Parking Eye Court papers here!

[odwods]

I have been following the threads relating to PE and have been expecting court papers which arrived today. I have read the draft defence posted by steampowered on 21/5/13 on 'Newbie court paprers received' thread and figure this would be sufficient for my reply at this stage. Any further advice?

[ericsbrother]

Be interesting to know what the claim is for, list out what they say you have done to cause them a loss and you will get more precise answers. Dont post any personal info like case number, just what is in their claim and the amounts.

[steampowered]

In the other thread they provided photos of the car leaving/entering the car-park. If PE have not provided clear evidence you were parked there during the times they say you were parked, add a paragraph to the Defence putting them to proof that you were parked there, and putting them to proof as to the time you were parked.

[citizenB]

Sorry to hijack this thread..

 

Another Parking Eye victim has received court papers.. link below.

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?394390-Parking-Eye-Received-a-claim-from-County-court!-Help-needed

[odwods]

Particulars of claim issued 11/6/13.

 

'Claim for monies outstanding from the defendant, as registerd keeper, in relation to a Parking Charge,

issued 'date', for parking without authority on private land.

 

Parking Eye?s automated number plate recognition system,

monitoring 'the retail pak', captured vehicle ***** entering and leaving the car park, overstaying the max stay time.

 

The signage, clearly displayed at the entrance to and throughout the car park,

states that this is private land, is managed by parking eye ltd,

and is a max stay site, along with other terms and conditions

by which those who park on site agree to be bound.

 

In acordance with the tems and conditions set out in the signage,

the Parking Charge became payable.

 

Notice under the POFA 2012 has been given under Sch 4, making the keeper liable.

 

I will provide the defendant with separate detailed particulars within 14 days after the service of the claim form.'

 

I ignored the original letters showing photos of entering and leaving and have destroyed them

as I wasn't going to need them for anything!!

 

this has previously worked until the POFA seemed to change PE's opinion on what they could claim for.

Edited June 18, 2013 by odwods
spelling error

[odwods]

The amount thay have claimed for is £85, plus Court fee £15, plus solicitor's costs £50. Total £150

[odwods]

I have just looked at the date the parking charge was issued again..on the court papers it states the parking charge was issued on a 'certain date', but on all the DR+ letters it is quoting a different date!! I wonder if the date on the court papers is the date of the car parking or if it is the date on which they produced a letter?? Seems unlikely they would be quoting 2 different dates though. Could this be struck out then as they wouldn't be able to proove parking on the date quoted in the court papers???

[ericsbrother]

No, PoFA has changed their opinion of who they can chase rather than reasons for chasing.

Their problem is they are relying on an unenforceable contract and the reason it is unenforceable is twofold. these is legislation that makes a contract with unfair terms null and void and this follows on from old case law regarding unilateral contracts.

"Contract law doesnt allow one party to benefit-both sides should be equal and both should benefit"- Lord Denning

Now, the parking company is doing nothing for you, it doesnt occupy the land so cannot stop you from parking when the occupier has invited you onto the land for whatever reason, say shopping. The contract they quote, generally a sign put up isnt a contract as they state because there is no "promise of performance"-they have no rights or powers to force you nor allow you to enter an agreement or "meeting of minds". Case law is Harvey v Facey. They cannot make you accept their "offer" as the car park isnt theirs to offer and if you are then trespassing then that is for the landlord/occupier to issue a civil tort for compensation. This only allows for the value of the loss and nothing more so as parking your car has not damaged the car park there is no loss. The rest, as stated in other postings, is an unenforceable penalty and thus unlawful. Even if they had an argument for enforcement of management they can only claim for their actual losses and these will be zero in a free car park.

I would also make the point that parking without authority is trespass and nothing to do with them as stated above. Phone your local court and ask about having the claim struck out as defective ask them what form you need to fill in for that. If no joy there, your defence should start with that as no particulars of claim have been issued with the summons then you are unable to file a detailed defence but will defend the claim in its entirety

[odwods]

Thanks for the advice, loads to go at. Will let you know what happens next.

[odwods]

PE further particulars arrived at the weekend, showing all correspondence they have sent....albeit in slightly less intimidating copies than the originals sent, no mention either of the offer to reduce the fee to £50 if paid within 14 days as the originals did. Will register on line with the courts within the 14 days to acknowledge the claim they have sent, then send in a defence......Lynnzer was obviously incorrect in saying PE do not send further particulars, so i won't be able to use the 'abuse of process application' route!

[Homer67]

Why were you 'expecting court papers' - PE may have been issuing more than usual lately but you make it sound like it's part of their process, it is still a very small percentage of their unenforceable invoices that are being issued with actual court papers.

[peanutsallergy]

Why were you 'expecting court papers' - PE may have been issuing more than usual lately but you make it sound like it's part of their process, it is still a very small percentage of their unenforceable invoices that are being issued with actual court papers.

 

An interesting comment.

How do you know the numbers and their process?

 

 

From appearances recently, and the view on other websites, PE have signed up to bulk handling of their claims, and have appointed a law firm to represent them in court.

So any ANPR ticket issued, and ignored, when Rachel pushes the button, a batch run of thousands of claims are issued in bulk, via Northampton, and LPC law then pick them up and run with them.

 

One poster, who I have no reason to doubt, reckons the bulk process is only £15 a claim, so even more likely it's true.

 

http://www.parkingeye.co.uk/News

 

So I would guess the op's expectations were reasonable.

 

(Or do you think it's just Rachel, sitting there 24/7, writing them out by hand, nipping to the post box every day, between running around the country to various hearings? That's the problem with a happy touchy feely forum, where it's all name calling, and back patting, when the PPC actually become smart, no one is allowed to say it, and no one will pat them on the back for it. This isn't one, fortunately, it's just one for decent advice.)

Edited June 24, 2013 by peanutsallergy

[steampowered]

The "Northampton Bulk Centre" is just the name for the centre which issues small claims issued through moneyclaimonline. It is not a special service, anyone can use it.

 

Court fees are set out here: http://hmctscourtfinder.justice.gov.uk/courtfinder/forms/ex050-eng.pdf. For claims below £300 the court fee is £25 plus a £25 hearing fee if the case proceeds.

 

Noone knows exactly how many court claims PE have issued compared to how many people they have written to. It seems PE have issued a large batch of claims ... it is not economic to have law firms attend hearings for cases like this, presumably they are aiming to generate publicity by trying to use them as test cases. They may also be hoping that people roll-over or fail to defend once they receive a claim form.

 

Hopefully we can get some good court victories to counteract the publicity they are hoping to generate.

[ericsbrother]

do you still have the original payment requests with the threats and discounts? If so, make sure they are part of your evidence bundle to prove that there is no proper assessment of their losses or claimed costs but the amounts claimed are an arbitary, unlawful and punitive penalty charges.

They must use Northampton Bulk centre like they use the DVLA, they have bought a season ticket!

[peanutsallergy]

The "Northampton Bulk Centre" is just the name for the centre which issues small claims issued through moneyclaimonline. It is not a special service, anyone can use it.

 

Court fees are set out here: http://hmctscourtfinder.justice.gov.uk/courtfinder/forms/ex050-eng.pdf. For claims below £300 the court fee is £25 plus a £25 hearing fee if the case proceeds.

 

Noone knows exactly how many court claims PE have issued compared to how many people they have written to. It seems PE have issued a large batch of claims ... it is not economic to have law firms attend hearings for cases like this, presumably they are aiming to generate publicity by trying to use them as test cases. They may also be hoping that people roll-over or fail to defend once they receive a claim form.

 

Hopefully we can get some good court victories to counteract the publicity they are hoping to generate.

 

Nope, you appear to have misunderstood, or missed out entirely on what the bulk process is.

It's not MCOL.

Different processing, different fees.

Read

 

http://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/northampton-bulk-centre

 

http://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/northampton-bulk-centre/ccbc

 

for an explanation.

 

There is a saving for computer readable claims

 

http://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/northampton-bulk-centre/claim-production-centre/frequently-asked-questions

 

second question.

 

This sort of lack of knowledge is what worries me in some of the responses on here.

 

PPC are moving on, we need to grasp that, and try to keep up.

 

An intelligent poster may be asking why PE still show £25 on a claim, if they may not be actually paying the full amount.

 

So, maybe they are, maybe they aren't.

[Homer67]

I'm curious Peanutsallergy, why are you here exactly?

 

You seem to be very pro PPC and you go to great lengths to rubbish any assurances given to posters receiving first time PPC invoices.

 

I will do an FOI to PE and ask the relevant question but I doubt you will want to hear the answer, how about you start proving some of your given facts and give some figures to back up your claims that PE are doing court almost every time.

 

I do think you are scaring people into paying instead of providing what is factually known - that PPC's can only claim actual loss and only the landowner can claim any loss in court.

[odwods]

Expectation of court papers, because I had the run of DR+ letters as others on here had had then like I said because I'd been following threads and others were receiving court papers an assumption was made that I'd get them aswell. I didn't realise that there were only a few being issued.

I did not keep any of the original documents sent to me as back then I had ignored, ignored , ignored and they were not persued any further I didn't realise the PoFA would trigger such a response from PE, so my bundle will not provide original docs...

[peanutsallergy]

I'm curious Peanutsallergy, why are you here exactly?

 

You seem to be very pro PPC and you go to great lengths to rubbish any assurances given to posters receiving first time PPC invoices.

 

I will do an FOI to PE and ask the relevant question but I doubt you will want to hear the answer, how about you start proving some of your given facts and give some figures to back up your claims that PE are doing court almost every time.

 

I do think you are scaring people into paying instead of providing what is factually known - that PPC's can only claim actual loss and only the landowner can claim any loss in court.

 

FOI, on a private company?

 

Should be an interesting response.

 

As to the rest of your statements, yes, we've all heard it before.

 

As you are absolutely certain you're right, when advising others, at their risk, and any other opinion is merely "scaremongering" please enlighten us with your pedigree to make such sweeping, categorical statements.

 

How many tickets you personally have had,

how many you've ignored,

and how many you personally have faced in court, and obviously won?

[Homer67]

Several, specifically it was unenforceable invoices from Parking Eye that brought me here in the first place, I have ignored several and I have more recently sent the prove costs and deny liability letter, no court papers ever received and interestingly enough Parking Eye are the mob that give up the quickest.

 

Now show me your credentials and I don't mean your PPC and BPA membership card.

[peanutsallergy]

Several, specifically it was unenforceable invoices from Parking Eye that brought me here in the first place, I have ignored several and I have more recently sent the prove costs and deny liability letter, no court papers ever received and interestingly enough Parking Eye are the mob that give up the quickest.

 

Now show me your credentials and I don't mean your PPC and BPA membership card.

 

 

So,

 

a few ignores from the good old days then, and nothing ever changes?

 

How many from this year would be good.

[steampowered]

Nope, you appear to have misunderstood, or missed out entirely on what the bulk process is.

It's not MCOL.

Different processing, different fees.

Read

 

http://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/northampton-bulk-centre

 

http://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/northampton-bulk-centre/ccbc

 

for an explanation.

 

There is a saving for computer readable claims

 

http://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/northampton-bulk-centre/claim-production-centre/frequently-asked-questions

 

second question.

 

This sort of lack of knowledge is what worries me in some of the responses on here.

 

PPC are moving on, we need to grasp that, and try to keep up.

 

An intelligent poster may be asking why PE still show £25 on a claim, if they may not be actually paying the full amount.

 

So, maybe they are, maybe they aren't.

 

Your post is not entirely accurate. MCOL claims go through the County Court Bulk Centre. If PE are paying an issue fee of 25 the implication is that they used MCOL.

 

The Claim Production Centre, which is another branch of the CCBC for which anyone can register, allows for a reduced initial fee of 15. There will still be a hearing fee if the case progresses.

 

Frankly, I don't think it matters either way. These are still county court claims. The procedure hasn't changed and the law hasn't changed. PoFA allows PPCs to pursue the owner of the car rather than being forced to identify the driver, but all the other defence arguments still apply. PE still have not made any real attempt to draft their signs in a way likely to avoid their charges being construed as unenforceable penalty clauses.

 

It will not be economic for PE to pursue parking charges if people defend these claims. It only works if people roll-over or fail to defend and end up with default judgment against them.

[Homer67]

So,

 

a few ignores from the good old days then, and nothing ever changes?

 

How many from this year would be good.

 

What do you want, written evidence from me?

 

I have PPC invoices from every year going back for about 3 years, not that that makes any difference to the advice I have given which is the same as every other PPC despising poster on here.

 

The law has not changed in the last few years other than the PPC are now able to send their unenforceable invoices to the RK of the vehicle - as 'I was not the driver' was never recommended as a defence it makes not one iota of difference.

 

PPC's still have not addressed the issue of not being able to fine people or the fact that only the landowner is able to seek reimbursement of costs.

 

So the 'good old days' as you put it have never gone away, PPC's are still toothless.

 

As you seem to be so pro PPC I have to ask what is your agenda here?

Edited June 30, 2013 by citizenB

[peanutsallergy]

....................As you seem to be so pro PPC I have to ask what is your agenda here?

 

 

Mainly trying to get heads out of the sand.

 

Still, I'm sure you're right, nothing has changed, every PE case is doomed to failure, barely worth more than a token defence?

And if anyone does lose, they're a PPC stooge?

 

Anyone that says otherwise is subject to derogatory name tags.

 

If I join in with the name calling will I be accepted?

Edited June 30, 2013 by citizenB

[peanutsallergy]

I'm curious Peanutsallergy, why are you here exactly?

 

You seem to be very pro PPC and you go to great lengths to rubbish any assurances given to posters receiving first time PPC invoices.

 

I will do an FOI to PE and ask the relevant question but I doubt you will want to hear the answer, how about you start proving some of your given facts and give some figures to back up your claims that PE are doing court almost every time.

 

I do think you are scaring people into paying instead of providing what is factually known - that PPC's can only claim actual loss and only the landowner can claim any loss in court.

 

 

............in the 5 days between May 24 and May 28, ParkingEye issued 663 claims.

 

http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2013/06/how-much-do-parkingeye-pay-rachel-ledson.html

[steampowered]

............in the 5 days between May 24 and May 28, ParkingEye issued 663 claims.

 

http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2013/06/how-much-do-parkingeye-pay-rachel-ledson.html

 

That's an interesting link, thanks. That is an awful lot of claims over a very short period - interesting that PE has decided to issue them all at once. The hope must be that most don't get defended ... PE would struggle to attend 663 county court hearings.