parking eye county claim

[mystery1]

Re: parking eye county claim

No need for a copy of the letter.

"In light of your reliance of Beavis, which as you know is subject to appeal, i would ask that we agree a stay in proceedings to await the result of said appeal which also enables us to achieve our over riding objective and save valuable court time and money."

M1

[helpmeplease1]

Re: parking eye county claim

does this seem ok?


PARKINGEYE LTD 40 EATON AVENUE vs xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
CLAIM NUMBERxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
IN THE COUNTY COURT AT xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
"In light of your reliance of Beavis, which as you know is subject to appeal, i would ask that we agree a stay in proceedings to await the result of said appeal which also enables us to achieve our overriding objective and save valuable court time and money."
MXXXX XXXXXXXXX XXXX

and
do i send this to the court aswell?

[mystery1]

Re: parking eye county claim

No, just the parasites.

M1

[helpmeplease1]

Re: parking eye county claim

Lol.

Brilliant

[helpmeplease1]

Re: parking eye county claim

Hi M1
how do I proceed with a skeleton argument?
tried to research on Google but I think I'm confusing myself more!

[mystery1]

Re: parking eye county claim

I wrote one previously. I need to adjust this for your but it should help in the meantime. Do not submit this until edited.

Skeleton argument on behalf of xxxxxxxx Defendant



Name

Date

This is a simple dispute about parking charges on private land. the questions for the court are :-

1. Is the claimant the correct claimant ?

2. Does the claimant have authority to bring a claim in it's own name ?

3. Do the signs enable a contract to be entered into and with whom ?

4. Are the charges penalties or a genuine pre estimate of loss ?

5. If the charges are not penalties whose losses are they ?



I, xxxxx, the defendant, believe that the claimant should be the landholder and not their agent, the claimant has no authority to bring

a claim in their own name, the signs are not good enough to form a contract and in any case parking is possible without sight of them

resulting in no contract between anyone and the driver, that the charges are penalties which do not reflect any loss caused by a

breach and that it should be the landholders losses if any losses are due. As such the claim should be dismisssed.

The Claimant issue & The claimant authority issue

The claimant in this case is Parking Eye Limited. All particulars of claim, notices, signs etc describe them as "agents" or "parking is

managed by" "on behalf of" etc See exhibits x,y,z. The claimant does not have occupier rights. they are merely agents who have no

rights in the land. The signage on the site states "ParkingEye Ltd is solely engaged to provide a traffic space maximisation scheme. We

are not responsible for the car park surface"

In Parkingeye Ltd v Somerfield Stores Ltd [2012] EWCA Civ 1338 (17 October 2012) Sir Robin Jacob said at para 11 "This semi-literate

letter was false in a number of respects:" "iii) It said "ParkingEye will issue proceedings" indicating that ParkingEye had authority

to do so. It did not."


In ParkingEye v Sharma 2013 District Judge Jenkins said at para 61. " I am going to strike the claim out. There may well be

contractual arrangement between these claimants and a third party whether they are the owners of the land or not, I don’t know, no

legal title evidence has been put before me and for what seems to be clear is that ParkingEye Ltd are not the owners of the land, their

contractual arrangements to manage do not in my judgment entitle them to bring proceedings in their name even though their

contractual requirements may impose on them an entitlement and obligation to recover fees from those who use the parking facilities

but I am not satisfied that those contractual arrangements between these claimants and any other third party can bring about an

entitlement to bring a claim, a contractual arrangement cannot impose a cause of action as a matter of law. ParkingEye Ltd have no

legal entitlement for this land, they have a contractual arrangement that they must honour but I am not satisfied that I have heard

anything that persuades me that they can bring this claim and for that reason the claim is dismissed. "



In ParkingEye v Gardam 2013 District Judge Jones said at para 3 "The right Claimant, it seems to me in this case, is not ParkingEye

Ltd, it is Euro Garages Ltd, because the loss and so on of course is to the landowner. The landowner is Euro Garages Ltd. Now, I think

it would have been possible, is possible as far as I am aware, for Euro Garages Ltd to assign to ParkingEye any cause of action they

may have in trespass and so on, but they have not done that."



In Parking Eye v Clarke 2014 Deputy District Judge Buckley said at para 16 " So i am satisfied that in these circumstances that the

claimant, as in the case that District Judge Jenkins dealt with, and in the case of Gardam, both recent cases, one in High Wycombe

and one in Brentford, i am satisfied that in this case the claimants are the wrong claimants"


Parking eye v Gosnold and Parking Eye v Collins-Daniel both supplement the same point.


No evidence has thus far been adduced to show that Parking Eye is the claimant or has authority to issue claims in it's own name.

The Signage issue.

If a person enters land and a reasonable person should have seen the signs then it is accepted law that they can constitute a

contract. However one must first look at whether the signs were bound to be seen, to a reasonable person, and secondly clear enough

to form a contract. I have evidence that the whole car park is not covered by signage (exhibit ) You can enter the car park and explain

how to park without being near a sign.

The signs themselves are not sufficient to form a contract as the language is not concise. Please refer to pages 4-7 in the Parking Eye v Collins-Daniel. This is very similar to the signage in question.

The particulars of claim state that i parked "without authority" No contract can be claimed if there is no authority.

The Penalties issue

The law on penalty charges is summed up well in Brookfield Aviation International Limited v Mr Robertus Johannes

Willhelmus Van Boekel IN THE MAYORS AND CITY OF LONDON COUNTY COURT para 66 onwards.

The duty to show it's a penalty charge falls upon me. It is a matter of construction. The signs state "Failure to comply with the

following will result in a Parking Charge of £85" Failure to comply is language which makes it clear comply or else. It is not an offer to

park and as my witness statements (exhibit ) shows at points xx,yy it is clearly not a genuine pre estimate of loss. No losses to the

landholder have been evidenced. The agents losses are irrelevant. See Parkingeye Ltd v Somerfield Stores Ltd [2012] EWCA Civ 1338

(17 October 2012) at para 11 "11. This semi-literate letter was false in a number of respects: i) It said that the debt was due to

ParkingEye. It was not. It was due to Somerfield. "

In the event the court disagrees with me i submit that i submit that the claimants losses are not substantiated with the facts from

their company accounts (exhibit ) and the data release under freedom of information (exhibit) and calculated as per my witness

statement. These figures include company costs which are not due to any breach and i submit that these costs should not be included

in a calculation for genuine pre estimate of loss. A Retailer v Ms B Ms K 2012 and VCS v Ibbotsen 2012 both show the normal

company running costs should be excluded. Parking eye produced a document called "parking charge amount" (exhibit) which clearly

show that they include normal running costs.

Conclusiuon

The claim should be dismissed because the claimant has no standing. Further, if they did, they have no authority to bring a claim. The

signage is not capable of creating a contract between Parking Eye Limited and the diver. The charges are unlawful penalties and not a

genuine pre estimate of loss.



Signed


Dated



M1

[helpmeplease1]

Re: parking eye county claim

hi M1
when do i have to give in the sleleton argument?
case is on the 31/10/14.

[mystery1]

Re: parking eye county claim

Just a day or 2 before. I'm off now so after the footie or tomorrow

M1

[helpmeplease1]

Re: parking eye county claim

ok thanks M1

[mystery1]

Re: parking eye county claim

Skeleton argument on behalf of xxxxxxxx Defendant






Name


Date




This is a simple dispute about parking charges on private land. the questions for the court are :-


1. Is the claimant the correct claimant ?


2. Does the claimant have authority to bring a claim in it's own name ?


3. Do the signs enable a contract to be entered into and with whom ?


4. Are the charges penalties or a genuine pre estimate of loss ?


5. If the charges are not penalties whose losses are they ?






I, xxxxx, the defendant, believe that the claimant should be the landholder and not their agent, the claimant has no authority to bring


a claim in their own name, the signs are not good enough to form a contract and in any case parking is possible without sight of them


resulting in no contract between anyone and the driver, that the charges are penalties which do not reflect any loss caused by a


breach and that it should be the landholders losses if any losses are due. As such the claim should be dismisssed.




The Claimant issue & The claimant authority issue


The claimant in this case is Parking Eye Limited. All particulars of claim, notices, signs etc describe them as "agents" or "parking is


managed by" "on behalf of" etc See exhibits x,y,z. The claimant does not have occupier rights. they are merely agents who have no


rights in the land. The signage on the site states "ParkingEye Ltd is solely engaged to provide a traffic space maximisation scheme. We


are not responsible for the car park surface"


In Parkingeye Ltd v Somerfield Stores Ltd [2012] EWCA Civ 1338 (17 October 2012) Sir Robin Jacob said at para 11 "This semi-literate


letter was false in a number of respects:" "iii) It said "ParkingEye will issue proceedings" indicating that ParkingEye had authority


to do so. It did not."




In ParkingEye v Sharma 2013 District Judge Jenkins said at para 61. " I am going to strike the claim out. There may well be


contractual arrangement between these claimants and a third party whether they are the owners of the land or not, I don’t know, no


legal title evidence has been put before me and for what seems to be clear is that ParkingEye Ltd are not the owners of the land, their


contractual arrangements to manage do not in my judgment entitle them to bring proceedings in their name even though their


contractual requirements may impose on them an entitlement and obligation to recover fees from those who use the parking facilities


but I am not satisfied that those contractual arrangements between these claimants and any other third party can bring about an


entitlement to bring a claim, a contractual arrangement cannot impose a cause of action as a matter of law. ParkingEye Ltd have no


legal entitlement for this land, they have a contractual arrangement that they must honour but I am not satisfied that I have heard


anything that persuades me that they can bring this claim and for that reason the claim is dismissed. "






In ParkingEye v Gardam 2013 District Judge Jones said at para 3 "The right Claimant, it seems to me in this case, is not ParkingEye


Ltd, it is Euro Garages Ltd, because the loss and so on of course is to the landowner. The landowner is Euro Garages Ltd. Now, I think


it would have been possible, is possible as far as I am aware, for Euro Garages Ltd to assign to ParkingEye any cause of action they


may have in trespass and so on, but they have not done that."






In Parking Eye v Clarke 2014 Deputy District Judge Buckley said at para 16 " So i am satisfied that in these circumstances that the


claimant, as in the case that District Judge Jenkins dealt with, and in the case of Gardam, both recent cases, one in High Wycombe


and one in Brentford, i am satisfied that in this case the claimants are the wrong claimants"




Parking eye v Gosnold and Parking Eye v Collins-Daniel both supplement the same point.




No evidence has thus far been adduced to show that Parking Eye is the claimant or has authority to issue claims in it's own name.

Parking Eye have sent an unreadable, redacted, contract via email. I submit that the redacted parts are central to the case. For example Clause 3.11 shows that the landlord does pay ParkingEye. ParkingEye gather the parking charges as an agent of the landowner, but then retain them as consideration for services. This gives rise to a further VAT liability, and the landowner pays a further VAT only invoice. This VAT invoice also serves as an account of sums received by ParkingEye, as it is a constant proportion (20%) of them. This was, i believe, redacted in Beavis as was the fact, which was heard in court by the public, that at that location Parking Eye paid the landowner £1000 per week.


Clause 8 reveals the existence of a web interface. This interface is usable by the landowner to see an account of charges issued and paid. This is therefore a further account of sums received by ParkingEye.

Together with what is written on the signs "ParkingEye Ltd is solely engaged to provide a traffic space maximisation scheme" it is clear that Parking Eye are an agent of the landowner.










The Signage issue.


If a person enters land and a reasonable person should have seen the signs then it is accepted law that they can constitute a contract. However one must first look at whether the signs were bound to be seen, to a reasonable person, and secondly clear enough to form a contract.


The signs themselves are not sufficient to form a contract as the language is not concise. Please refer to pages 4-7 in the Parking Eye v Collins-Daniel. The signs state blue badge holders can park for longer if they enter the vehicle registration at reception. It does not state at which reception and the terminal was neither obvious nor at the reception that we used that day. We were directed to go straight up to the floor we required and to use that reception desk. Reception were made aware that we parked and seemed content with this.


The particulars of claim state that i parked "without authority" No contract can be claimed if there is no authority. <<<<<<<<<<< Check this and delete if incorrect




The Penalties issue


The law on penalty charges is summed up well in Brookfield Aviation International Limited v Mr Robertus Johannes


Willhelmus Van Boekel IN THE MAYORS AND CITY OF LONDON COUNTY COURT para 66 onwards.


The duty to show it's a penalty charge falls upon me. It is a matter of construction. The signs state "Failure to comply with the


terms and conditions will result in a Parking Charge of £100" Failure to comply is language which makes it clear comply or else. It is not an offer to


park and certainly no reasonable person would say it's an offer to pay £100 so that you do not need to enter a registration number on a terminal. Parking was allowed. It is clearly not a genuine pre estimate of loss. No losses to the landholder have been evidenced. The agents losses are irrelevant. See Parkingeye Ltd v Somerfield Stores Ltd [2012] EWCA Civ 1338 (17 October 2012) at para 11 "11. This semi-literate letter was false in a number of respects: i) It said that the debt was due to ParkingEye. It was not. It was due to Somerfield. "






Conclusion


The claim should be dismissed because the claimant has no standing. Further, if they did, they have no authority to bring a claim. The


signage is not capable of creating a contract between Parking Eye Limited and the driver. The charges are unlawful penalties and not a


genuine pre estimate of loss.






Signed




Dated






All exhibits should be labeled and all exhibit refs should include a page number.


M1

[helpmeplease1]

Re: parking eye county claim

Thanks Mi
starting on it now.

[helpmeplease1]

Re: parking eye county claim

-do i need to send all the court cases again as exhibits? or do i just put the exhibit numbers, as i have already numbered and sent this before to the court and parkingeye.
-i have changed the argument slighly as i had received the redacted copy of the contract via post not email.
-the particulars of claim (got this from claim form) are "for parking on private land in breech of the terms and conditions (the contract). parking eye?s automated number plate recognition system, monitoring xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (drop off zone) address xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx captured vehicle xxxxxx entering and leaving the car park, overstaying the maximum time. the signage clearly displayed at the entrance to and throughout the car patrkk states that this is private land, is managed by parking eye ltd" etc.
so
do i have to delete?

sorry if im asking the obvious. heads abit fryed.

[mystery1]

Re: parking eye county claim

If you sent it then don't send it again.

Yes delete that bit.

M1

[helpmeplease1]

Re: parking eye county claim

Thanks M1.
sorry for another obvious question? Do I also send this to the parasites or just the court?

[mystery1]

Re: parking eye county claim

For the best if you do as you don't wish to appear unreasonable as it could mean bigger costs against you if you lose.

Read

http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co...e-try-and.html

http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co...ry-and_11.html


and some cases from http://www.parking-prankster.com/court-cases.html to help get your arguments ready.


I am hopeful the case will get stayed awaiting the appeal.

M1