Parking Eye Court Summon + Notice of Proposed to the small Claims Track

[sonuwd]

hi every one,

 

New to this website and need some advice please.

 

 

I am a chaffeur, I was issued a parking eyes ANPR ticket parking front of ( Holidays Inn Hammersmith Entrance ) to pickup a client. The ticket was sent on my old address.

 

Based on the information on this website, I reply the Parking eye and told them that the ticket is not valid and they should cancel it. Also I inform Parking eye with my new address details. which they totally ignored and send me court summon on my old address two months ago. I read the information from this website and defend the claim according to the guide.

 

Today I receive Notice of Proposed Allocation to the Small Claims Track.

 

My question are.

 

Does the parking eye taking the case to court hearing?

Do I need to reply to this proposal?

 

what are the odds to win the case if they are going to hearing?

 

Place where I Parked:

 

Its a hotel on King Street Hammersmith, which has a private road on the side and the main entrance is on the side private road. The ANPR camera is at the entrance of the road but not at the entrance of the Car park which is at the end of that road.

 

here is google streetview version.

 

So as you can see the set down and pickup is not in the car park but front of the hotel door. I dont occupied any parking place to pay for it, so why would I pay for it?

 

any advice welcome please.

[havinastella]

Have you defended the claim?

 

What was the POC? What was your defence?

 

Did you appeal tp POPLA?

[innocent_man]

What did you write in appeal?

[sonuwd]

I wrote this on defence forms

--------------------------------------

1.The defendant is a PCO licensed chauffeur, working in and around London, on **/**/2014, defendant stop the car front of Holiday inn Hammersmith entrance at pickup and dropoff point to pickup client.

 

2. It is admitted that Defendant is the owner of CAR REG.

 

3. The Defendant is unable to admit or deny the precise times he was parked in Holiday Inn, Hammersmith car park as he has no recollection of this. The Claimant is put to proof of the same.

 

4. It is denied that the Claimant entered into a contract with the Defendant. As held by the Upper Tax Tribunal in Vehicle Control Services Limited v HMRC [2012] UKUT 129 (TCC), any contract requires offer and acceptance. The Claimant was simply contracted by the landowner to provide car-park management services and is not capable of entering into a contract with the Defendant on its own account, as the carpark is owned by and the terms of entry set by the landowner. Accordingly, it is denied that the Claimant has authority to bring this claim. The proper Claimant is the landowner.

 

5. If there was a contract, it is denied that the penalty charge is incorporated into the contract. As per Thornton v Shoe Lane Parking [1971] 2 QB 163, the relevant term must be made known before a contract was formed. Here, the charge was not incorporated into the contract because the NPR camera are installed on the entrance to the Holiday inn hotel, but not at the car park, so anybody enter to pickup or drop off passengers from hotel also being caught on these cameras and Parking eye can use the images to send PCNs by post. The cameras should be at the entrance of the car park so anybody who enter into car park pay for the parking bays. But not by just entering in hotel to pickup or drop off the passengers at pickup or drop off point.

 

6. Alternatively, even if there was a contract, the provision requiring payment of £165 is an unenforceable penalty clause. Following Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Co Ltd v Selfridge & Co Ltd [1915] AC 847, clauses designed to punish a party for breach of contract may only be upheld if they represent a genuine pre-estimate of loss. The provision is a penalty and not a genuine pre-estimate of loss for the following reasons: (a) as the Claimant is not the landowner and suffers no loss whatsoever as a result of a parking overstay; (b) the amount claimed is evidently disproportionate to any loss suffered by the Claimant; © the penalty bears no relation to the circumstances because it remains the same no matter whether a motorist overstays by ten seconds or ten years; and (d) the clause is specifically expressed to be a penalty on the Claimant's signs.

-----------------------------------------------

 

I didnt appeal to Popla because PE never replied me on my new address. I informed them with new address in my appeal letter to PE.

[ericsbrother]

I would have said that you were not parked as defined by the understood meaning but were stopped for alighting or picking up of passengers and terefore this is outside the remit of the contract between the occupiers and PE so they have no basis of claim.

[ericsbrother]

BTW, small claims track is best, they cant claim stupid costs then and it is fairly informal.

[dx100uk]

pers I would not be using the word penalty charge

 

its a Parking Charge

 

or as we call it a speculative invoice

 

if PE have used the penalty word anywhere

 

they need pulling up on it.

 

dx