Help - County claim form recieved, parking eye, event day

**mystery1** · 6th June 2016, 14:13:PM

Re: Help - County claim form recieved, parking eye, event day

Don't use that.

What date is on the claim form ? Add 5 for service and then you get 14 days to respond. If you file acknowledgemnt of service you get 14 more days so 33 in total.

Pictures of the signage could be vital, particularly if you were under the normal limit and it doesn't define "event" which most such signs don't.

Post everything up you have (santised) and the sign if you can get it.

M1

**kkzs** · 6th June 2016, 14:47:PM

Re: Help - County claim form recieved, parking eye, event day

The issue date is 09/05/2016.

I just went back to try and get a store to cancel it, theres only one store left in the retail park (there was only ever a halfords and some furniture shops to begin with, all knocked down now), lady at the desk stubbornly refused to help because I had no proof of of purchase, the "parking offence' was a year ago and i showed her the pcn, she wasn't having any of it.

I am going back there again this evening, so i dont have a picture of signage, i did glance at it and it currently has the 1 hour limit stated for event days, and also in brackets something like "(wembley stadium events schedule)", i cant remember exact, ill post in a bit.

i dont know if such a description is good enough? the said "event" was northfields vs glossop for the fa vase, it is on the wembley stadium website, however surely i cant be expected to know this?

i also really cant recall if that sign was there a year ago. i certainly got no inkling for any event going on, it wasnt the FA cup final.

**kkzs** · 6th June 2016, 21:15:PM

Re: Help - County claim form recieved, parking eye, event day

Please advise further
Sign at entrance http://i.imgur.com/Q42XA7A.jpg

Sign in car park http://i.imgur.com/kk0Pvp1.jpg

**mystery1** · 6th June 2016, 21:47:PM

Re: Help - County claim form recieved, parking eye, event day

http://www.wembley-park-retail.com/contact-us/

Is it them ?

I can't do a defence until later in the week as i'm working today, tomorrow and wednseday and the days are long with little net access.

Can you scan the original ticket and the court claim form (suitably sanitised).

M1

**kkzs** · 7th June 2016, 16:17:PM

Re: Help - County claim form recieved, parking eye, event day

Yes that's them and thanks for your offer.

Please can you review my new draft, please let me know if anything is not appropriate, i have derived it from various sources, taking what i think adds to my response.
i really need to send soon,issue date was 09/05, so that date plus 5 days, plus 28 days only leaves me a couple of days, thanks!!

One thought before reading draft:This car park has always been empty, even if all the shops were packed it probably wouldnt be more than a 2 thirds full because there were like 7/8 shops. Given that its very rarely been close to full (if ever) can parking eye claims a legitimate commercial interest to pursue such a high fee, no one is rushing to take those spots. Can i claim that the car park has never been close to full so whats the commercial interest and then ask them to disprove me? they do after all know all the cars going in and out of the car park. its perhaps somewhat more understandable if its a tesco car park, but it isnt the case here.

my draft below

************************************************** ************************************************** **

I am xxxxxxx xxxxx , defendant in this matter and deny liability for the entirety of the claim.

1./ It is admitted that Defendant is the registered keeper of the vehicle in question.
2/ It is not believed that the signage on site at the time included any stated additional costs or surcharges nor even that the £100 was legible on each occasion. No sum payable to this Claimant was accepted nor even known about by any driver; they were not given a fair opportunity to discover the onerous and nebulous terms by which they would later be bound, nor was it possible for the terms to be understood as the terms themselves are subject to wide interpretation.(please see below regarding "event day" clause)

3/ Inadequate signs incapable of binding the driver - this distinguishes this case from the Beavis case:

(a) Sporadic and illegible (charge not prominent nor large lettering) site/entrance signage - breach of the POFA 2012 Schedule 4 and the BPA Code of Practice and no contract formed to pay any clearly stated sum.

(b) The signs are believed to have no mention of any debt collection additional charge, which cannot form part of any alleged contract.

(c) It is believed the signage was not lit and any terms were not transparent or legible; this is an unfair contract, not agreed by the driver and contrary to the UTCCRs (as applicable at the time).

(d) No promise was made by the driver that could constitute consideration because there was no offer known nor accepted. No consideration flowed from the Claimant.

(e) Absent the elements of a contract, there can be no breach of contract.

4/The claimant has specified in a prior PCN that a one hour parking limit has been breached. This implies that the claimant believes the specific “event day” parking restriction is applicable and that this is the specific condition of the contract which has been breached (not the 2.5 hour usual limit). This specific condition the claimant believes to be relevant has not been specified within the particulars of the case, however it is implied given that the PCN states a one hour limit. The claimant has been ambiguous regarding this. In any case the claimant is devoid of having any basis to even claim that such a clause could even potentially be considered as relevant as explained below.

a.. The claimant is assuming that there was foreknowledge, or reasonable basis to deduce knowledge of its definition of an “event day”.

b. The claimant assumes there was explicit signage in the car park that would clearly inform an individual of its “event day” definition, however only an imprecise reference is made within the signage, which is in a smaller font referring to a “see stadium schedule” (actual words from signage recently seen). It is not clear what stadium, particular facility or schedule is being referred to, and where this schedule is. It is also not clear that this signage was present at the time of the parking event.

c. No additional proof has been provided that there was an acceptable standard of signage within the car park premises that an “event day” was taking place, nor any proof of defining an “event day”, and finally nor has the claimant provided any evidence of a schedule being present to even attempt to refer to. The claimant has therefore been ambiguous regarding why it believes there is any breach of a contract when the terms it expects an individual to “agree” to are vague to begin with.

d. The claimant also assumes it is agreed by anyone entering the retail car park what the definition of an event day is, or that there is even an “event day” taking place. It is also assumed that an individual has consented to being bound by this nebulous description.

e. The claimant has specified that the duration of the parking event is 1hour 59 minutes. Given that no reasonable basis was provided to possibly discern the definition of an “event day”, and given that there is no proof of any acceptable signage of an “event day” taking place within the premises of the car park, or any proof of a stadium schedule being available to refer to, the claimant cannot claim that it’s “event day” clause had any realistic possibility of being understood, and therefore any event day clause should not be regarded as a condition or clause that anyone could reasonably attempt to adhere to.

e. Since the parking event is within the 2.5 hour limit, as specified by the claimant, and that there was no reasonable or realistic possibility to discern the “event day” definition (let alone for that condition to be contractually applicable as explained earlier), no offence should be deemed to have taken place according to the claimants own terms and conditions which specify that any stay under 2.5 hours is permissible, the parking event stay was 1 hour 59 minutes according to the claimant.

5/ BPA CoP breaches - this distinguishes this case from the Beavis case:

(a) no grace period was allowed.

(b) the signs were not compliant in terms of the font size, lighting or positioning.

(c) the sum pursued exceeds £100.

(d) there is/was no compliant landowner contract.

(e) the charge is not based upon a genuine pre-estimate of loss (a condition at the time).

6/ No standing - this distinguishes this case from the Beavis case:

It is believed Parkingeye do not hold a legitimate contract at this car park. As an agent, the Claimant has no legal right to bring such a claim in their name which should be in the name of the landowner. I have the reasonable belief that they do not have the authority to issue charges on this land in their own name and that they have no locus stand to bring this case.

7/ The Beavis case confirmed the fact that, if it is a matter of trespass (not breach of any contract), a parking firm has no standing as a non-landowner to pursue even nominal damages.

8/ The charge is an unenforceable penalty, neither based upon a genuine pre-estimate of loss nor any commercial justification. The Beavis case confirmed that the penalty rule is certainly engaged in any case of a private parking charge and was only disengaged due to the unique circumstances of that case, which do not resemble this claim.

9/ If the court believes there was a contract (which is denied, due to insufficient signage) this is just the sort of 'simple financial contract' identified at the Supreme Court as one with an easily quantifiable loss (the tariff) where any sum pursued for breach must still relate to a genuine pre-estimate of loss.

As the POFA restricts liability to the sum of the parking charge itself and the BPA Code of Practice has a ceiling of £100 which at the time, made it a condition that any charge issued must be based upon a GPEOL, the amounts claimed are excessive and unconscionable. It is not believed that the Claimant has incurred additional costs - be it legal or debt collector costs - and they are put to strict proof that they have actually incurred and can lawfully add an extra £60 to each PCN and that those sums formed part of the contract in the first instance
Save as expressly mentioned above, the Particulars of Claim is denied in its entirety. It is denied that the Claimant is entitled to the relief claimed or any relief at all.

I therefore ask the court to

- strike out the claim as showing no cause of action

OR

- draw the reasonable conclusion that the claimant has no standing to offer parking contracts, nor to pursue them to court in their own name or even pursue a claim based on an “event day” condition that was wholly insufficiently defined, and therefore I ask the court to strike out the claim as the claimant lacks standing

In the alternative, the Defendant is willing for the matter to be decided by POPLA (Parking on Private Land Appeals) which will decide the dispute and limits any further costs to this claimant to £27, with no legal costs. This is the bespoke ADR for BPA members, is available at any time (not just the first 28 days) and has been used to settle private parking court claims on multiple occasions even after proceedings have commenced.

I believe that the facts stated in this (name the document and the date of the document) are true

**kkzs** · 7th June 2016, 22:44:PM

Re: Help - County claim form recieved, parking eye, event day

i totally redrafted my response, which is previous post, so bumping thread.

**mystery1** · 8th June 2016, 08:14:AM

Re: Help - County claim form recieved, parking eye, event day

It needs work.

I'm about to head back out to work. Can you please post a picture, or even better, type out the particulars of claim.

M1

**kkzs** · 8th June 2016, 09:55:AM

Re: Help - County claim form recieved, parking eye, event day

Thanks, if you could let me know,even very briefly, time is ticking.

Claim for monies outstanding from the defendant, as registered
keeper, in relation to a parking charge, issued
21/05/2015, for parking on private land in breach of the terms and
conditions (the contract).

Parkingeyes automated number plate recognition system, monitoring the
wembley retail park, HA9 0EG, Engineers way,
Wembley, london, captured vehicle (my number plate), entering and leaving
the car park, overstaying the max time.
The signage, clearly displayed at the entrance to and throughout the
carpark, states that this is private land,
is managed by parking eye ltd, and is a max stay site, along with other
T&C's by which those who park on site
agree to be bound. In accordance with the T&C's set out by the signage, the
parking charge became payable.
Notince under the protection of freedoms act 2102 has been given under the
Sch 4, making the keeper liable. This
claim is in reference to parking charge(s) .

**kkzs** · 8th June 2016, 14:24:PM

Re: Help - County claim form recieved, parking eye, event day

Please see new attempt

**********************************

am xxxxxxx xxxxx , defendant in this matter and deny liability for the
entirety of the claim.

1./ It is admitted that Defendant is the registered keeper of the vehicle
in question.

2/ It is not believed that the signage on site at the time included any
stated additional costs or surcharges nor even that the £100 was legible on
each occasion. No sum payable to this Claimant was accepted nor even known
about by any driver; they were not given a fair opportunity to discover the
onerous and nebulous terms by which they would later be bound, nor was it
possible for the terms to be understood as the terms themselves are subject
to wide interpretation.(please see below regarding "event day" clause)

3/The claimant has specified in the original PCN that a one hour parking
limit has been breached. This implies that the claimant believes the
specific “event day” parking restriction is applicable and that this is the
specific condition of the contract which has been breached (not the 2.5
hour usual limit), and that the claim is being pursued on the "event say"
clause.

This specific condition the claimant believes to be relevant has not been
specified within the particulars of the case, however it is implied given
that the "PCN" states a one hour limit. The claimant has been ambiguous
regarding this in its communications. The claimant is believed to be devoid
of having any basis to pursue a claim to such an extent, but moreover it
can also be demonstrated the claimant could not reasonably expect an
individual using the car park to fully comprehend what the T&C's were, even
if they did attempt to adhere to the T&C's on the basis the claimant is
specifying.

a.. The claimant has been ambiguous and unclear as to which specific clause
it believes has been (accepted) and breached. It is inferred that since the
claimant is referring to a one hour limit breach they are referring to an
"event day" condition, as the usual restriction applied by the claimant is
2.5 hours, however this has not been made made clear in communications, or
particulars of the case.

b.The claimant is assuming that there was foreknowledge, or reasonable
basis to deduce knowledge of its definition of an “event day”.

c. The claimant assumes there was clear and compliant signage in the car
park that would clearly inform an individual of its “event day” definition,
however only an imprecise reference is made within the signage, which is in
a smaller font referring to a “see stadium schedule” (actual words from
signage recently seen). It is not clear what stadium, particular facility
or schedule is being referred to, and where this schedule is. It is also
not proven what signage was present at the time of the parking event.

d. No additional proof has been provided that there was

i) An acceptable and compliant standard of signage within the car
park premises that an “event day” was taking place on the day of the
parking event.

ii) Any proof of clearly defining an “event day” such that an
individual could even attempt to glean the meaning on the day of the
parking event.

iii) Any evidence of a schedule being present to even attempt to
refer to on the day of the parking event.

iv) Any evidence that there was "an event" (as per the claimants
definition) taking place on the day of the parking event.

v) Any proof that an individual entering the car park will understand
a definition which clearly requires much fuller explanation than what the
signage currently shows ("see stadium schedule"), and then they
subsequently would or have accepted the terms and conditions.

vi) Any proof that even if a fuller definition were to be provided,
that it would lawfully bind an individual to a "contract" to that extent
that the claimant believes.

The claimant has therefore been ambiguous regarding why it believes there
is any breach of a contract when the terms it expects an individual to
“agree” to are vague to begin with. It is also not accepted that the
claimant has any standing to enforce any charge.

e. The claimant also assumes it is agreed by anyone entering the retail car
park what the definition of an event day is, or that there is even an
“event day” taking place. It is also assumed that an individual has
consented to being bound by this nebulous description, and this acceptance
of consent is denied.

f. The claimant has specified that the duration of the parking event is
1hour 59 minutes. Given that no reasonable basis was provided to possibly
discern the definition of an “event day”, and given that there is no proof
of any acceptable signage of an “event day” taking place within the
premises of the car park, or any proof of any "stadium schedule" being
available to refer to, the claimant cannot claim that it’s “event day”
clause had any realistic possibility of being understood, and therefore any
event day clause should not be regarded as a condition or clause that
anyone could reasonably attempt to adhere to.

g. Since the parking event is within the 2.5 hour limit, as specified by
the claimant, and that there was no reasonable or realistic possibility to
discern the “event day” definition (let alone for that condition to be
contractually applicable as explained earlier), no offence should be deemed
to have taken place according to the claimants own terms and conditions
which specify that any stay under 2.5 hours is permissible, the parking
event stay was 1 hour 59 minutes according to the claimant.

4/ Inadequate signs incapable of binding the driver - this distinguishes
this case from the Beavis case:

(a) Sporadic and insufficiently defined signage - breach of the POFA 2012
Schedule 4 and the BPA Code of Practice and no contract formed to pay any
clearly stated sum.

(b) No promise was made by the driver that could constitute consideration
because there was no clear offer known nor accepted. No consideration
flowed from the Claimant.

(c) Absent the elements of a contract, there can be no breach of contract.

5/ No standing - this distinguishes this case from the Beavis case:

It is believed Parkingeye do not hold a legitimate contract at this car
park. As an agent, the Claimant has no legal right to bring such a claim in
their name which should be in the name of the landowner. I have the
reasonable belief that they do not have the authority to issue charges on
this land in their own name and that they have no locus stand to bring this
case.

6/ The Beavis case confirmed the fact that, if it is a matter of trespass
(not breach of any contract), a parking firm has no standing as a
non-landowner to pursue even nominal damages.

7/ The charge is an unenforceable penalty, neither based upon a genuine
pre-estimate of loss nor any commercial justification. The Beavis case
confirmed that the penalty rule is certainly engaged in any case of a
private parking charge and was only disengaged due to the unique
circumstances of that case, which do not resemble this claim.

I therefore ask the court to

- strike out the claim as showing no cause of action

OR

- draw the reasonable conclusion that the claimant has no standing to offer
parking contracts, nor to pursue them to court in their own name or even
pursue a claim based on an “event day” condition that was wholly
insufficiently defined both in the particulars of the case and on the
signage, and therefore I ask the court to strike out the claim as the
claimant lacks standing

I believe that the facts stated in this (name the document and the date of
the document) are true

**mystery1** · 8th June 2016, 15:20:PM

Re: Help - County claim form recieved, parking eye, event day

How long do we have ?

M1

**kkzs** · 8th June 2016, 16:02:PM

Re: Help - County claim form recieved, parking eye, event day

Date of issue was 09/05, so today is 31st day, 2 more days after today?

Does latest iteration need radical change?

**mystery1** · 8th June 2016, 16:28:PM

Re: Help - County claim form recieved, parking eye, event day

I haven't really read it to be honest, but stuff like "It is not believed" is wrong. Admit, deny or put to proof.

https://civillitigationbrief.wordpress.com/2014/07/12/pleading-a-defence-properly-the-difference-between-an-non-admission-a-denial-explored/

I'm off tomorrow and Friday so i'll have a bash. Not saying it'll be the same as any you get on the other 2 sites i've seen you on

M1

**kkzs** · 8th June 2016, 16:32:PM

Re: Help - County claim form recieved, parking eye, event day

Thanks

If it's just improving the wording I can probably do it.

If I am missing a major point that's more concerning.

**mystery1** · 8th June 2016, 16:54:PM

Re: Help - County claim form recieved, parking eye, event day

Well it is and it isn't. It's about phrasing the defence properly so that they know what the need to prove rather than it's just accepted and you set up stuff fr your own evidence.

As an example and not having read much of your case yet, If you were registered keeper and someone else was driving and they stated they were using PoFA you would deny being driver then evidence this fact. If however you wrote "i do not believe i was driving" it sounds like a guess and carries little weight. If you were the driver or didn't know then you would put them to proof. No wishy washy statements.

M1

Help - County claim form recieved, parking eye, event day

Help - County claim form recieved, parking eye, event day

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Announcement

Court Claim ?