtain advice from someone with experience in these matters and respond in full within 14 days of receipt of any documents.

Yours etc

M1

Wow. Thank you so so much. How intelligent are you!

Thank you, thank you, thank you

Elmo4444