Parking eye are watching this Forum!!!

kirkbyinfurnesslad_2

Yes they can use screenshots ,has been known in a few cases. One springs to mind

Stroma

Babou2005 wrote: »

The case hasn't gone to court yet but is very soon. They are using screenshots of conversations on this forum and even saying that the person followed the advice of others to ignore Parking eye letters.
The person that posted here is pretty annoyed by this and is unsure what to do. Is there a good chance he/she will lose the case now? Can they use legally use this as evidence? What should they do? Just wait and see?

Why is he annoyed ? The ignore option is one still being advised even now, parking eye issued close onto 700k invoices in the year to April 2013, the statistics suggest that upto 50% of tickets are not paid. Do you think that parking eye will do 350k claims a year ?

The fact is this person has identified themselves on the forum, something that should never be done , hence my signature. They try and embarrass users of here with their claims, if it was ignored to begin with like 99% of other people who ignore its not going to go any further.

Finally we are not psychic , we can only advise on the current status of what is happening with parking companies, parking eye have changed their tactics, so we have adapted ours to suit. For comparison for you

2011
Claims to the court - 845
Before a judge - 49
Wins for the motorists - 25
Wins for the parking companies - 24
1.8m fake tickets

2012
Claims to the court - 600
Before a judge - 34
Wins for the motorist - 20
Wins for the parking companies - 14
1.9m fake tickets

Stroma

kirkbyinfurnesslad wrote: »

Stroma what exactly did Pe print out?

No idea it wasn't me

Babou2005

Stroma wrote: »

Why is he annoyed ? The ignore option is one still being advised even now, parking eye issued close onto 700k invoices in the year to April 2013, the statistics suggest that upto 50% of tickets are not paid. Do you think that parking will do 350k claims a year ?

The fact is this person has identified themselves on the forum, something that should never be done , hence my signature. They try and embarrass users of here with their claims, if it was ignored to begin with like 99% of other people who ignore its not going to go any further.

Finally we are not psychic , we can only advise on the current status of what is happening with parking companies, parking eye have changed their tactics, so we have adapted ours to suit. For comparison for you

2011
Claims to the court - 845
Before a judge - 49
Wins for the motorists - 25
Wins for the parking companies - 24
1.8m fake tickets

2012
Claims to the court - 600
Before a judge - 34
Wins for the motorist - 20
Wins for the parking companies - 14
1.9m fake tickets

OK, I think that they felt pressured into responding to parking eye because of the threatening letters which resulted in the process going to court.
Hopefully the small claims will sort this out and anyway how can they force somebody to pay? They can't can they?

Stroma

They need a strong defence and I suggest posting on https://www.pepipoo.com for this , they are currently doing a lot of defences for the small claims and popla

Coupon-mad

Stroma wrote: »

They need a strong defence and I suggest posting on www.pepipoo.com for this , they are currently doing a lot of defences for the small claims and popla

Seconded.

Have a look at pepipoo and see that quite a few people are getting a robust defence from there - and it's not about what happened on the day of the incident.

PE are trawling for weak 'appeal-style' defences or people who panic and pay now. Do hope your friend hasn't just repeated the excuses used in a weak 'appeal' as their defence for Court? There is much more to include which attacks the very business model and enforceability of these charges.

I think that in VCS -v- Ibbotson, VCS may have tried showing forum posts to the judge - and they lost the case. They started off aiming the claim at the wife I think, then I believe they ended up trying to show forum posts to the judge, who ignored them. And VCS lost horribly!!

Or was it the NCP case where they may have tried showing forum posts from pepipoo - and still NCP lost horribly and had to pay the defendant's high expenses!

Not sure why your friend is quaking about a PPC saying 'look they posted on a forum'. So what? A person is entitled to seek advice using any relevant medium (the internet being the most common source of info surely!) when faced with an unsolicited invoice from a random company the person has never done business with or had any service from!

Stroma

Exactly it's not a crime to seek knowledge, and lets face it people need this because of the obscene lies told by the parking industry and their trade body the bpa. Any ethical company would be trying to first operate in a manner that is transparent, and not actually break laws.

Their whole business model is based on a lie , they have no compunction of acting ethically and they are all the same, there is not one good egg out of them all, none of them deserve to exist, the dvla should be ashamed of themselves for allowing this scam, if they didn't sell RK details on this whole nefarious industry would sink.

nelf

I find it somewhat confusing how Parking Eye can use a screenshot of this site as evidence in one of their cases.

I could quite easily knock up a convincing screenshot, whereby I am confirmed as the Queen of Sheeba - if you gave me 10 minutes and a copy of PhotoShop!

nigelbb

You have nothing to worry about from forum postings that you haven't written anything that would harm your appeal e.g. admitted to being the driver when your defence is that you were not.

If PE were to produce screenshots as evidence then obviously if they were thought to be fake then they can be challenged just like any other piece of evidence & then the onus is on PE to prove that they are genuine. This would be all but impossible in a simple case in the small claims court. If the stakes & the court were higher then some evidence might be adduced from records that MSE could be ordered to produce but if the postings are disputed e.g. by alleging they were maliciously posted by PE to bolster their case it would be very difficult to get them accepted as a true record unless there were compelling internal evidence e.g. an identifiable scan of your PCN.