So we just came out of Court. ParkingEye didn’t turn up but had asked for an adjournment due to the weather and the floods in Cumbria. ParkingEye are based in Chorley and their advocate from LPC Law was traveling from Newcastle. The Court staff knew of people who had traveled from Newcastle without any problem and the Judge himself pointed out that he had traveled from Burnley that morning without even any delays - and so the case was dismissed.
It is a win at the moment but not what I had in mind.
Our defence shows that we were not in the car park when they said we were, and so the accuracy of the ANPR was questioned.
We didn’t receive the “notice to keeper” but they said they could prove they sent it.
The land owners as well as ParkingEye themselves were contacted to request what authority ParkingEye had to run this car park.
In ParkingEye’s reply to our defence they did not show any proof at all of ANPR accuracy.
They were unable to produce any proof of postage of for the Notice to Keeper.
They did not provide any evidence whatsoever that they had permission to run the Snowdon Mountain Railway car park.
The Law society frowns upon an advocate entering court if their name and qualifications were not forwarded to the Court before the case. I asked the Court staff if they had and the reply was that they had not.
Prankster Note
These would probably be good enough grounds to win the case even if ParkingEye had turned up - ParkingEye therefore saved themselves the cost of a lawyer from LPC Law (usually £150-£300).
The Supreme Court case of ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67 establishes that a Parking Charge for breach of contract of up to £85 may be allowable as a deterrent in some circumstances. To avoid over-eager judges striking out defences without properly reading them, it is advised that any defence against a parking charge raises other matters first.
Eg
- The event did not occur - the ANPR records were inaccurate
- The requirements for keeper liability were not established as the NTK was not received in the allowable timeframe
- ParkingEye are acting as agents and the risk remains with the landowner, so they have no authority to sue (locus standi) (Fairlie v Fenton)
A non-exhaustive list of possible other arguments are:
- The signage coverage was poor and did not establish a contract
- The signage wording was ambiguous
- The signage did not require the information required in distance contracts according to consumer law so any contract is non-binding
- The signage omitted material information which is against Consumer Law
- The signage had no planning permission
And finally, if the charge level is disputed, at least show the judge you are aware of the Beavis case Eg
- The charge is for breach but is not a genuine pre-estimate of loss. ParkingEye have not shown that in this car park they meet the criteria laid down in ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67, and in particular that the charge is no greater than is necessary for deterrence. As this is binding case law, this case should be dismissed.
Happy Parking
The Parking Prankster
"The signage did not require the information required in distance contracts according to consumer law so any contract is non-binding" could you expand on this?
ReplyDeleteDistance contracts are regulated by The Consumer Contracts (Information, Cancellation and Additional Charges) Regulations 2013. They must contain the information listed in Schedule 2 of the Act. If they do not, then clause 13(i) of the Act makes the contract non-binding on the Consumer. This law was not in place when Mr Beavis parked, so could not be used in his defence and could not be considered by the Supreme Court.
DeleteMany thanks.Did you get my email re BBC?
DeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteUnfortunately "The Consumer Contracts (Information, Cancellation and Additional Charges) Regulations 2013" (which says that a contract cannot be formed with a company hiding behind a PO Box number) does not apply to 'automated' premises, which seems to be interpreted as including ANPR & Pay/Display car parks. As far as I can see it does apply to free car parks where there is an onsite agent issuing tickets however. This will one day be the basis of a good test case I believe.
ReplyDeleteParkingEye confirmed in the Beavis case their premises are not fully automated. On the witness stand Alex Cooke confirmed to HHJ Moloney they do use agents as and when needed
DeleteWhat does having an agent issuing tickets on site have to do with anything?
DeleteThe reference to automated commercial premises clearly relates to whether or not the process of concluding the transaction (for goods/services) is automated. To me it seems obvious that this is the case in parking, there is no de facto interaction between consumer and trader.
I fear the CC(ICAC)R arguments are particularly misguided, and have been since the start (where people were trying to argue cancellation rights applied where the service had already been supplied!).
I had an over eager judge, who post-Beavis, struck out a pre Supreme Court judgement defence, despite many points being nothing to do with law relating to the Beavis ruling. The law is an ass.
ReplyDeleteemail me details at prankster@parking-prankster.com and I will blog this
Delete