Vendetta against Parking Eye

Stroma

Lets all laugh at Parking Eye, they have informed a district judge in a small claim that there is a vendetta against them, their LPC solicitor was having a moan about us nasty forums having it in for them.

What a huge laugh this is, I wonder if Rachel @ Parking Eye will read this, if so, here just for you Rachel

LOL

4consumerrights

Of course they'll be reading this -

it's the job of the £16,500 pa Enforcement Officer!

Dear Parking Eye,

It has come to this forum's attention that you believe that there is a vendetta against your company.

However the forum give advice on how to challenge ALL parking charges from whatever parking company they originate from.

The forum would like to draw Parking Eye's attention to the fact that it is your company who are issuing thousands of spurious court claims against motorists and that the court decisions are often now being found in the defendant's favour when a suitable defence is presented.

Parking Eye persistently attempt not to show their contract in court and go to great lengths either to redact conditions or send a dodgy witness statements proclaiming a contract exists. However despite these attempts, it has been proven that Parking Eye have no proprietary interest is any car parks your manage and you do not have a legal right to pursue these parking charges through the courts in your own name.

It is also further worth pointing out that these parking charges are found not to reresent a genuine pre-estimate of loss when appealed at POPLA and the decision is found in the driver or registered keeper's favour and indeed a recent court decision also backed this point.

It should also be pointed out Parking Eye's failure to meet their legal obligations under the Equality Act 2010 due to the inadequate car park management system you adopt which is not fit for purpose of managing anything. The ANPR system does not meet satisfactory standards due to the disjointed timing mechanism adopted and that it is not a live feed.

There have been serious planning issue surrounding car parking times permitted and the use of ANPR systems and your signage often causes entrapment zones within car parks and is again not compliant with the BPA COP. Judges have also agreed that the signs do not form a contract with a driver.


This forum (and others) will continue to assist and help defend anyone with a parking charge to challenge all of these points through the courts if necessary.


Furthermore, I am sure that Parking Prankster could equally say he feels that Parking Eye have a vendettta against him for their pathetic attempts at legal action.

By the way all these people are still on Linkein

Shona Hegarty - Operations coordinator
Christopher Lee, civil engineering manager

Bryan Malcolm, sales manager

James Diss, UK commercial manager

Dominic Dawson, research and development specialist

Zoe Staziker, account manager

Wesley Button, sales manager

Rachel L, head of legal services (interesting that she lists her employer as "a car park operator")


and who is Jonathan Langham - no-one has ever seen him!

newbutold

Stroma wrote: »

Lets all laugh at Parking Eye, they have informed a district judge in a small claim that there is a vendetta against them, their LPC solicitor was having a moan about us nasty forums having it in for them.

What a huge laugh this is, I wonder if Rachel @ Parking Eye will read this, if so, here just for you Rachel

LOL

:rotfl:
:rotfl:
:rotfl:
:rotfl:
Bunch of clowns, especially their LPC solicitor! Actually no, I take that back, it's not fair on clowns. Bunch of eejits, sums them up!!

:j Hello Rachel :rotfl:

ledsons_teeth

If you are reading this Rachel. Will you marry me? You're attractive and apparently earn a cool million a year. My perfect woman. Oh hang on, you work for ParkingEye. Forget what I said. I do have standards.

spacey2012

No ANPR device that is not VCS certified meets the criteria for court evidence.
A council has just had hundreds of tickets thrown out issued by a contractor using ANPR.
The judge ruled VCS is the absolute minimum standard for this and any other court.
I have been barking on about this for months, the reason is where a motorists makes no statement they were on the site it kills the evidence stone dead.
It now just needs pushing up the defence evidence.

what is good for the goose.
Hey hey those pesky vendettas..

I think it might make News monday

Kite2010

Dear Parking Eye

You are misusing the courts by bringing unwinnable cases, henceforth you are banned from using the Small Claims Court

Yours sincerely

HM Court Services

spacey2012

A log of losses need to be kept up to date, once it hits the magic dozen, a vexatious litigant defence becomes very attractive as well.
Most judges like the magic Dozen, we must be getting close.

It only needs one District judge to agree, they are vexatious and that is the end of them and the county court spree.

ledsons_teeth

No vendetta ParkingEye. But Bargeploe and Parking Prankster are coming after you.

BE AFRAID PARKINGEYE. BE VERY AFRAID.

Stroma

So the reason why they claiming this is not lost

Case number 3JD06533 Bristol County Court Deputy District Judge Prigg, parking eve vs Natasha Collins - Daniel


"The lpc person did not hand out the contract. The judge said it should have been supplied and the lpc person said that there is a "vendetta" against parking eye on online forums and that supplying contracts breaks confidentiality laws with their clients. The judge said this was rubbish and the contract should be supplied. "

Iceweasel

What exactly does VCS stand for please?

spacey2012

Apologies it is VCA the S is very close to the A on this small keyboard.
Vehicle Certification Agency