Vendetta against Parking Eye

fil_cad

A BBC watchdog programe on parking eyes scams is long overdue.:mad:

esmerobbo

I have to agree with Bargepole, LPC can only fight with what they are given, if PE send them in unprepared its PE's downfall.
Maybe the LPC solicitor asked for the contract, and PE gave him the vendetta claptrap.
What they probably meant to tell him was they cant show it because it is not sufficient.

teabelly

Why don't LPC tell PE to shove their cases? The reputation of the firm is going down the toilet as people will naturally assume they're happy with the pathetic standard of evidence PE provide.

Lying with PE will give them fleas anyway.

4consumerrights

bargepole wrote: »

To be fair to LPC, it's not really their fault that so many cases are being lost.

PE provide them with witness statements riddled with untruths, and possibly containing perjury; they provide landowner witness statements which don't comply with any of the CPR rules for the correct form of such statements; and they provide a bundle (aka the blizzard) of largely irrelevant legal arguments, with no page numbers, which even a legally trained person such as a Judge would have difficulty following.

Then as a last resort, they supply a copy of the landowner contract, which is so heavily redacted that no worthwhile conclusion can be drawn from it.

As the LPC Solicitor Advocate at my last hearing agreed, PE are asking the LPC reps to fight with one hand tied behind their back. They shouldn't therefore be surprised when they emerge from court bloodied and beaten.

It's like the blind leading the blind with the Judge being piggy in the middle!

Defendent has not got all paperwork - due to Parking Eye's reluctance to supply contract.

Claimaint solicitor has got bungled/fake and inaccurate paperwork

and the Judge having to decide.

**********************************************************

teabelly wrote: »

Why don't LPC tell PE to shove their cases? The reputation of the firm is going down the toilet as people will naturally assume they're happy with the pathetic standard of evidence PE provide.

Lying with PE will give them fleas anyway.

LPC wont tell PE to shove it - they are getting paid- the company's financials aren't that good in any case.

What reputation - have you not checked out their associated website
and the terrible letters that are being generated.
http://www.thesmallclaimsservice.co.uk

Stroma

fil_cad wrote: »

A BBC watchdog programe on parking eyes scams is long overdue.:mad:

I agree, there hasn't been any articles since pofa 2012 came into effect, we should be going to the BBC about parking eye abusing the court system by issuing thousands of claims in a spurious manner.

edward123

Stroma wrote: »

I agree, there hasn't been any articles since pofa 2012 came into effect, we should be going to the BBC about parking eye abusing the court system by issuing thousands of claims in a spurious manner.

Yeh, if Parking Eye wants to make 'war' on the general honest parking public lets take the war to them. :beer:

Kite2010

All that is needed is a good story, maybe PE making the mistake and taking a heavily disabled motorist to court (and losing) for parking longer than 'allowed', failing to make adjustments under the equalities act

Redx

they already did that, with lainieee , but its been orverturned and is on pranksters blog too

4consumerrights

Lainiee's case is ideal for public scruntiny here with how she was treated.

4consumerrights

@Redx you beat me to it - but Lainiees case isn't over - the CCJ default has been overturned but she has still got to go to another hearing and counterclaim.