*WON* 70 Page PROSECUTION STATEMENT - Parking Eye!!! - won

[Penny1]

Re: 70 Page PROSECUTION STATEMENT - Parking Eye!!!

Hello Open Law, On the 7th I was given permission by a staff member over the phone (but not sure which one) and the staff member showing me around (whose name I do know) confirmed with the manager that I could use a free session with a personal trainer on the 15th. Don't think he specifically mentioned the car park.
But when the court letter came through and I asked him to review the CCTV to make sure I was using the gym on the two dates, he agreed that this was true. He then wrote an email to PE to cancel the tickets. But they chose to ignore him (on three occasions!) x

[Openlaw15]

Re: 70 Page PROSECUTION STATEMENT - Parking Eye!!!

Hello Open Law, On the 7th I was given permission by a staff member over the phone (but not sure which one) and the staff member showing me around (whose name I do know) confirmed with the manager that I could use a free session with a personal trainer on the 15th. Don't think he specifically mentioned the car park.
But when the court letter came through and I asked him to review the CCTV to make sure I was using the gym on the two dates, he agreed that this was true. He then wrote an email to PE to cancel the tickets. But they chose to ignore him (on three occasions!) x

Dealing with the first one. Were you given permission to use the gym's car park, by the staff member when you called from home (ie prior to visiting the gym)? You were recorded by Parking Eye's number plate recognition system as parking 7 October 2015 for 1 hour, 3 minutes. Did the staff member, to your recall, say there were a manager or anything like that? Do you have a copy of the email...hide/ remove the personal details. The way I understand the law is that a manager is employed by a company to provide services for his employer which include making decisions that affect on-site parking. The terms of Parking Eye are a different matter as Parking Eye is agent for the principal (the gym company/ employer).

There was no grace period except for the time to familiarise yourself with the parking lay out, terms and conditions, according to Parking Eye's statement (part after conclusion, dealing with your defence). It also states the offer is the signage and the acceptance the your vehicle occupying the space.

[Penny1]

Re: 70 Page PROSECUTION STATEMENT - Parking Eye!!!

I don't understand what this has to do with my 'cancellation' question?

[Openlaw15]

Re: 70 Page PROSECUTION STATEMENT - Parking Eye!!!

I don't understand what this has to do with my 'cancellation' question?

Parking Eye are trying to discredit this cancellation argument in their written claimant statement by saying, regardless it's not what staff/ managers on the gym's site/ premises state (ie a promise), it's what they (Parking Eye) state in their terms. I am therefore doing comparisons with Beavis case as this is the authority (which I now accept as such), and yours and looking for grey areas in between (ie distinguishing) to your benefit. On the other hand, if you acted on the promise by the manager, and you can prove it you may be able to benefit a promissory estoppel defence to get you out of this mess. This type of defence is normally for a contract however it can also be used if there is no contract, ie where a legal relationship exists in some form.

I think a copy of the contract that Parking Eye have with the gym (property/ land owner) would be useful, to see what terms and conditions there are concerning Parking Eye as a third party. What is the name of the gym's company; it's likely to be an Ltd (Legal identity, as opposed personal identity, ie sole trader), we may be able to find some details of how the company operates under Companies House, ie its constitution (rules) for directors or just anything to get an idea how the company operates and whether there delegable duty clauses, ie permitting responsibility for senior staff, ie managers.

[Openlaw15]

Re: 70 Page PROSECUTION STATEMENT - Parking Eye!!!

Hello all, thank you for such a fantastic response to the lay representative question.
I wonder if someone could just clarify the following point for me:
9. CANCELLATIONS
9.1 It is the Customer’s responsibility to keep Permit Holders details up-to-date on
ParkingEye’s Website. As each offence and Parking Charge costs money to generate and issue, each Site is allowed to cancel a maximum of 20% of offences generated at the Site such cancellations to relate only to offences generated by persons whose details were not (but should have been accordance with this clause) inputted or updated by the Customer as Permit Holders. ParkingEye reserves the right to terminate with 30 days’ notice, where the percentage of such cancellations exceeds this for 2 months (8 weeks) as a result of failure by the Customer to keep the Permit Holders’ details inputted or updated.

One of my defence points is that the principal had the right to cancel the tickets. Could PE not argue that the gym had exceeded the 20% limit that month? Love everybody on here xXx
.

Sorry Penny, I missed this question. Is this a term of the Gym or Parking Eye? You're not a permit holder and i think it only applies to free use of car park as a gym member. So it shouldn't apply to you to your detriment. You do not have a contract with gym. However, what is beneficial about it is that the company and or parking eye do have a system in place to deal with cancelling parking charges. i don't think quota for cancelling parking charges is reasonable if there are genuine problems that require cancellation.

[Penny1]

Re: 70 Page PROSECUTION STATEMENT - Parking Eye!!!

Hello all you lovely :beagle:

I believe Mystery1 added the contract that PE have with the gym. I will add again for the benefit of everyone.

However, I want to ask everyone if I should send that contract as one of the additional documents that I will be using in my defence?
If I show the unredacted version, will PE claim breach of commercial sensitivity or some rule like that?
PE have added the contract to their 70page prosecution statement but it has redacted bits in it.
If LPC representative shows the redacted version only to judge, will that be accepted?

and finally, If i dont add it to my additonal document pack that i send to court and PE, and LPC guy only has redacted version in the court room...will i look like a smarty pants if i say 'i have the unredacted version your honour'? n be allowed to use it against them?

Thanks all xxx

[R0b]

Re: 70 Page PROSECUTION STATEMENT - Parking Eye!!!

You can use the unredacted version if you wish to do so, if you obtained it legally - you are not bound by confidentiality so that is fine.

[mystery1]

Re: 70 Page PROSECUTION STATEMENT - Parking Eye!!!

The contract i posted is a sample of their contracts obtained originally via freedom of information for a hospital if i recall correctly.

Sorry i haven't posted much of late but i don't agree with much of what has been posted. I'll try and have a look soon even though i stand by what i posted before.

M1

[Penny1]

Re: 70 Page PROSECUTION STATEMENT - Parking Eye!!!

omg Mystery its been ages!!!
n oh no please do state what you don't agree with...im taking most of what is said here as gospel.
Im sticking with what you have stated originally:
1)trespass
2)manager tried cancelling as principal
3)Poor lighting
4)oral permission
5)(this is my own thing) Exhibit 4 photo (shown in original post) shows front desk of gym. no notice to enter car reg plus staff member does not mention where to enter it. The device to enter car reg is located further into gym and looks like an alarm setting device. very discrete. (not sure if its a valid point but i thought i would mention it).

p.s. please answer my cancellation question...could PE claim that the site exceeded the 20% cancellation limit? If so, how do i counteract that? xxx

[Penny1]

Re: 70 Page PROSECUTION STATEMENT - Parking Eye!!!

Also as a side note for everyone:
On site overview (page 67) there is a bit that shows a sign (1/2 with two arrows) that should be facing outside the car park and inside the car park. The key is on page 66.
But according to Exhibit 3 (in my original post) if you zoom into the sign on the railing...its only an inward facing sign. Nothing on the outside...so does that mean I can ask the judge to discredit the entire site overview because it is not accurate? xxx
Im starting to enjoy all this detective work...im embracing the LB in me :lb: x

[Penny1]

Re: 70 Page PROSECUTION STATEMENT - Parking Eye!!!

Plus i got more evidence...please advise if i should add to my defence pack.
The following pics show the sign above the entrance of car park.
Exhibit 6 is sign during normal lighting (impossible to see).
Exhibit 7 shows the sign when my flash in on (much clearer).
Im thinking of using it for my poor lighting defence point...what do you ladies and gentlemen think? xxx

[Penny1]

Re: 70 Page PROSECUTION STATEMENT - Parking Eye!!!

I do have an Exhibit 5...but im less sure on its benefit...
Basically it shows the road outside the entrace of the car park. Theres road works going on (crossrail stuff).
Thinking of using it as mitigating circumstances for not focusing on sign above entrance of car park?
Because one lane is closed, two lanes of traffic have to travel along one lane...dangerous stuff!

Some of you lot must think im some sort of a freak being awake at almost 2am and posting all this...but these Parking Eye people have stopped me from being able to have a good night sleep...they are so going down!
:mad2:

[Penny1]

Re: 70 Page PROSECUTION STATEMENT - Parking Eye!!!

My last post for the night...got the big EU vote today...so need to be awake later!
Heres all the rest of the documents I am planning on adding to my defence pack.
If anyone disagrees with anything then please say so...i am open to suggestions...

Feedback would be especially appreciated for the document titled 'quoted evidence'
Anyone who's been following the thread will be able to see where im going with it...but not sure if its any good. Its roughly in order of what I (or my father) will be quoting to the judge...
(good idea to quote Beavis judgement 190? I was thinking for the benefit of the judge I would add it).

BTW the other evidence things are in the original post. PE contract obtained via FOI request will also be in the additional defence pack.

Thank you all and goodnight xXx :flypig:

[Penny1]

Re: 70 Page PROSECUTION STATEMENT - Parking Eye!!!

Hey Guys,

I been away for a couple of weeks. No technology or anything. Very liberating.

Anyway enough about me...

I can see that the thread has died. Can nobody help to answer the questions that I have posted?

Pleaseeeee xxx

[CLL1]

Re: 70 Page PROSECUTION STATEMENT - Parking Eye!!!

On my interpretation of the Legal Services Act 2007 (LSA 2007), I do not think that a trainee solicitor has the right to appear in the County Court, although they would be able to appear in chambers.

Exercising rights of audience is a reserved legal activity within the meaning of Schedule 2 of the LSA 2007. Section 13(2) of the LSA 2007 provides that a person is entitled to carry on a "reserved legal activity" (only) where he is either:

• Authorised person in relation to the relevant activity.

• An exempt person in relation to that activity.

It is on qualification as a solicitor that individuals become authorised by the SRA. The categories of exempt persons identified in paragraph 7 of Schedule 3 include:

• A person whose work includes assisting in the conduct of litigation.

• Where the person is assisting in the conduct of litigation under instructions given by an individual [authorised to conduct litigation], and under the supervision of that individual.

• Where proceedings are being heard in chambers in the High Court or a County Court and are not reserved family proceedings.

On this basis, it appears that a trainee solicitor has rights of audience in chambers in the High Court or County Court, provided that the proceedings are not reserved family proceedings, and the other requirements of the LSA 2007 are met. However, note that Cordery on Solicitors, at paragraph D[22] states: "[l]ay representatives now have rights of audience in small claims cases dealt with by arbitration in county courts" (see the Lay Representatives (Rights of Audience) Order 1992, SI 1992 No 1966.)