Parking Eye

Stroma

I would say more than 30% not paying is sufficient numbers, if you look at industry wise it's more than 600k not paying, in 2011 there were 845 claims in total. I would be amazed if there were more than 2k claims this year in total, I suspect fewer. And about the same number in popla appeals.

Yes things have changed lately but not in the huge way the parking companies wanted, I can see companies being classed vexatious litigants as their spurious claims will be deemed a waste of court time, civil enforcements could be the first, and parking eye could be behind them as they can't possibly defend all the cases brought so will drop them.

That could be deemed a misuse of the court system. I can see the smaller operators becoming more litigant but that being the double edged sword in them being open to wasting the court time.

The_Slithy_Tove

Stroma wrote: »

Yes things have changed lately but not in the huge way the parking companies wanted, I can see companies being classed vexatious litigants as their spurious claims will be deemed a waste of court time, civil enforcements could be the first, and parking eye could be behind them as they can't possibly defend all the cases brought so will drop them.

We can hope. However, I fear that may be a little optimistic to wish for.

We all know that CEL & PE are using these court claims purely as another step in the intimidation racket they run. I fear that a good proportion will fold at this point, and pay up, meaning the claim will never get beyond the first hurdle. They can also hope for a number of defaults where people ignore the court papers. It will be very few that actually get properly defended, and thus dropped. Don't know if the court service are able to tell if cases are dropped becuase a settlement has been made rather then the litigant getting cold feet. It's only the latter (and the tiny munber that will eventually reach court and be lost) that would flag them up as vextious.

However, I think Norman Baker MP should be put on point to explain how the number of cases has gone UP, not down, as Schedule 4 was supposed to do. That waste of space has a lot to answer for.

Coupon-mad

The_Slithy_Tove wrote: »

However, I think Norman Baker MP should be put on point to explain how the number of cases has gone UP, not down, as Schedule 4 was supposed to do. That waste of space has a lot to answer for.

Yep, and not just Transport issues! Brighton fans like me have reason to implicate him for other stuff too. :mad:

Stroma

The thing about CEL is though that most of these claims before pofa 2012 means that they hold the RK liable for these invoices, if no contact has been made how will they know this ? I think they are going for this because they are about to phoenix (again??)

Really something is up with that company. As for Parking Eye, they can't possibly be getting people there on defended claims, they would have to employ quite a few people just to attend court.

Will be looking at how many claims are made though now we have pofa and popla etc here, it will real interesting if its above 845

The_Slithy_Tove

Stroma wrote: »

Really something is up with that company. As for Parking Eye, they can't possibly be getting people there on defended claims, they would have to employ quite a few people just to attend court.

Will be looking at how many claims are made though now we have pofa and popla etc here, it will real interesting if its above 845

I don't believe PE have any intention of actually ending up in court, except maybe from the odd exemplary case they think they think they can win. This is just a tactic to intimidate the majority into settling.

They are neatly bypassing the inconvenience of POPLA by picking only on the ignorers who have missed their opportunity to appeal there. As long as they have PoFA compliant letters...

Stroma

Hence the reason why I am giving a simple appeal to tie PE into the driver of the vehicle, and to notify them that the 14 day carp they are giving to circumvent Popla is not going to work. Either OK the appeal now or give the code for Popla. No twisting out

Name
Address
Date

Dear Parking Eye

I want to appeal your invoice xxxx at xxxx car park on the xx/xx/xxxx . I visited this car park twice on this day. Obviously your anpr cameras and your systems are faulty as I can prove I wasn't there for the time you have stipulated..

I require that you cancel this invoice immediately. If you reject my appeal, I require a popla verification code within 35 days of the date of this appeal, per the BPA code of practice.

I have no further information to provide to you, so I do not need a response from you giving a further 14 days, this is my final position.

Sincerely
Mrs Not a mug

knitter18

So now I've had a letter telling me that they've taken the case to Northampton court. How can I respond? My argument is totally about a fine for something I din't pay for in the first place. Can anyone advise please?

Stroma

Are you saying that you've had a county court claim on this? If so when did you get this? Have you acknowledged the claim? Have you asked for 28 days to get your defence in?

knitter18

Yes I have, dated 16/10/2013. Have not acknowledged any correspondence so far. What do I do now? Ask for 28 days?

Stroma

You need to get this in quickly, why wait almost 2 weeks before seeking advice? Is this through money claim online?