2 x Parkingeye Notices

[Anders]

Re: 2 x Parkingeye Notices

Are you asking if the paragraphs highlighted in yellow were on the original LBCCC? If so, they were from what I can see. Pages 4 and 5 are copies of the original LBCCC that they sent.

Thanks

[mystery1]

Re: 2 x Parkingeye Notices

Are you asking if the paragraphs highlighted in yellow were on the original LBCCC? If so, they were from what I can see. Pages 4 and 5 are copies of the original LBCCC that they sent.

Thanks

I was yes. Thanks.

I'll respond soon. I still think it's naughty to have a signed letter that refers to this only on a supplementary piece of paper that the actual letter does not refer to.

The good news is they have put it on hold for a few days anyway and with Beavis less than a week away it all helps.

M1

[Anders]

Re: 2 x Parkingeye Notices

It's scanned as 2 separate sheets but those paragraphs were printed on the rear of the LBCCC.

Thanks

[mystery1]

Re: 2 x Parkingeye Notices

Dear Ms Breaks,

Thank you for your letter of 17/02/15, the contents of which are noted. Now that you have pointed out the reference to the pre action protocols i accept that you did mention it. However, i would add that this was hidden away in a separate piece of paper which many people would not read as the piece of paper headed letter before county court action appear to end at the point it is signed which is common practice in society. I suggest that this bad practice be corrected and the reference to the pre action protocols be input in to the main letter so that it is altogether more obvious. I appreciate that as a company you may wish that defendants are as ill informed as possible to make winning easier for yourselves but i submit this is against the principles of the pre action protocols and for want of a better description, naughty.

I note that although you suggest i contact you in order to resolve this dispute that you do not offer any ADR. Are you saying you do not wish to pursue any ADR ?

I further note that you refuse to disclose documents that you will need in litigation such as a contract that allows you to operate and take legal action in your own name. I refer you to the pre action protocols

3.2 The acknowledgment –

(3) may request further information to enable the defendant to provide a full response.

I have requested the document(s) that confer the right to operate on this land and also those that give the right to sue in your own name. The appropriate time to disclose is now, clearly. I further refer you to Property Alliance Group Ltd v The Royal Bank of Scotland Plc [2015] EWHC 321 (Ch) (19 February 2015)

Your contention that i have missed the time deadline are just wrong. I have requested further information, which so far you have failed to give, in order to facilitate a full response. My acknowledgement was in time.

3. Defendant’s acknowledgment of the letter before claim
3.1 Where the defendant is unable to provide a full written response within 14 days of receipt of the letter before claim the defendant should, instead, provide a written acknowledgment within 14 days.
3.2 The acknowledgment –
(1) should state whether an insurer is or may be involved;
(2) should state the date by which the defendant (or insurer) will provide a full written response; and
(3) may request further information to enable the defendant to provide a full response.
3.3 If the date stated under paragraph 3.2(2) of this Annex is longer than the period stated in the letter before claim, the defendant should give reasons why a longer period is needed.
3.4 If the defendant (or insurer) does not provide either a letter of acknowledgment or full response within 14 days, and proceedings are subsequently started, then the court is likely to consider that the claimant has complied.
3.5 Where the defendant is unable to provide a full response within 14 days of receipt of the letter before claim because the defendant intends to seek advice then the written acknowledgment should state –
(1) that the defendant is seeking advice;
(2) from whom the defendant is seeking advice; and
(3) when the defendant expects to have received that advice and be in a position to provide a full response.
3.6 A claimant should allow a reasonable period of time of up to 14 days for a defendant to obtain advice.


4. Defendant’s full response
4.1 The defendant’s full written response should –
(1) accept the claim in whole or in part; or
(2) state that the claim is not accepted.
4.2 Unless the defendant accepts the whole of the claim, the response should –
(1) give reasons why the claim is not accepted, identifying which facts and which parts of the claim (if any) are accepted and which are disputed, and the basis of that dispute;
(2) state whether the defendant intends to make a counterclaim against the claimant (and, if so, provide information equivalent to a claimant’s letter before claim);
(3) state whether the defendant alleges that the claimant was wholly or partly to blame for the problem that led to the dispute and, if so, summarise the facts relied on;
(4) state whether the defendant agrees to the claimant’s proposals for ADR and if not, state why not and suggest an alternative form of ADR (or state why none is considered appropriate);
(5) list the essential documents on which the defendant intends to rely;
(6) enclose copies of documents requested by the claimant, or explain why they will not be provided; and
(7) identify and ask for copies of any further relevant documents, not in the defendant's possession and which the defendant wishes to see.
4.3 If the defendant (or insurer) does not provide a full response within the period stated in the claimant’s letter before claim (or any longer period stated in the defendant’s letter of acknowledgment), and a claim is subsequently started, then the court is likely to consider that the claimant has complied.
4.4 If the claimant starts proceedings before any longer period stated in the defendant’s letter of acknowledgment, the court will consider whether or not the longer period requested by the defendant was reasonable.


5. Claimant’s reply
5.1 The claimant should provide the documents requested by the defendant within as short a period of time as is practicable or explain in writing why the documents will not be provided.
5.2 If the defendant has made a counterclaim the claimant should provide information equivalent to the defendant's full response (see paragraphs 4.1 to 4.3 above).


Once you disclosed as per the pre action protocols, i will respond within the required timescales.

Yours etc


M1

[Fair-Parking]

Re: 2 x Parkingeye Notices

I notice that in her long winded letter, Parking Eye's solicitor refers to a ruling by HHJ Maloney, but this may not apply to this case as that was for land whereby Parking Eye had full control of the private car park. In short unlike the Maloney case (which he gave leave to appeal on precisely because he wasn't sure of the law) the OP was not a customer of Parking Eye, he was customer of Welcome Break.

What the solicitor should have done here is to have been a bit more honest and admitted that this case ought not to be taken further until the decision by HHJ Maloney had been finalised by a ruling in the court of appeal - which is on 24th February

[Anders]

Re: 2 x Parkingeye Notices

Many thanks. Does it matter that the original LBCCC had the pre-action protocols printed on the rear of the notice and hence not on a separate sheet?

I notice that in her long winded letter, Parking Eye's solicitor refers to a ruling by HHJ Maloney, but this may not apply to this case as that was for land whereby Parking Eye had full control of the private car park. In short unlike the Maloney case (which he gave leave to appeal on precisely because he wasn't sure of the law) the OP was not a customer of Parking Eye, he was customer of Welcome Break.

What the solicitor should have done here is to have been a bit more honest and admitted that this case ought not to be taken further until the decision by HHJ Maloney had been finalised by a ruling in the court of appeal - which is on 24th February

[mystery1]

Re: 2 x Parkingeye Notices

Not for whether you win or lose the claim it doesn't but it might help with costs whether you win or lose.

M1

[Anders]

Re: 2 x Parkingeye Notices

Hi M1, latest correspondence attached.

Many thanks,

Andy

[mystery1]

Re: 2 x Parkingeye Notices

Respond along the lines of

Dear Ms Breaks,

Thank you for your letter of 6/3/15 the contents of which are noted.

ADR

Your comments are wrong. You can generate a popla code should you wish. It's is neither illegal nor technically impossible. You choose not to and perhaps it is against the guidlines but do not try and kid on that you acnnot as you certainly can if you were so minded as is proven when judges order you to.

Disclosure

You have told me several times that your company has authority but that you refuse to prove it. I am afraid your company reputation proceeds you and i therefore cannot place any trust in anything you say. I draw your attention to http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co...cunthorpe.html in which it is reported that your company and your agent sought to hoodwink the court and defendant with regards a judgement (Beavis) that you hoped would win the case but did not disclose that the judgement is subject to appeal. I also note the blog post from http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co...s-exposed.html which i copy for you

"ParkingEye dodgy practices exposed



Following the articles in the Daily Mail, The Parking Prankster can expose the dodgy practices used by one of the UK's largest parking firms, ParkingEye. Company size is not guarantee of good practice, honesty or integrity, and ParkingEye are one of the worst offenders, with an unparalleled reputation for dishonesty, bullying tactics and operating sites in such a way to milk motorists for all they can.

ParkingEye have previously threatened to sue The Prankster for defamation for damage to their reputation. However, they crept away with their tail between their legs when The Prankster pointed out that all his facts were true, and that in any case they had no reputation worth speaking of. Since then they have refused to reply to The Prankster's communications.

The Prankster has identified the following bad practices and dodgy tactics used by ParkingEye.

• Providing false information to judges, including the Beavis case
• Charging motorists for POPLA, which the government has stated must be free to motorists
• Using the Protection of Freedom Act to pursue keepers to court when they knew the land was not covered by the Act.
• Charging motorists over £1 million in solicitor fees which were not actually incurred, making their court filings one of the most profitable part of the business
• Providing landowner witness statements to court without the knowledge or permission of the witness by using photocopied witness statements
• Providing landowner witness statements to court and POPLA containing information ParkingEye knew was not within the knowledge of the witness
• Providing contracts to judges, including HHJ Moloney, which had pertinent information redacted
• Sending motorists false information to make them think they have no chance in appealing the ticket to POPLA
• Providing outdated and misleading information on their web site
• Not even bothering to defend large numbers of POPLA cases, causing motorists time and expense for cases ParkingEye knew they would not win anyway
• Providing false information to POPLA in order to win cases
• Pursuing through the court system even though they knew the motorist was neither the keeper or driver and was therefore not liable
• Pursuing cases when motorists break down, are injured or suffer medical emergencies
• Pursuing cases against mothers who overstayed due to breastfeeding
• Pursuing cases against disabled motorists who need more time to shop
• Pursuing cases against elderly motorists who need more time to shop
• Installing sites without cameras on all entrances and exits, and then pursuing motorists for overstays if they left via an unmonitored route
• Installing sites where the cameras do not record all entrances and exits of vehicles, and then pursuing motorists for overstays when two visits were made
• Pursuing motorists for very short overstays, well within an acceptable grace period
• Shortening parking periods to the detriment of retailers to increase their income
• Aggressively pursuing tickets against the wishes of retailers served by the car park
• Using inappropriate and hard to use technology coupled with confusing signage to target hospitals to generate vast income to the detriment of patient
• Failing to take reasonable steps to mitigate transgressions by motorists
• Pursuing their own customers for huge penalty clauses when they try to get rid of them
• Filing thousands of court cases without sending a letter before claim compliant with practice directions, or in some cases, without sending any letter before claim at all
• Filing huge, complicated documents in court, in violation of the prime objectives of the courts in terms of proportionality to the sums involved. A typical filing will be over 50 pages with 30 or more case references.
• Filing large numbers of documents after the filing deadline and without paying a fee
• Complaining when motorists file after the filing deadline and asking the court to charge the motorists a fee
• Refusing to reply to reasonable requests for information from motorists to allow them to defend their case
• Filing false information in witness statements written by their employees including documents referred to by the witness statements
• Filing deliberately misleading information in court documents, which while factually correct are not relevant, or are couched in terms to deliberately mislead
• Ploughing on regardless with court cases, despite having lost all known similarly defended cases, causing defendants distress and expense.
• Providing false information to and deliberately deceiving their own customers
• Failing to properly quality check parking charge notices sent out
• Pursuing cases where the landowner stated by ParkingEye in documents provided to court, was not the actual landowner and did not have the right to allow parking
• Using signage to create entrapment zones in car parks, so that although coverage is sufficient in some areas, it is not in all

Obviously anyone considering using ParkingEye will need to think twice after reading that list. The Prankster is more than willing to meet with and provide his evidence to landowners thinking of using ParkingEye, where he will explain that a 'free' solution may actually end up costing millions of pounds in lost business (such as at B&Q).


The Prankster is strongly behind the need for controlled parking, and for landowners to operate parking as they wish. He can talk landowners through available solutions which work and are beneficial to landowners, motorists and parking operators.


The Prankster can also advise landowners wishing to get rid of ParkingEye of the most sensible strategies and viable alternatives.


The Prankster echoes the words of His Honour Judge Hegarty QC. ParkingEye like to quote HHJ Hegarty, but for some reason do not include this particular quote.

The case on deceit, therefore, in my judgment, turns on the wording of the third letter; and I have concluded that all the elements of the tort appear to be made out in relation to that letter

As Sir Robin Jacob put it, in the appeal

The Judge found ParkingEye was guilty of the tort of deceit on those occasions when the third letter was sent on its behalf. ParkingEye does not challenge this decision.

and

The Judge also made no finding of dishonesty against ParkingEye at [489] though that must be understood in a limited sense since he did find that its executive knew the third letter contained falsehoods, which is to say the least not exactly honest.

ParkingEye may claim to have changed since that court case. The Prankster is minded to agree - they have changed for the worse.


Happy Parking


The Parking Prankster"

Therfore i put it to you that your word is simply not good enough. I am telling you you will need the contract to be produced as part of my defence will be that you do not have authority and case law, which i've previously indicated to you, will require disclosure.


Response.

My defence will be that the charges are penalties, you have no right to contract, no right to sue in your own name, do not pay £1000 as in Beavis and commercially justified in this case is not a valid reason for a penalty and there is no contract between the motorist and anyone for a variety of reason including basic contract construction.

Again i ask that you disclose the documents i have asked for.

Yours etc

M1

[Anders]

Re: 2 x Parkingeye Notices

Many thanks

[Anders]

Re: 2 x Parkingeye Notices

Hi, I don't fully understand what you are trying to say here:

"Therfore i put it to you that your word is simply not good enough. I am telling you you will need the contract to be produced as part of my defence will be that you do not have authority and case law, which i've previously indicated to you, will require disclosure.


Response.

My defence will be that the charges are penalties, you have no right to contract, no right to sue in your own name, do not pay £1000 as in Beavis and commercially justified in this case is not a valid reason for a penalty and there is no contract between the motorist and anyone for a variety of reason including basic contract construction."

Can you advise or reword?

Many thanks,

Andy

[mystery1]

Re: 2 x Parkingeye Notices

Therfore i put it to you that your word is simply not good enough. I am telling you you will need the contract to be produced as part of my defence will be that you do not have authority and case law, which i've previously indicated to you, will require disclosure.


That part says you don't trust them when they say they have authority to use the land and make a contract with you because they are deceitful.




Response.


My defence will be that the charges are penalties, you have no right to contract, no right to sue in your own name, do not pay £1000 as in Beavis and commercially justified in this case is not a valid reason for a penalty and there is no contract between the motorist and anyone for a variety of reason including basic contract construction."

That is your response to their letter before action and the reasons you will be defending the claim.

I note that i spelled cannot incorrectly and precedes too.


M1

[Anders]

Re: 2 x Parkingeye Notices

is this sentence worded correctly? ". I am telling you you will need the contract to be produced as part of my defence will be that you do not have authority and case law, which I have previously indicated to you, will require disclosure."

Much appreciated

[mystery1]

Re: 2 x Parkingeye Notices

is this sentence worded correctly? ". I am telling you you will need the contract to be produced as part of my defence will be that you do not have authority and case law, which I have previously indicated to you, will require disclosure."

Much appreciated

Could probably do with a comma between you and you but otherwise i think so. You don't have to copy mine verbatim though

M1

[Anders]

Re: 2 x Parkingeye Notices

Great, thanks