LETTER BEFORE COUNTY COURT CLAIM - Parking Eye

Lazos

nigelbb wrote: »

To quote from Captain Barbossa in Pirates of the Caribbean 'the code is more what you'd call "guidelines" than actual rules.'

Surely they would have to be fairly concrete for ParkingEye to be affiliated/associated with the BPA and therefore allowed to access the DVLA database?

Lazos

So, Mr Hanley has responded to me advising:

"Thank you for sending the paperwork regarding a dispute you have with a parking company at one of our former rental sites in Preston. I would like to clearly point out to you that we vacated that site over 5 years ago and we were merely tenants of the site. Easirent have never owned that site so your threats are quite unfounded. Parking Eye may refer to easirent Lund street but that is the name of the former tenant. "

Along with some threats of legal action if I do not apologise and advise I will take no further action. I have responded to this that IF they are NOT the landowner than I shall not persue with a complaint over social media. Assuming they are not the landowners than I do have some complaints about customer service but that is not for this board.

My next steps are to now:
To identify whom the land owner of "Easirent Lund Street Car Park" is?

Any ideas of how to get this information without paying for it via the land registry?

spikyone

Lazos wrote: »

My next steps are to now:
To identify whom the land owner of "Easirent Lund Street Car Park" is?

Any ideas of how to get this information without paying for it via the land registry?

Easy - you Google "Lund Street Car Park" which brings up the planning application...
http://publicaccess.preston.gov.uk/portal/servlets/ApplicationSearchServlet?PKID=125683

And if you open the file "Application Form.pdf", it appears from the landowner details (Section 30) that either Mr Hanley or Parking Eye are telling porkies.

Lazos

...Why didn't I see that...Thank you kindly.

Lazos

Not to Panic now guys, I have contacted Mr Hanley and advised him that if his statement of "Easirent have never owned that site" is true, than he needs to contact ParkingEye Ltd. ASAP as they have named him the owner...phew .

On another note, the link (kindly provided by SpikyOne) says that the decision date for this to be a public pay and display car park was not made until 23/12/2013 BUT applied for in July 2013. My PCN is from October 2013. Anyone know if there is anything in this?

Section 28(a) of the application form advises the dimensions of the signage and size of the lettering. I need to check if the BPA Code Of Conduct does advise on regulation size...

bod1467

The BPA CoP does include a section on signage sizing - both for signs themselves and the font sizes. (These differ depending on positioning - signs at entrances need bigger font so can be read whilst a vehicle is moving).

http://www.britishparking.co.uk/write/Documents/AOS/609_AOS_CoP_June_2013_update.pdf

Section 18 and Appendix B.

spacey2012

If they have named him as owner and you have found out he is not, what on earth are you doing bringing it to their attention.
Let them issue papers and get an order for him to attend for questioning to court.
Boy would you have them by the googlies.

Lazos

Thanks bod1467. I will review and scrutinise shortly.

Thanks Spacey2012. This is why I wanted to bring it to his attention:

"May I remind you that we take our integrity on the web very seriously indeed and anyone attempting to attack us through social media by publishing falsehoods will be taken to task in no uncertain terms, and quite rightly so. Any legal action you are now facing for illegal parking will pale into insignificance.

I expect an immediate apology and retraction of your threats so we know exactly your intentions otherwise any legal fees I incur will be passed directly to you. We use Brabners in Liverpool at a charge out rate of £450 per hour and I need to know if you intend to carry out your threats so that an injunction can be issued. Once this process starts your costs could amount to tens of thousands of pounds and you have no defence.

N Hanley. "

I don't take kindly to actual threats especially when, in the most part, I was only informing him of what actions I would take.

I will post the full correspondance eventually so you can all see.

spacey2012

I would advise him that as a parking company is issuing litigation with him as principle in contract that if they have no such contract that allows this parking company to sit in right of audience on his behalf and issue litigation his £450 an hour might be far better spent obtaining an injunction preventing a parking company bringing litigation in his companies name.
It might also save him having himself issued with an order to attend county court for questioning to certain to this contract of litigation.

ampersand

Check your possessive apostrophes - didn't correct all of them, just too dense.
'Court' - always with upper case 'C' in this context.
Omit 'apologise' and 'defence' in relation to yourself. You have done nothing but rebut an attempt at extortion via an unenforceabe 'invoice': Enclose that word in parentheses every time.
re: 'Some sections may be too heavily laced with sarcasm, please let me know your thoughts' - it's not attempted sarcasm that's the problem. There's little sarcasm, just mismatched metaphor. Too many sentences are impenetrable. If your meaning is not clear, there's no point in writing, especially if you envisage a Judge reading your submissions subsequently.
Less is more. Stick with facts.

I think you have got yourself in a tangle.
It's a stage I recognise, but leave it for now and come back with your red pencil after a break.
####
This is not meant unkindly, but you need to strip away the bits you probably like best. It's a matter of 'kill your darlings'. You are not writing for your own satisfaction, but to achieve cancellation of an unenforceable 'invoice'.

re: subsequent threats from N.Hanley. Local newspaper story? Cut and paste to certain sites:-)?
Parking Prankster would love this.
Have you gone through this one lazos?
http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/search?updated-min=2014-01-01T00:00:00-08:00&updated-max=2015-01-01T00:00:00-08:00&max-results=4:

'pursue - spelling. The N. Hanley letter is not well-written. Ensure that yours are, in grammar and spelling.

Very good luck.