Parking Eye - New Response - Letter Before County Court Claim

spacey2012

The question would be would a district judge allow a third hand representative ?
The company claims to be acting on behalf of the landowner, most district judges will allow them at very least to use a company solicitor, some will insist they provide a barrister to act in audience of second hand right.

But for the parking company to pass it via there solicitor to a third hand agent .
I can not see any district judge having this, it is an abuse of the barr.
There would be no direct instruction to act from the landowner to this third hand.
They are obviously relying upon the ignorance of the lay people they are litigating against.

Anyone up against this, request the judge to rule upon the right of audience of person sent to represent the parking company sent to represent the landowner and ask should the landowner not instruct his own representation.

I think you will find most district judges will agree, they are not on place to allow abuses of the right of audience, too much depends upon it.

Custard_Pie

spacey2012 wrote: »

The question would be would a district judge allow a third hand representative ?
The company claims to be acting on behalf of the landowner, most district judges will allow them at very least to use a company solicitor, some will insist they provide a barrister to act in audience of second hand right.

But for the parking company to pass it via there solicitor to a third hand agent .
I can not see any district judge having this, it is an abuse of the barr.
There would be no direct instruction to act from the landowner to this third hand.
They are obviously relying upon the ignorance of the lay people they are litigating against.

Anyone up against this, request the judge to rule upon the right of audience of person sent to represent the parking company sent to represent the landowner and ask should the landowner not instruct his own representation.

I think you will find most district judges will agree, they are not on place to allow abuses of the right of audience, too much depends upon it.

Then let them hang themselves. I doubt that this bulk litigation will go down to well with the Court Service anyway. Like ACS Law did, the scam will eventually be exposed as someone with money and the will takes them on head on in Court with proper representation, rips the poor sap opposite them to bits and sets a precedent unlikely to be turned over at a later date.

Of course this will go down like a lead balloon with the other PPC and The BPA as their golden goose will be cooked over night. As some point BPA will get them to back off.

stuart153

Hi Daisy, thank you for replying and hope you're not too unwell.
I have answered your questions as best as I can:


Does the registered owner live in Scotland? No
Date of parking 'breach': I need to check my other letters this evening but it was either 13th or 14th February 2013
It was a PCN through the post: Again, I'll check the date of the PCN when I get home and update this post


Circumstances: I overstayed in a Booths supermarket carpark by 33 minutes.
No additional information to add re: Equality Act I'm afraid.


I asked PE to confirm the name of the Land Owner, and they have seemingly dodged this by issuing the following statement:
The Land Holder/Land Owner:


1. In this case, we are contracted by Booths. We are not at liberty to divulge the address of this party.
2. We are contracted by the landholder onsite, or the landholders agent. We are fully authorised to operate onsite.




I've scanned in a copy of the letter that they sent me, but don't seem to be able to upload it to the forum. I'm also unable to post links (as a newbie) so can't host it somewhere and post a link to it.


I can email you a copy if that will be of any help.


Thanks for taking a look at this, much appreciated. I'll update this post as soon as I can with the missing information.


Cheers


Stuart

zzzLazyDaisy

Hi stuart, don't worry about sending me a copy of the letter they sent you.

Just check it through against the template letter that you've posted and just point out any differences.

BTW .... the long list of questions they ask you at the end. Ignore them - they can ask those questions in court and get shot down by the judge.... if they get that far!

Daisy

stuart153

Thanks again Daisy,

I've just been through my letter and compared it with the template letter and have the following differences:


The Land Holder/Land Owner:
1. In this case, we are contracted by Booths


5. Should you consider that you didn’t enter into any contract with ParkingEye, please demonstrate how it is possible that you were on site for 2 hours and 33 minutes,



[FONT=verdana, geneva, lucida, lucida grande, arial, helvetica, sans-serif]ParkingEye is required to offer a 40% reduction to motorists for early payment within 14 days. Therefore, this reduced amount needs to be greater than or equal to £53 in order for ParkingEye to operate as a business. Therefore, the upper amount of the charge needed to be at the level outlined below. Furthermore, the amount of £100 was approved and prescribed by the British Parking Association in consultation with the Department for Transport in 2012. Therefore, the full amount of the Parking Charge, which is an enforceable charge levied for breach of contract, is £80. The reduced amount for early payment is £40.[/FONT]

[FONT=verdana, geneva, lucida, lucida grande, arial, helvetica, sans-serif](Does it matter that their maths is incorrect? £40 is 50% of £80, not 40% !?)[/FONT]
[FONT=verdana, geneva, lucida, lucida grande, arial, helvetica, sans-serif][/FONT]
[FONT=verdana, geneva, lucida, lucida grande, arial, helvetica, sans-serif]4. Please provide your reasons for having ignored the numerous letters sent to you in relation to this charge. Please explain why you made no appeal to ParkingEye within the 28 days provided for you to do so. Please explain why you think it is reasonable to have failed to enter into pre-court action dialogue with ParkingEye, and only to have corresponded in relation to this charge now that court action is imminent.[/FONT]
[FONT=verdana, geneva, lucida, lucida grande, arial, helvetica, sans-serif][/FONT]
[FONT=verdana, geneva, lucida, lucida grande, arial, helvetica, sans-serif]
[/FONT]
[FONT=verdana, geneva, lucida, lucida grande, arial, helvetica, sans-serif]Cheers[/FONT]
[FONT=verdana, geneva, lucida, lucida grande, arial, helvetica, sans-serif]
[/FONT]
[FONT=verdana, geneva, lucida, lucida grande, arial, helvetica, sans-serif]Stuart[/FONT]

trisontana

But that amount "approved " by he BPA is only there so it can mimic the amount used by councils. Yet another example of private parking tickets trying to fool people into think they have the same status as council tickets.

Of course council charges are backed by legislation and are a legal penalty. This cannot be said of private parking tickets which come under civil law.

103Rich

[FONT=verdana, geneva, lucida, lucida grande, arial, helvetica, sans-serif]ParkingEye is required to offer a 40% reduction to motorists for early payment within 14 days. Therefore, this reduced amount needs to be greater than or equal to £53 in order for ParkingEye to operate as a business. Therefore, the upper amount of the charge needed to be at the level outlined below. Furthermore, the amount of £100 was approved and prescribed by the British Parking Association in consultation with the Department for Transport in 2012. Therefore, the full amount of the Parking Charge, which is an enforceable charge levied for breach of contract, is £80. The reduced amount for early payment is £40.[/FONT]

[FONT=verdana, geneva, lucida, lucida grande, arial, helvetica, sans-serif](Does it matter that their maths is incorrect? £40 is 50% of £80, not 40% !?)[/FONT]

[FONT=verdana, geneva, lucida, lucida grande, arial, helvetica, sans-serif]So Parking Eye need £53 per ticket to operate as a business but they will accept £40 for early payment! Why would you want to make a loss of £13? Or have I missed something?[/FONT]

Kite2010

Would be interesting to know how that £53 is made up from and how much can be defined as actual losses suffered and not fixed costs.

nigelbb

stuart153 wrote: »

[FONT=verdana, geneva, lucida, lucida grande, arial, helvetica, sans-serif]4. Please provide your reasons for having ignored the numerous letters sent to you in relation to this charge. Please explain why you made no appeal to ParkingEye within the 28 days provided for you to do so. Please explain why you think it is reasonable to have failed to enter into pre-court action dialogue with ParkingEye, and only to have corresponded in relation to this charge now that court action is imminent.[/FONT]

It is perfectly reasonable for anyone who received a charge from Private Eye to ignore all letters as that was the advice given by among others Martin Lewis of MoneySavingExpert.com plus that solicitor on Watchdog who told millions of BBC viewers to make a paper plane out of any demand from a private parking company.

trisontana

You could reply to them "please explain why you are a load of d***heads."