Parking Eye ANPR LOC Now claimform - Teanlowe - Booths Poulton Le Fylde

[FTMDave]

Well spotted Nicky Boy!

 

What a useless attempt at a frightener.

[lookinforinfo]

I am grateful that Mr Ford did not write War and Peace

-his idea of keeping it brief is not mine but I will try and keep mine a lot shorter [and more accurate than his].

 

if you are going to quote extensively from PE v Beavis it would seem in the interest of fairness that one would quote dissenting voices as well hose who agreed.

 

Lord Toulson for instance said this during the summing up-

 

314.          i am not persuaded that it would be reasonable to make that assumption in this case and i would therefore have allowed the appeal. 

it has been suggested that managing the effective use of parking space in the interests of the retailer and the users of those outlets who wished to find spaces to park could only work by deterring people from occupying space for a long time. but that is a guess. it may be so; it may not. 

parkingeye called no evidence on the point. 
but it is common knowledge that many supermarket car parks make no such charge.

 i return to the point that it was for parkingeye to show the factual grounds on which it could reasonably assume that a customer using that car park would have agreed, in individual negotiations, to pay £85 if he overstayed for a minute, or parked with his wheels not entirely within a marked bay, or for whatever reason returned to the car park in less than one hour (perhaps because he had left something behind). 

on the bare information which was placed before the court, i am not persuaded that parkingeye has shown grounds for assuming that a party who was in a position to bargain individually, and who was advised by a competent lawyer, would have agreed to the penalty clause as it stood.

 

On another point Mr Ford tried to compare driving on the road with driving into a car park. All drivers know that on the road you must be aware of the signs -especially the speed limits. But there are literally thousands of car parks through out the country and many of them are not infested with rogue car parking companies that are there to line their own pockets rather than to aid the smooth running of the car park to enable the owner of the site to maximise the number of cars that can enter the car park. Indeed some supermarkets as well as other land owners have banished the rogues from their car parks precisely because they realised that the car parking companies are acting in their own  best interest rather than the landowner.

 

It is disingenuous of Mr Ford to state that their contract with the land owner is largely irrelevant in the claim since a contract is a necessity under PoFA Schedule 4 S2 [2][a][b] under relevant contract. No contract with the land owner would mean that PE could not sue motorists on that land. In the light of the long meandering rubbish about agents and principals there may be something fishy with this contract so worthwhile scrutinising it if it does arrive in their next WS .

 

Mr Ford is totally wrong  on his next point about the keeper being liable for the charge. When he quoted from the Act Schedule4 S9 [2][e] he failed to mention a very important point. That it is only if the PCN was compliant with PoFA can the charge be transferred to the keeper from the driver. SAdly for PE they have not complied with the Act.

 

1. They have not specified the period of parking. They have only shown on photographs the arrival and departure times

 without providing proof that the two cameras were calibrated to the same time as each other. Nor have they taken into account the time it takes to drive around looking for a place to park and then once found, manoeuvring the car correctly between the lines to comply with the T&Cs and then driving out of the car park perhaps at a busy time on to a main road so waiting inside the car park to get out which is not considered to be parking. In addition, PE have not taken into account that there is a ten minute grace period allowed at the end of the parking period.

The PCN further fails to comply with PoFA Schedule 4 S9 [2]e][1]  "(i)to pay the unpaid parking charges; or" by not asking the keeper to pay the charge they have further failed to comply with PoFA.

 

In addition Mr Ford has confused the Grace period and the Consideration period. On arrival at the car park what he claims as the Grace period when the motorist reads the T&Cs is actually the Consideration period which according to the BPA Code is a MINIMUM of five minutes and the Grace period is a MINIMUM of ten minutes which Mr Ford fails to mention. 

 

Parking EYE is a member of the BPA which hardly means that the are a well regulated industry. Indeed the Government has brought out a new Private Parking Code of Practice precisely because the rogues [ as  said by the Government's spokesman] were causing havoc in car parks throughout Britain. Of course the parking industry does not want the new Act implemented since they will be unable to rip off motorists as much as they are doing  under the current legislation. 

As an example where PE is not observing the Act is that once the Consideration period has concluded, it is then considered as part of the contractual period of parking which is contrary to the Act and at odds with their counterparts in the ISC who believe it should not be included in the contractual time.

 

I would be inclined to send a copy of PE's claim whatever it is to the Court and ask whether it is their actual WS or can they file another and can you respond to this WS of their  and still do your own proper WS later.

See what the Site Team think about that.

[Nicky Boy]

Talk about "muddying the waters".

 

Do we think that this has not actually been filed at court?

If so, might it be an idea to just turn up with it on the day and address it with the judge?

 

 

Edited March 23, 2023 by Nicky Boy

[brassnecked]

 perhaps checking MCOL again for claim status might be an idea, they would be extremely silly to submit that guff as LFI has given an absolute dissection of their argument that would be excellent in a defence WS if they actually had.

[Robert63]

I've just checked MCOL and the status is the same as yesterday.

[Robert63]

My wife has now received a badly photocopied DQ Form N180 from the court. The only thing we’re having a problem with is the reason that the case should not be heard without a hearing.  Any pointers ? 
 

Also they haven’t attached Parking Eyes defence.

[dx100uk]

you sure its from the court?

 

i bet no as they dont attach 'defences' and parking eye are not the defendant but your wife is , they are the claimant and do not file defences! i bet its from parking eye with the rest being their reply to your cpr 41.14 request.

 

no good you vanishing for 3 weeks and not reading up either!

dq n180 and what to do is in every pcn claimform thread here already......

it even has its own sticky.

 

now go onto mcol

what is the last entry on status please?

 

dx

 

[Robert63]

Mcol says: case stay lifted on 20/04/2023

                     DQ sent to you on 20/04/2023

                     DQ filed by claimant on 20/04/2023

[dx100uk]

 

 

 

3 copies

yes to mediation (unless you filed our Statute Barred Defence OR this is a claim for a Private Parking Ticket)

1 wit you

Suitability for determination without a hearing? no (read all the posts in N180 link above for the reason)

the rest is obv

1 to the court

1 to sols (omit phone/sig/email)

1 for your file

 

dx

[Robert63]

N180’s posted with proof of postage.

[Robert63]

I posted my wife's N180 on the 28th April but there is nothing on MCOL to say that it has been received.

Should I get my wife to call them? 

 

Edited May 10, 2023 by Robert63
misspelling of word

[dx100uk]

might be a mail backlog due to the holiday periods

 

when is the deadline to send on the n180 you got from the court?

 

dx

 

[Robert63]

I think it was May 5th.

[dx100uk]

MCOL is only one way of responding to a claim. 
(AOS, DEFENCE, N180 ETC)
.
If you are having problems logging in, or would prefer not to use MCOL, 
you can fax, email or post your response to the Court instead. 

If you send your response by e mail 
please send it to ccbcaq@hmcts.gsi.gov.uk 

ensure you quote “Claim number xxx xxx (type of response i'e AOS , Defence, N180)” in the subject field. 

 

why not email too?

 

cant hurt you.

 

dx

 

[Robert63]

MCOL has been updated at last, Case being transferred to our local court.

[Robert63]

My wife received her Notice of allocation to the small claims track today.

She’s got a date in October, so two months to get her witness statement and documents ready.

 

[FTMDave]

Can you upload it please?

[Robert63]

Allocation to small claims track

small claims track 001a.pdf

[dx100uk]

so 10th oct hearing ---- file ws's etc 7 days before that -----the 3rd by 4pm

 

[Robert63]

20th October for the hearing , so file everything by 4pm on the 13th ?

[dx100uk]

ops yes 20th...

 

dx