Parking eye help!

[mystery1]

Re: Parking eye help!

Usually, they reply.

M1

[Towers39]

Re: Parking eye help!

right okay obviously in the letter i need to include my reference number right?

[mystery1]

Re: Parking eye help!

It'd be helpful :okay:

M1

[Towers39]

Re: Parking eye help!

Would it make a difference if I can obtain CCTV of me being in the pub? That proves I was in there. Then can I send them the footage and that be done with it?

[mystery1]

Re: Parking eye help!

It might prove it to you but they have no idea what you look like, or the inside of the pub for that matter.

M1

[Towers39]

Re: Parking eye help!

£100 fine is a bit heafty for a free car park aswell! How can they justify charging £100 when you don't need to pay for it in the first place.

[mystery1]

Re: Parking eye help!

£100 fine is a bit heafty for a free car park aswell! How can they justify charging £100 when you don't need to pay for it in the first place.

That sounds like a summary of the Beavis appeal !

M1

[Towers39]

Re: Parking eye help!

You stated earlier this was going to end up in court anyway. I'm going to send that letter you posted. How long till I get a court hearing?

[mystery1]

Re: Parking eye help!

Anything from 2/3 weeks + depending on how long we can play letter ping pong for. 5/6 weeks should see the court of appeal answer the question of " is £100 is justified" The hearing is next Tuesday.

M1

[Towers39]

Re: Parking eye help!

Is that 2/3 weeks if I just ignore the before county court letter?

[mystery1]

Re: Parking eye help!

Might be a shade quicker. Nothing is certain. I think they may try and wrap up as much as possible, quickly, in case Beavis odes (as it should) go against them.

Another reason for such letters is to get them to commit to a path that makes it awkward to backtrack in the event Beavis does go against them.

M1

[Fair-Parking]

Re: Parking eye help!

I'm not so sure that the Beavis case is going to make private parking that much clearer. In essence of this case is the rights or otherwise of a company acting in an equal partnership with the land owners and not as an agent as per a supermarket contract.

[mystery1]

Re: Parking eye help!

I'm not so sure that the Beavis case is going to make private parking that much clearer. In essence of this case is the rights or otherwise of a company acting in an equal partnership with the land owners and not as an agent as per a supermarket contract.

They will always try and come up with another explanation of the same con. Should be much easier to say it's a penalty though.

M1

[Towers39]

Re: Parking eye help!

Today I received a response from the letter I sent them. What are my next steps?
I have uploaded pictures of the letter!

[mystery1]

Re: Parking eye help!

Dear Ms Breaks,

Thank you for your letter of 06/03/15 the contents of which are noted.

I note from your explanation of how your charges are calculated that you are using the commercial justification argument as you did in Beavis. I note you did not explain that Beavis is subject to appeal which is against the SRA code of conduct. It i further noted that in Beavis the charges were found to be penalties although commercial justified. Obviously if the court of appeal overturns the commercial justification you will be dropping this matter as you cannot enforce penalties under civil law. I further note that you state these charges are upheld all over the country but neglect to mention there are plenty of cases where that is not so which again is a breach of the SRA code.

I also note that in Beavis it was discovered that Parking Eye paid £1000 per week to manage the car park I believe that this is uncommon and therefore require sight of the contract you have in order to supply a correct statement of my position and narrow down the issues for any potential court claim. As well as the case for natural justice in my previous reply i would like to bring the case of Property Alliance Group Ltd v The Royal Bank of Scotland Plc [2015] EWHC 321 (Ch) (19 February 2015) to your attention for disclosure purposes. Combined with the pre action protocols and the cases previously mentioned i see no legitimate reason for your company withholding the contract which you claim allows you to operate and take court action in your own name.

I note you mention in your calculations that your accounts were taken in to account. Given the significant differences from the previous year, can you explain why the charges are the same for both years ?

I note your comments about the reference to the pre action protocols being on the "further information page" and i note the actual letter before county court action makes no reference to the protocols or the further information page. I suggest this is at best very sloppy and a cynical person may think it is deceitful. I would encourage you to reference one or both on the main letter.


For the avoidance of doubt i will be contesting the claim on the basis the charge is a penalty and unenforceable as the car park is free and you only wish to charge because no regsitration was input in to a machine in the pub, your locus standi, your failure to adhere to the BPA code of practice including clear unambiguous signage and the fact your are an employee of parking eye and are charging £50 for solicitor costs when you haven't incurred any. I note from https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/reque...92481.doc.html that for the first 6 months of 2014 parking lodged 15466 claims and at £50 each that would be £773300 in solicitor costs. I do not see this in your accounts and would be gobsmacked if the only solicitor signing claims at that time, Ms Ledson was indeed earning approximately £1.5 million per annum.

Now that you are aware of my intended defence i would reiterate my request for the contract which gives you the rightt to operate on this land and take legal action in your own name.

Yours etc

M1