Parking Eye lose

bromsgrovebarry

Please read my post above

nadz1477

Thanks Broms i missed the previous comment! I will use as toilet paper as everyone does!

bromsgrovebarry

Do not forget to tell everybody you know to Ignore ParkingEye threatmail.

RobinHood2011

AlexisV wrote: »

Be careful, they do read these forums. If you feel you are legally obliged to pay the £4 for breach of contract, I can't see the harm in sending some shiny coins to them. You'll still get hounded by letters either way.

Pound coins, I think in pennies!

Or might send them in Stamps as that is legal tender:rotfl:

Inflatable_Armadillo

If anyone wants to have some fun, you can tweet Pannone about their 'effective' loss - @TheSolicitors

CRblogger

RobinHood2011 wrote: »

WOW,

Got 2 letters from Parking Eye and have been ignoring them. I am totally not paying the ticket now. If they want to take me to court and waste £5000 than they can hahaha :rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:

I didnt buy a ticket and it should have cost £4. I might offer them £4 for actual loss of earnings or I may not and let them take me to court and let them waste 5 grand!. Or better still, like somebody else has pointed out on this forum, I may write them a letter and ask them for all of my data protection information and then will hound Morrisons for all of the information as well.

Been so stressed over these letters, not anymore, time to fight back.:j:beer:

Suggest you offer them the £4, or you may end up paying costs. Make it a time-delimited offer, it will still be persuasive.

I've seen this done in the High Court in an interim application for security for costs to which the claimant may have been entitled in law... had the offer not been made. Because the claimant had failed to accept the offer, the result was he got nothing at all, even the 5k or so which was offered, and the defendant got almost all of his legal costs.

CRblogger

You also said "like somebody else has pointed out on this forum, I may write them a letter and ask them for all of my data protection information and then will hound Morrisons for all of the information as well."

Try section 10 instead of 7, they've already admitted everything needed by writing to you. It's the most powerful part of the Act, they forgot to butcher it like they butchered every other part of the Directive.

A SAR costs money, and may merely irritate them. A section 10 notice may destroy them by setting them up for you to go after them instead of you having to wait for them to come to you. And you should get costs (particularly if you back it up with a Part 36) because all you want is an injunction the basis for which is already made out on their own case.

Oopsadaisy

Wow CR...a new legal mind joins the debate.

Welcome.

Coupon-mad

CRblogger wrote: »

You also said "like somebody else has pointed out on this forum, I may write them a letter and ask them for all of my data protection information and then will hound Morrisons for all of the information as well."

Try section 10 instead of 7, they've already admitted everything needed by writing to you. It's the most powerful part of the Act, they forgot to butcher it like they butchered every other part of the Directive.

A SAR costs money, and may merely irritate them. A section 10 notice may destroy them by setting them up for you to go after them instead of you having to wait for them to come to you. And you should get costs (particularly if you back it up with a Part 36) because all you want is an injunction the basis for which is already made out on their own case.

Nice new information - I did not know that. I'll go and have a read of it when I get a spare moment.

:T

kizkiz

CRblogger wrote: »

You also said "like somebody else has pointed out on this forum, I may write them a letter and ask them for all of my data protection information and then will hound Morrisons for all of the information as well."

Try section 10 instead of 7, they've already admitted everything needed by writing to you. It's the most powerful part of the Act, they forgot to butcher it like they butchered every other part of the Directive.

A SAR costs money, and may merely irritate them. A section 10 notice may destroy them by setting them up for you to go after them instead of you having to wait for them to come to you. And you should get costs (particularly if you back it up with a Part 36) because all you want is an injunction the basis for which is already made out on their own case.

Interesting, so section ten is a request for the ppc to destroy all information they hold on you.
I guess they will refuse as they think they can keep it as you are "in a contract".

not sure about 36 though?
36 Domestic purposes.E+W+S+N.I.
Personal data processed by an individual only for the purposes of that individual’s personal, family or household affairs (including recreational purposes) are exempt from the data protection principles and the provisions of Parts II and III.