Parking Eye - Received letter before Country Court Claim

[ognuttah]

Dear Gents (and ladies),.

I was wondering if anyone could help advise on my situation, long story short, I entered a car park, didn't notice the '20 mins max stay signs', ended up staying for approx. 1 hour 20 mins..

I then received a letter requesting a fine of £100, however, I thought it may have been a scam as the entrance to the car park is located on 'Holden Street' and NOT 131 Alfreton Road, like the ticket suggests and the pictures were very unclear, just a pic of my car with dark black surroundings, could have been taken anywhere. The £100.00 fine also didn't seem very calculated, a very round figure only a scammer would request and almost triple the cost of one issued by council..

Furthermore, I did not see the '20 mins min stay' sign due to there being a large bin parked up at the entrance, in front of the sign, and with it being an already, very narrow entrance, my attention was drawn to the bin when entering the car park, and not the sign. (I've attached a pic of entrance)

Normally these companies sell the ticket onto debt collectors which I have successfully dealt with before, however these guys have actioned a 'County Court Claim' towards me, therefore I'm not quiet sure how to deal with it.

I've attached pics of the letters I've received, and a pic of the entrance. I will also go back later today to check signs.. I only received the letter on Thursday, but would like to form a reply as soon as possible to avoid any default CCJ decisions. Or perhaps I may not stand a chance and you may advise me to pay the fine / or request a discounted fine? (any particular advise regarding how much discount I should request would also be appreciated if that's the case).

Apologise for starting a whole new thread, however, I've read through some of the cases here and it seems the people who help approach each case individually.

Really appreciate any advise, thanks in advance.

Kind regards,

[ognuttah]

attachments. (also should be clear the third pic is page 2 of the county court claim letter and not the initial fine letter received). thanks in advance.

[des8]

First the bad news.. PE generally get it right, but there may be a defence possible to a court claim.
There is little point appealing to PE now as they will want their pound of flesh, so I would wait for the actual court claim.

I note the pictures appear taken at night time ... so were the signs lit?
Take photos of the signs in daylight (so they are fully legible.. even the smallest font) and actually take measurement of the font sizes and height above ground.
Also take photos of the signs at night (without flash!)

If you do correspond with them, do not identify the driver

[ognuttah]

First the bad news.. PE generally get it right, but there may be a defence possible to a court claim.
There is little point appealing to PE now as they will want their pound of flesh, so I would wait for the actual court claim.

I note the pictures appear taken at night time ... so were the signs lit?
Take photos of the signs in daylight (so they are fully legible.. even the smallest font) and actually take measurement of the font sizes and height above ground.
Also take photos of the signs at night (without flash!)

If you do correspond with them, do not identify the driver

Dear Des,

Thanks for the prompt and informative reply, really appreciate that. God bless you for your efforts helping others out of your own kindness.

It's unfortunate to hear that PE usually get it right.. this must mean they are confident in their claim trying to action this so soon after sending out the fine?

I went to the car park and snapped pics of all the signs, close up of the sign itself and small print. As it goes, it's a fairly small car park and there are 5 signs placed around the car park. Out of the 5 signs, only 1 has working lights(one at the exit), 1 has 1 of 2 lights not working and the remaining 3 signs had lights that were not working at all! Furthermore, one of the signs is somewhat obscured by a crate full of cardboard. (see pics attached). The car park is very poorly lit, these are the only lights in the actual car park itself. Majority of car park is dimly lit by the main road (Alfreton Road) and not by the lights contained within the car park. Furthermore, the entrance to the car park is located on Holden Street, not Alfreton Road, like the PCN suggests.

Is there any merit to dispute this claim here or am I better off paying the fine off?

Furthermore, I would like to return the reply form by tomorrow as it is dated 10th December but I read elsewhere that they will default CCJ claim if I do not reply promptly??...do I email this form back or do send by hard copy? Also, if I decide to dispute the claim, would I tick box C or D and there is a box I for requesting more information/documents??...(have attached reply form pdf). Do I need to write to the courts at this stage?

If you do not think I have much of a case here, does box B suggest requesting a discounted amount or is this some kind of trap?

Also, I noticed they are asking for a personal financial statement, do I need to supply all this information??

Thanks in advance.

Kind regards,

[des8]

You have 30 days from the issue date in which to reply to a PAPDC form, so no hurry!
If you don't reply they may then initiate court action, at which point you can defend the claim.

You should respond to the PAPDC, the court expects it, but it is not fatal if you don't.

I would only complete box D ",,,because there was no contract to park"
box I "please supply copy of your contract to manage the car park .and a copy of the alleged contract between driver and PE to park"

I would strike through all other parts so they cannot add to them, and take copies of the completed forms.

Make sure you do not identify the driver.

I would at this stage contemplate defending any court claim (but it is your choice and there is no certainty how it will go in court.
Small claims are a bit of a lottery, and some people will pay rather than face the anxiety of a court appearance.
It is really all that scary, it's very relaxed, Generally sitting round a table with the judge at the head listening to both sides
No wigs or shouts of "objection"

Outline of defence points:

When you took the photos did you measure the fonts. and height from the ground?
They look very small and possibly illegible at night

They might have the address wrong

Those signs look forbidding and not capable of forming a contract (ie only shoppers at ? which shop can park. Anyone else is trespassing and that is a whole different ballgame which PE can't pursue

I think the sign suggests that they might charge additional costs for collection. This is not allowed and could have the claim thrown out by a court for abuse of process

[ognuttah]

You have 30 days from the issue date in which to reply to a PAPDC form, so no hurry!
If you don't reply they may then initiate court action, at which point you can defend the claim.

You should respond to the PAPDC, the court expects it, but it is not fatal if you don't.

I would only complete box D ",,,because there was no contract to park"
box I "please supply copy of your contract to manage the car park .and a copy of the alleged contract between driver and PE to park"

I would strike through all other parts so they cannot add to them, and take copies of the completed forms.

Make sure you do not identify the driver.

I would at this stage contemplate defending any court claim (but it is your choice and there is no certainty how it will go in court.
Small claims are a bit of a lottery, and some people will pay rather than face the anxiety of a court appearance.
It is really all that scary, it's very relaxed, Generally sitting round a table with the judge at the head listening to both sides
No wigs or shouts of "objection"

Outline of defence points:

When you took the photos did you measure the fonts. and height from the ground?
They look very small and possibly illegible at night

They might have the address wrong

Those signs look forbidding and not capable of forming a contract (ie only shoppers at ? which shop can park. Anyone else is trespassing and that is a whole different ballgame which PE can't pursue

I think the sign suggests that they might charge additional costs for collection. This is not allowed and could have the claim thrown out by a court for abuse of process

Dear Des,

I had read your messages a few days ago but only just logged in to reply... thanks for confirming I do indeed have longer than initially thought to reply, that brings me some peace going into the festive holidays. Perhaps it would be better to leave it until last minute, and then hit them with a reply so that they are less prepared ?? hmmm... Letter is dated 10/12/2024 which gives me until 09/01/2025... Although may aim for first week of Jan in that case...

Thank you Des, your reply has bought me a good deal of confidence going into this.. yes, that's a good point.. the font did come across very small, I will take some measuring tape with me and take a physical measurements of a) font size , b) distance from ground to sign.

My defense points so far;

- entrance to car park on different street address to PCN
- poor lighting - 4 of the 5 lights non operational in car park
- signs blocked by crates being used to store cardboard
- non binding contract - font size seems small and sign placement high (will measure and confirm physical dimensions shortly)
- incorrect syntax in contract (ie only shoppers at ? which shop can park)

Thanks Des, will reply with my findings shortly, until then, have a fantastic break and seasonal holidays whatever you are celebrating. God bless, i will reply with my findings shortly.

Kind regards,