Parking Eye problems

[mystery1]

Re: Parking Eye problems

I'm just in and have quickly scanned. Will reply tonight or tomorrow.

M1

[Raley]

Re: Parking Eye problems

Thanks M1.

I should point out that I will be away in Dubai from 27 Nov until 10 Dec so need to send off Form N180 to both the court and PE before I depart. Perhaps I should also send the letter questioning their witness statement?

[mystery1]

Re: Parking Eye problems

Not forgotten. Waiting on someone to send a popla decision today to see if we can use it.

M1

[mystery1]

Re: Parking Eye problems

I think the defence, Pranksters letter and

raleysupplemental.odt

Cover what you need.

PM me an email address and i'll forward the popla decision which i'm not allowed to put on here.

M1

[Raley]

Re: Parking Eye problems

Hi M1,

Should I compile this draft as an additional document (to my earlier drafted "Response to Reply to Defence") in response to PE's Supplementary Reply to Defence...?

[mystery1]

Re: Parking Eye problems

I tried to do it as one hence most points are covered and then the Pranksters letter covers the rest.

M1

[Raley]

Re: Parking Eye problems

Thanks M1.

Just reading the draft and have a couple of quick questions:
- How will they know what is meant by or how to find the reference to "In a Retailer v Ms b"?
- Are the line numbers essential in the quotes as it does seem to interrupt the flow rather?

aw:

[mystery1]

Re: Parking Eye problems

Thanks M1.

Just reading the draft and have a couple of quick questions:
- How will they know what is meant by or how to find the reference to "In a Retailer v Ms b"?
- Are the line numbers essential in the quotes as it does seem to interrupt the flow rather?

aw:

They should've heard of it and you can supply a copy at court http://www.legalbeagles.info/ApprovedJudgment.pdf

Number can be removed that's just how it appeared in the copy i had. http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?...post&id=16231)

M1

[Raley]

Re: Parking Eye problems

Hi M1

Just in the process of compiling my 'bundle' to put in the post...

Should I include a copy of my letter to PE in response to their LBA plus a witness statement saying that I both wrote it and posted it on the date shown?

[Raley]

Re: Parking Eye problems

Actually I have now just posted them anyway. Lets see what happens next...! I will let you know as soon as I hear anything further.

VVMT for all your help, advice and encouragement.

aw:

[mystery1]

Re: Parking Eye problems

I'd have said yes for the simple reason i can't see any harm in it.

M1

[Raley]

Re: Parking Eye problems

Hi M1, Just back from our travels to find a couple of letters from ParkingEye:

1. A photocopy of Form N180 Directions Questionnaire (Small Track Claims) completed by ParkingEye Ltd posted on 3 Dec. In it they have indicated at tick box A1 that they do not agree to this case being referred to the SCMS...? However at C1 they have ticked to say that they do agree that the SC track is the appropriate track for this case...! They have also said at D2 they are not asking the court's permission to use the written evidence of an expert. At D3 they have not entered how many witnesses, including themselves, will give evidence on their behalf...?

2. Further Supplementary Reply to Defence from ParkingEye dated 29 Nov in which they begin by saying: "ParkingEye reassert that we are willing to use the the Small Claims Mediation Service on our N180 Form."...

I will copy these documents and send them to you ASAP

[mystery1]

Re: Parking Eye problems

1. A photocopy of Form N180 Directions Questionnaire (Small Track Claims) completed by ParkingEye Ltd posted on 3 Dec. In it they have indicated at tick box A1 that theydo not agree to this case being referred to the SCMS...? However at C1 they have ticked to say that they do agree that the SC track is the appropriate track for this case...! They have also said at D2 they are not asking the court's permission to use the written evidence of an expert. At D3 they have not entered how many witnesses, including themselves, will give evidence on their behalf...?

Small claim mediation and small claims track are different. The supplementary reply says they will use it and the form says they won'. Ejits. Also the signature seems to be that of the claimant which is well, bonkers. The claimant is company. The witness box should contain a number even if zero. Nice to see you're up against professionals, huh ?

I'll comment on the tripe later.

M1

[mystery1]

Re: Parking Eye problems

Ok. Lets answer their points on their latest blurb.


1. The claimant says they accept mediation but have returned form n180 having ticked no to mediation. The defendant is confused by these differing attitudes in simultaneous yet vastly differing responses.


2. The particulars of claim are clear. The claim is for parking without authority on private land. These are the claimants words in their pleadings. If they didn't want them to be there they should not have put them there. The defendant can only reply to the claim as pleaded.

3. The defendant maintains his position that in claiming for costs as part of the make up of the claimants pre estimate of loss and including the same costs in their accounts and gaining a tax advantage then the claimant is attempting to effectively be paid twice. If the claimant is not claiming costs in their accounts they should sack their accountant.

The claimant states they comply fully with the BPA code of practice and further state their charges are commercially justified.

The code of practice says

"19.5 If the parking charge that the driver is being asked to pay
is for a breach of contract or act of trespass, this charge
must be based on the genuine pre-estimate of loss that
you suffer. We would not expect this amount to be more
than £100. If the charge is more than this, operators must
be able to justify the amount in advance. "


No profit is allowed and no commercial justification. It must be a genuine pre estimate of loss. Anything else does not meet the code of practice.

As can be seen 19.5 of the code of practice does not prescribe or find acceptable a charge of £100. It indicates anything more is not to be expected.

4. Section 22 of the contracts released under the freedom of information act between Parking Eye and public bodies specifically rejects any agency agreement between Parking Eye and the land holder.

The British Parking Authority is not a statutory regime and there are no prescribed rules. The 40% discount is not forced upon parking companies by law makers.

Vine v Waltham Forest was raised by the Claimant in it's reply to defence. The defendant is confused as to why a case the claimant raised is sought from the defendant.

The defendant is not aware of saying that the Claimant reference Arthur v Anker.

5. See points made in 4 above regarding section 22 of the contracts.

The defendant finds it odd that the claimant strongly believes the court was wrong yet has not appealed the decision.

The claimants states that judgements have been made on the assumption that they are authorised. The defendant strongly disagrees that they are authorised as section 22 of the contracts says no agency. Proof of agency is required.

The defendant draws further attention to his earlier concerns regarding parking eye witness statements and asks that the witness be brought to court for cross examination.

6. The n180 has been ticked to indicate that no mediation will be accepted by the claimant.

7. The commercial justification is against the claimants code of practice with their trade body as shown earlier. Commercial justification is also not for an entire business model.

8. The defendant stands by the content of his defence and is rather amused that it's origin, rather than content, is concerning to the claimant. The claimants letters are templated which given the apparent dislke of templates is starnge.

9. The defendant would like transcripts of all cases with immediate effect.


M1

[Raley]

Re: Parking Eye problems

Thank you M1

I have now submitted this as "Further Supplementary Defence" to both the Court Manager and PE. It will be interesting to see how this might conclude - in court or closure beforehand or...something else?

Tally ho!
LBPUP