• Welcome to the LegalBeagles Consumer and Legal Forum.
    Please Register to get the most out of the forum. Registration is free and only needs a username and email address.
    REGISTER
    Please do not post your full name, reference numbers or any identifiable details on the forum.

Parking eye Ltd

Collapse
Loading...
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Parking eye Ltd

    Hello,

    Having had a string of letters / invoices from Parkingeye Ltd for a stay in a free car park at a motorway services

    I contacted
    Parking Ticket Appeals Limited T/A Parking Ticket Appeals Service
    Reg no: 8981061 | Registered in England
Registered
    Address: 92 Carrwood Road, Sheffield, S21 3TF

    Ricky, c/o Parking Ticket Appeals Limited sent me a court defence document that was completed and signed by me and returned to the court

    Then followed from ParkingEye Ltd entitle ‘NOTICE TO PROCEED’, stating:-

    “ParkingEye wishes to proceed with this County Court Claim. Please also find attached the reply to defence for the case between ParkingEye Ltd and Mr Mark Atkins.

    Notice of Proposed Allocation to the Small Claims Track

    Ref: Claim Number (*************)
    Claimant: Parkingeye Ltd (ref:*************)
    Defendant: (************)
    Date: 19th December 2014
    that states:

    1 This is now a defended claim
    a The defendant has filed a defence, a copy of which is enclosed (struck through)
    2 It appears that this case is suitable for allocation to the small claims track.
    3 If you believe that this track is not the appropriate track for the claim, you must complete box C1 on the Small Claims Direction Questionnaire (Form N180) and explain why
    4 You must by 5th January 2015 complete the Small Claims Directions Questionnaire (Form N180) and file it with the court office
    The County Court Business Centre, 4th Floor St Katharine's House, 21-27 St Katharine's Street, Northampton, NN1 2LH and serve copies on all other parties.

    On receiving :
    Notice of Allocation to the Small Claims Track (Hearing) dated 27th January 2015.

    Parkineye Ltd 1st Claimant Ref: ************
    (***********) 1st Defendant Ref:

    District Judge ******** has considered the statement of the case and questionnaires filed and allocated the claim to the small claims track.

    Court of own motion orders
    The Court Directs:
    1. Unless the claimant’s “solicitors” provides evidence to the court by 17th February 2015 of appropriate practising certificates and insurance allowing him/her to conduct Litigation on behalf of another the claim for £50.00 Solicitors costs be struck out.

    2. Each party must delivery to every other party and to the court office copies of all documents on which he intends to rely at the hearing no later than 14 days before the hearing. (These should include the latter making the claim and reply.)

    The original documents may be brought to the hearing.

    The hearing of the claim will take place at 10;00 AM on the 4th March 2015 at the County Court at ***** ******* ***** and should take no longer than 90 minutes.

    A hearing fee of @25.00 is payable by 10 February 2015 by the claimant unless you make an application for a fee concession. Failure to pay the fee will result in the hearing being removed from the list.

    The court must be informed immediately if the case is settled by agreement before the hearing date.

    The hearing fee will be refunded in full if the court received notice in writing at least 7 days before the hearing date, that the case is settled or discontinued.

    The parties are encouraged to contact each other with a view to trying to settle the case or narrow the issues. However the court must be informed immediately if the case is settled by agreement before the hearing date.

    Notes
    5 If you cannot, or choose not to, attend the hearing, you must write to tell the court at least 7 days before the date of the hearing. The district judge will hear the case in your absence, but will take account of your statement of case and any other documents you have filed.
    • If you do not attend the hearing and do not give notice that you will not attend, the district judge may strike out your claim, defence or counterclaim. If the claimant attends but the defendant does not, the district judge may make a decision based on evidence of the claimant only.

    No party may rely at the hearing on any report from an expert unless express permission has been granted by the court beforehand. Anyone wishing to rely on an expert must write to the court immediately on receipt of this order and seek permission, giving an explanation why the assistance of a an expert is necessary.

    The claimant and defendant shall file at court AND serve on the other side of their statement and witness statement with their copy documents. Witnesses should attend the hearing.

    All parties and other witnesses to file their statements with the court and serve on the other side 14 days before the hearing. Failure to comply with this will result in the parties not being permitted to use the evidence without leave of the court.

    NOTE: Failure to comply with the direction of the directions may result in the case being adjourned and in the party at fault having to pay costs. The parties are encouraged always to try to settle the case by negotiating with each other. The court must be informed immediately if the case is settled before the hearing.

    Date: 27 January 2015

    I contacted Ricky c/o Parking Ticket Appeals Limited
    Only to find out that they / he has gone out of business.

    I am looking for advice on what to do next as the 14 days to file statements with the court is nearing.

    I do not have the time to study law due to my work commitments and could either take advice or allocate a solicitor on my behalf.

    Looking forward to hearing comments.
    Regards, MA
    Last edited by Kati; 11th February 2015, 19:43:PM. Reason: removed identifying details :)
    Tags: None

  • #2
    Re: Parking eye Ltd

    Can you post up the defence please ?

    M1

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: Parking eye Ltd

      Claim Number ********
      BETWEEN:
      ParkingEye Ltd (Claimant)
      and
      Mark Atkins
      Defence


      1) I am Mark Atkins and I am the defendant in this matter. At the relevant time I was the registered keeper of a vehicle with the registration mark of *** ***
      The claimant has no locus standi
      2) The case is based on a contract that Parking Eye claim to have with the driver based on a claimed contract. The signage does not indicated that Parking Eye is the Party to whom the motorist would contract with

      3) Parking Eye are acting in this case as an agent and they have no right to issue any claim in the name of the principal.

      4) Should Parking Eye try and rely on Parking Eye Ltd v Beavis and Wardley (Cambridge County Court, 2014) in an attempt to be able to justify their ability to litigate in their name and not that of the landowner. This present case is different as they are clearly an agent

      5) In the unlikely event that the Claimant somehow attempts to claim they are the Principal then I put Parking Eye to Strict proof on this, any consideration in the contract should be with the landowner

      6) This claim is being made by the wrong claimant and as such has no merit.

      No Loss Suffered by Claimant.
      7) The claim is based on damages for an alleged breach of contract.

      8) A fundamental principle of English Law that a party who suffers damages through breach of contract can only seek through court action to be put back in the same position as they would have been if the breach had not occurred. They must prove their genuine or actual loss

      9) No Loss has been suffered by the Claimant as a result of any alleged breaches of contract. Any losses are due to the landholder, not the Claimant. Therefore I submit that as the Landowner offers free parking, the loss to the landholder is zero.

      10) I require that Parking Eye proves its loss in this case.
      No contract with the claimant.
      11) Any contract must have offer, acceptance and consideration both ways. There is no consideration from ParkingEye to motorist; the gift of parking is the landowner’s, not ParkingEye’s. There is no consideration from motorist to ParkingEye; this is a Free car park, and there is no method or contemplation of payment of any parking charges whilst on site. As such, the essential parts of the contract that the claimant purports to exist are missing ab initio.
      Inflated court costs
      12) The claim includes a sum of £50, described by Parking eye as Solicitor’s costs. The claimant is known to be a serial litigant, issuing up to 1,000 similar claims on a monthly basis and in many cases even more, using the bulk processing service. These are fully automated, no intervention is required by a solicitor, and the Claimant is put to strict proof to show how this cost has been incurred. The Claimant cannot rely on Nossen’s Patent Letter (1969) to justify the charge, as this is part of their everyday routine, and no expert services are involved.
      I deny the claim in full and intend to fully defend it,
      I am willing to enter into Alternative Dispute Resolution, to resolve this matter without using valuable court time and resources. I would suggest that the appropriate form of ADR would be a referral to the Parking on Private Land Appeals body (POPLA), as this is the specialist ADR provider for the Parking Industry.

      Signed:
      Date:

      I believe the contents of this defence to be true to the best of my knowledge.

      Name Date:
      Defendant

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: Parking eye Ltd

        Wow. I hope you didn't pay much for that. No mention of a penalty anywhere ? Jeez. At least you'll probably save the £50.

        Paying a solicitor is pointless. You'd be better off financially negotiating a settlement which usually can be £50/60.

        I'd have thought that when i read your defence i'd see what you needed to submit but there is nothing there. Nothing about the parking event, nothing about the location. For that "defence" there is nothing to submit. If the judge finds they do have locus standi then you are left with a vague statement about loss. If the Judge follows Beavis you're in trouble.


        If you had the time and inclination you could try and be fly by producing a decent skeleton argument which in essence would be your defence. It's not allowed but in small claims you may get away with it. You shouldn't, but you might.

        The main point should be that the charge is a penalty. The Beavis appeal will decide one way or another.

        M1

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: Parking eye Ltd

          Many thanks for your comments. That probably explains why Ricky has gone out of business!!!!

          I got his details from a forum where he was deemed to be very effective. Obviously not.

          I will call Parking eye and see what they will accept. Bugger....

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: Parking eye Ltd

            Any other clues that may help my case will be gratefully appreciated.
            Many thanks

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: Parking eye Ltd

              http://www.parking-prankster.com/court-cases.html

              http://www.parking-prankster.com/case-law.html

              Pay attention to the parking eye v anyone cases and CEL V McCafferty.

              An example of a defence that i wrote http://www.legalbeagles.info/forums/...715#post488715

              M1

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: Parking eye Ltd

                Thank you for the recent links. I'm still treading through these

                To day, a letter came from Parkingeye as the claimant's witness statement and supporting documents and to advise that the claimant will not be in attendance to minimise costs and that attendance will be through there agent from LPC Law.

                The letter also brings attention that the enclosed bundle contains the judgement given in the Test Case before HHJ Moloney QC. Stating that the hearing lasted a day, and judgement was then reserved for the HHJ Moloney QC to consider the relevant law. Judgement was then given in parkingeye's favour on all points raised.

                I will be calling parking eye tomorrow to negotiate a settlement and will inform of the outcome.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: Parking eye Ltd

                  Hi mark, glad to see you managed to login ok. I would hold fire for now as there is an important Court case (Beavis) coming up in the next week that may have a completely different outcome for Parking Eye claims
                  Any opinions I give are my own. Any advice I give is without liability. If you are unsure, please seek qualified legal advice.

                  IF WE HAVE HELPED YOU PLEASE CONSIDER UPGRADING TO VIP - click here

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: Parking eye Ltd

                    Many thanks for getting me back in. most appreciated as well as the information / update.

                    I do have a court date of the 4th March 2015.

                    Do I need to ask for a postponement, assuming that I may be able to apply for one, or just wait?

                    Best Regards, MA

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: Parking eye Ltd

                      If parking eye are so reliant on a case they know is going to the court of appeal they should grant a request to have the case put on hold (stayed) until said appeal is resolved.

                      If they don't, ask the court. http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co...urt-cases.html

                      M1

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: Parking eye Ltd

                        COURT HEARING 4th March 10:00.

                        I have just been to the county court at Scunthorpe, North Lincolnshire for my case against Parkingeye.

                        I had written to the judge expressing my concern that my case should be deterred due to the Beavis case.

                        The judge informed the Parkingeye representative that they should have notified the court weeks ago about the impending appeal and as such the case will be heard after such time if applicable. He also stated that if Parkingeye lost that is the end of the case. If they win then negotiations should be adhered to with a payment offer that is sensible and in line with parking charges i.e. £20.00

                        The parkineye representative constantly argued that this case must be heard. Again the judge told her that even if he wasted 90 minutes of court time he would then deferred the case until after he outcome of the appeal case (Beavis).

                        Any advise on my next action will be greatly appreciated.
                        Best regards,

                        Mark Atkins

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: Parking eye Ltd



                          M1

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: Parking eye Ltd

                            I'll have two. Many Thanks for advise
                            MA

                            Comment

                            View our Terms and Conditions

                            LegalBeagles Group uses cookies to enhance your browsing experience and to create a secure and effective website. By using this website, you are consenting to such use.To find out more and learn how to manage cookies please read our Cookie and Privacy Policy.

                            If you would like to opt in, or out, of receiving news and marketing from LegalBeagles Group Ltd you can amend your settings at any time here.


                            If you would like to cancel your registration please Contact Us. We will delete your user details on request, however, any previously posted user content will remain on the site with your username removed and 'Guest' inserted.
                            Working...
                            X