LETTER BEFORE COUNTY COURT CLAIM - Parking Eye

nigelbb

Lazos wrote: »

BPA:


However, please be aware our Code does state an appeal should be sent in within 28 days. "

No it doesn't. Their CoP says:-

22.7 We consider it a reasonable timescale to allow 28 days from the issue of the parking charge notice (in whatever format you send it) to allow the driver, keeper or hirer to challenge the enforcement action.

They consider 28 days a reasonable timescale but don't sanction PPCs who only allow 14 days so it's clear that the timescale for appeals is totally arbitrary & unenforceable.

Lazos

spacey2012 wrote: »

If you were to put this evidence before the Judge I can see you would get an adjournment and a granted order to have this person brought before the court to settle once and for all who owns the land.
If they have provided a fake statement, I wonder if it might be worth having the new directer of parking eye brought in as well along with the signatories.

This could be the case that breaks the straw that breaks the camels back.

You able to expand here Spacey? RE: Bringing the Director of PE in with the signatories. Are you referencing Shona Hegarty's application form to Preston CC OR Nick Hanley's Terminological Inexactitude?

In terms of:

If Nick Hanley is not the relevant Land Owner, PE falsified the Application Form...

If Nick Hanley is the relevant Land Owner and his statement to me is a 'lie', then surely he would claim in court that he is the land owner and that path of reasoning would be irrelevant other than the e-mail I have?

Just playing Devils advocate here, more out of interest than any commitment to action!

nigelbb

If Nick Hamley has lied then he is guilty of the tort of deceit & you could sue him rather than the other way round as he had promised.

The Court of Appeal confirmed that the tort of deceit contains four ingredients:

a false representation;
the person giving the representation knows that it is false or he is reckless as to whether it is true or false;
the person giving the representation intends that a person should act in reliance on it; and
the person given the representation relies on it and in consequence suffers loss.

I think that you can tick all four boxes.

4consumerrights

According to the planning application here:

165 Walker Street - is indeed occupied by Easirent:

http://www.bizwiki.co.uk/car-hire/1625307/easirent.htm

Easirent

• 165 Walker St
• Preston
• Lancashire
• PR1 2RR

• Tel: 01772 886888
• Web: http://www.easirent.com

In actual fact Easirent is actually just a trading name as the full name of the company is:

Easi Assist Limited owned by the Hanleys:

http://companycheck.co.uk/company/06895847/EASIASSIST-LTD/directors-shareholders#people-summary

You may also be interested in the fact that Shona Hegarty ticked several conflicting tick boxes ( eg 2 and 27) and failed to fully complete the applicant part (missing out company name).

Shona Hegarty is actually the Operations Co-Ordinator at Parking Eye as shown on Linkedin (check out other employees too)

http://www.linkedin.com/pub/shona-hegarty/31/885/33Shona

Shona hegarty's Experience

Operations Coordinator


Parkingeye

February 2011 – Present (3 years)
I manage on going projects. I produce civil documents for the works that need carried out. I manage one surveyor and his work. I organise materials and equipment that need to be on site to get the work completed

The site is also currently on the market a per this link and is a leasehold interest so the freeholder may well be in fact Preston City Council

http://www.pinkus.co.uk/uploads/images/45927.pdf

bod1467

4consumerrights wrote: »

The site is also currently on the market a per this link and is a leashold interest so the freeholder may well be in fact Preston City Council

http://www.pinkus.co.uk/uploads/images/45927.pdf

Which would mean that his statement of not being the owner is correct? Or at least not wholly incorrect?

4consumerrights

bod1467 wrote: »

Which would mean that his statement of not being the owner is correct? Or at least not wholly incorrect?

In strict pedantic terms yes as the company does not own the freehold to the land, although as a leaseholder you do hold proprietary interest as tenant status, whilst paying lease/rent etc.

. Makes this interesting though because what are the terms of his leasehold arrangement? Can he sub-let for other business ventures? And what about business rates he pays? And any other back-handers with tax liabilities etc etc

Could be why it is on the market? Perhaps Preston council aren't too happy.......

Lazos

This is a lot to understand and dissolve. Will come back to this should the need arise.

My request for POPLA ADR letter in response to LBCCC was received at 8am this morning, fingers crossed for POPLA code(or outright cancellation if the spy's have seen the can of worms this one could open for them. Falsified planning permission documents, possible invalid operation as principle is unaware of their activity, tort of deceit by principle, etc). Maybe they should cancel and advise me this was at the request of the landowner/leaseowner and I won't tell anyone

Redx

frankly, they only have themselves to blame by opening the can of worms in the first place

one day they will take on somebody who has the means and ability to "stick it right up em" in such a way that the industry will have to change its ways

maybe a barrister or judge or somebody who just decides to take them on and give them a good spanking they wont recover from

we can only hope

Parking-Prankster

4consumerrights wrote: »

Shona Hegarty is actually the Operations Co-Ordinator at Parking Eye as shown on Linkedin (check out other employees too)

http://www.linkedin.com/pub/shona-hegarty/31/885/33Shona
Shona hegarty's Experience

Operations Coordinator


Parkingeye

February 2011 – Present (3 years)
I manage on going projects. I produce civil documents for the works that need carried out. I manage one surveyor and his work. I organise materials and equipment that need to be on site to get the work completed

Shona's linkedin page seems to have disappeared. No doubt this is because information on ParkingEye's corporate structure, of its business and job titles and roles of its employees are clearly confidential. It is information which ParkingEye has kept inaccessible and out of the public domain. The precise structure of ParkingEye's company is only known to those who are part of the corporate entity and anyone with a linkedin account.

4consumerrights

Parking-Prankster wrote: »

Shona's linkedin page seems to have disappeared. No doubt this is because information on ParkingEye's corporate structure, of its business and job titles and roles of its employees are clearly confidential. It is information which ParkingEye has kept inaccessible and out of the public domain. The precise structure of ParkingEye's company is only known to those who are part of the corporate entity and anyone with a linkedin account.

Well we know that Parking Eye are viewing this thread with interest then!

I know that they got particularly shirty with you PP when they made you redact their job titles on a blog.

Still what they should be aware of is that I have a back up copy.......