ParkingEye - Letter Before County Court Claim, NOT LBA.

Custard_Pie

guernica wrote: »

I'll type up my email, attach the hotel's email, and send it off to ParkingEye making sure I get a certificate of posting to prove the date - my 14 days expire on monday I believe.

In case ParkingEye decide to ignore both the hotel's request to cancel and my repeated confirmation of cancellation, how does that stand in court? In my favour I imagine?

Thanks

We've seem them still pursue customers when a supermarket has cancelled an invoice and when chased again, the supermarket has not wanted to get involved further.

They may accept it, but I bet that they try and pursue a nominal expense charge of £50 - £70.

If they do, let us know and we can wind them up a bit more.

guernica

Custard_Pie wrote: »

We've seem them still pursue customers when a supermarket has cancelled an invoice and when chased again, the supermarket has not wanted to get involved further.

They may accept it, but I bet that they try and pursue a nominal expense charge of £50 - £70.

If they do, let us know and we can wind them up a bit more.

I was also going to mention/quote the bit in the Pre-Action to Practice Direction about resolving the matter before getting to court. Seems like I have achieved exactly that so a court would also look unfavourably on PE.

WiSC

Has any one questioned Parking Eye's legal rights to chase some one for trespassing? Because if you dont agree with their signs and park any way isn't that classed as trespass and NOT breach of contract?

Coupon-mad

WiSC wrote: »

Has any one questioned Parking Eye's legal rights to chase some one for trespassing? Because if you dont agree with their signs and park any way isn't that classed as trespass and NOT breach of contract?

No, it's not deemed as trespassing as these cases are about car parks where people are expressly invited to park (by the retailer, hotel or whoever is onsite). PE then claim that any overstay is 'breach of contract' with them. And yes there are loads of arguments about that of course, as on every thread about PE!

WiSC

Darn! I thought I was on to something there!

zzzLazyDaisy

OP it seems that you are going great guns, so this is just a comment for anyone else reading.....

PE have changed tack.

They appear to be issuing LBCCC instead of the old LBA (it claims that it complies with the PD but does no such thing!).

They are also issuing the LBCCC in response to letters received from posters who are already following the PD procedure (ie in response to the original LBA and in some cases also in response to their Stinky Template Letter).

It seems that what they are doing is attempting to 'reset the clock' by producing an apparently compliant LBCCC which refers the recipient to the PD (so is compliant in that respect) and leaving it to the recipient to discover for themselves that the LBCCC is still deficient....

Don't be fooled the advice is still the same - check the LBCCC against Annex A para 2 of the Practice Direction, and then ask for the information that you are entitled to be given under the PD

It is also worth reading the last few posts on the Guidance thread where this change of tack is discussed.

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/4705657

Daisy

guernica

Thanks Daisy. I believe mine was one of the first posted up on these MSE forums where they issued the LBCCC. Threw me for a second I must admit.

Posted them another letter, essentially telling them the matter is now closed. Though the principal has cancelled the tickets, I do not have high hopes that ParkingEye will follow! Come at me!

As always, will keep the thread updated.

Custard_Pie

zzzLazyDaisy wrote: »

OP it seems that you are going great guns, so this is just a comment for anyone else reading.....

PE have changed tack.

They appear to be issuing LBCCC instead of the old LBA (it claims that it complies with the PD but does no such thing!).

They are also issuing the LBCCC in response to letters received from posters who are already following the PD procedure (ie in response to the original LBA and in some cases also in response to their Stinky Template Letter).

It seems that what they are doing is attempting to 'reset the clock' by producing an apparently compliant LBCCC which refers the recipient to the PD (so is compliant in that respect) and leaving it to the recipient to discover for themselves that the LBCCC is still deficient....

Don't be fooled the advice is still the same - check the LBCCC against Annex A para 2 of the Practice Direction, and then ask for the information that you are entitled to be given under the PD

It is also worth reading the last few posts on the Guidance thread where this change of tack is discussed.

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/4705657

Daisy

Daisy,

Can they be officially reported anywhere for abusing and purposely trying to circumvent the court process?

zzzLazyDaisy

Custard_Pie wrote: »

Daisy,

Can they be officially reported anywhere for abusing and purposely trying to circumvent the court process?

Only if they actually take you to court. Then you can complain to the court. For that reason I'd like to say that this is a charade - just another layer in the attempt to cajole/manipulate/bully people into paying up and so avoid court proceedings - since the legal department would have to be staffed by idiots to knowingly allow their shortcomings to be paraded before the court.

The problem is there is no guarantee that we are not dealing with idiots.....

So for that reason, my view remains that we take this 'dance' at face value, and deal with it.

Daisy

Edited to say - if anyone knows if there is just one qualified solicitor on the staff of PE's 'Legal Department' and that person's name, then we can report them to the SRA for unbefitting conduct. But from the pitiful attempts to comply (or not) with due legal process, I doubt that is the case.

guernica

Email confirmation from ParkingEye that the charge is now... CANCELLED.

Happy days!!

I'd like to thank everyone that posted and gave me assistance in this case. It's been a brilliant eye-opener not just about parking "fines" (which I had always ignored pre-October 2012 - I must have close to 100 letters from numerous PPCs!) but also about the legal process as a whole.

I have also pottered around the forums while waiting for mine to update and I have to say that the regular names are doing an absolutely sterling job, and all off your own backs, in helping out the vunerable, helpless motorist. Many thanks all, I'd buy you all a pint if I could