LETTER BEFORE COUNTY COURT CLAIM - Parking Eye

Big_Bad_Dad

Gets the message across though. Shouldn't work against Lazos.

Lazos

Spacey2012 - Noted! I will await his response before pursing that one.
BBD - Thank you. I would hope not but I will follow up with Ampersands comments of course.

Ampersand - Thank you so much for all the great comments. I had sort of lost sight of what this thread was originally for and a response like that is extremely useful.

I think you're right, it needs to be clear and concise. I will re-edit once I recieve their next correspondance and post on here once edited (Parts of CM's letter added following the Ken thread)

I think I will let N. Hanley respond and see if he does take the relevant actions I have requested. I'm fairly certain that I cannot be taken to court for:
Making public complaints on Social Media regarding the two companies affiliation.
Making complaints about their customer service.
Pursing further action against the land owner if this goes to Court and I succeed.
I will inform PP once this has been successfully cancelled - I have e-mailed him requesting a full list of PE's court/POPLA losses to respond to their 'Court Wins' template.

All your comments and responses are much appreciated.

Big_Bad_Dad

Lazos, don't worry!!!!
When I was new to the game four years ago, I used to kick off with "Without prejudice" and then bombard them with legal yardsticks. I didn't know I was making a prat out of myself, but then neither did they! This is all pre-POFA. The edited version of your communication looks compelling.

Coupon-mad

I would let Hanley go (this seems to have got out of hand and surely PE didn't name anyone as such? it was just a location descriptor on a letter wasn't it?). Direct your energy to ParkingEye - glad to see you say you are going to send a strong letter to PE (not an email, do it formally, snail mail) in the hope of hooking a late POPLA code.

ampersand

I would say that arkingpie now seem to be trying to shove complaints to email, so they can then bounce these back thus:[I've had 2]
#
Download as zip
** Action required - your e-mail has NOT been processed **

Thank you for contacting arkingpie

Please be aware we have recently upgraded our Appeals process to allowCOLOR="Red"]NO, 'to block, deter, obfuscate' actually[/COLOR submission of Appeals via our Web Site. Please submit appeals using: http://www.arkingpie.co.uk/Appeal

If you cannot use the web form, then please send a written appeal to:
Appeals,
blah addy.
########
But the above is what comes back when one DOES use the online form.
I think - but c-m and the other deities of these threads must rubberstamp - that consistent failure to fulfil legal obligation to supply POPLA code adds another strong ground against each case of extortion via each unenforceable 'invoice'.

I, OAP, intend reclaiming my costs. I will express my gratitude to N. Hanley for supplying the guide figure of £450 per hour in costs, and reference this when making any counter-claim.

spikyone

Coupon-mad wrote: »

I would let Hanley go (this seems to have got out of hand and surely PE didn't name anyone as such? it was just a location descriptor on a letter wasn't it?). Direct your energy to ParkingEye - glad to see you say you are going to send a strong letter to PE (not an email, do it formally, snail mail) in the hope of hooking a late POPLA code.

I agree that there is no point in contacting Mr Hanley. His name was, however, listed as the landowner whom PE had notified about the planning application to 'upgrade' the site. If PE claim he is the landowner but he in fact has nothing to do with the site, then a) their planning permission is invalid as they have not notified the landowner and b) they do not have permission to pursue charges in the name of the landowner.

The OP should send Mr Hanley's e-mail to PE in response to their LBCCC so that they drop the claim, and to Preston City Council's planning department just for fun. I'd suggest copying it to the BPA and DVLA too but I'd expect their usual head-in-the-sand response.

Lazos

I have made Mr Hanley aware that ParkingEye named him as the landowner but I will be leaving that there now.

I have informed Preston City County Council, with e-mail evidence, that Mr Hanley has denied ownership of the land so either Shona Hegarty(With the same registered address as PE) has put the incorrect land owner on the application form OR she has not provided the relevant notice as the land owner is unaware that he is in ownership of the land.

I have also sent this to the BPA in respects to their affiliation with PE.

Now, Re-Writing my LBCCC response in regards to non-compliance. Still awaiting PE to reply to my appeal(As the BPA advised they will but they have allowed for a delay due to the Christmas period) and my original LBCCC response as per Daisys thread.

Thank you all for the information, the help and just general views on this whole affair to date. I look forward to providing you all with an update in due course.

nigelbb

Lazos wrote: »

II have informed Preston City County Council, with e-mail evidence, that Mr Hanley has denied ownership of the land so either Shona Hegarty(With the same registered address as PE) has put the incorrect land owner on the application form OR she has not provided the relevant notice as the land owner is unaware that he is in ownership of the land.

Alternatively Mr Hanley was fibbing when he claimed that Easirent were not & never had been the landowner.

Lazos

nigelbb wrote: »

Alternatively Mr Hanley was fibbing when he claimed that Easirent were not & never had been the landowner.

Lets assume that he was not fibbing, after all he did advise me that his company has integrity...Lets assume he just didn't know that he owned the land, it could have been purchased on his behalf? This then proves that the relevant 21 days notice was not provided by Shona and therefore, planning permission is invalid.

bod1467

No he wasn't - he simply used a terminological inexactitude.