Parking Eye Notice to Proceed

hoohoo

Daniel, excuse me for doubting your manhood, espcially given your picture, but are you in fact male?

The reason I ask is that PE state in the last paragraph of point 2 (top of page 5.

"ParkingEye note that the Defendant has references (sic) several appendices within her defence but has failed to include them."

Ironically, this is just before the claim that "this defence is a standard and generic template distributed to online forums..."

So, are you female, did you fail to include appendices and did you get your defence from an online forum?

...or are ParkingEye using an inappropriate generic template.

Putting aside the humourous incompetence of the ParkingEye template-using weasels, you are on the right lines with the 40% discount. You can download the BPA meeting notes regarding this from here.
http://www.parking-prankster.com/exhibits.html (exhibit 28)

This establishes the purpose of the 40% discount is to deter appeals.

Also, parkingeyes accounts (exhibit 3) and the number of keeper request they made (exhibit 35) establish that their statement that the cost per ticket issued is £55 is a lie.

Their total running costs are £9.4 million, and the tickets issued around 600,000 (allowing not all keeper requests result in tickets) which means the cost per ticket issued cannot be more than £16. As not all the costs in running the business are allowable against tickets issued, the true cost is more like £5-£10.

danielfoley22

That is hilarious, as I was looking at this at 2 in the morning it must of slipped my mind.

Could I use that in Court, as a nice response to their template comments?

It is ridiculous! how do they get away with operating, how are they BPA approved?

This is a cartel right? no regulation, just allowed to make claims without any actual proof?

What amazes me, how can they do this with no actual proof of parking? ANPR only shows an entry and exit, it shows nothing more, with the fact that they already lie through their teeth how can they be allowed to take anyone to court when they have clearly been exposed time and time again?

But yes, I am learning now, I intend to do this showdown with case law, example cases, and to prove GPEOL and amongst other things such as:

How can they be forming a contract with anyone when their signs explicitly state no unauthorised parking? They are not offering anything, therefore there are no foundations for a contract.

By contract law, they cannot penalise when a contract has been broken, only the aggrieved can claim damages, and that those damages have to be a fair assessment. The fact that A) they lie about charges to obtain data and Can change the fine from £60 to £100 a day outside their default timespan for payment, what, so £40 in costs are incurred out of thin air all of a sudden?

If they are not profiting from their activities how can they justify the amounts charged, what are the actual breakdowns, how much revenue (net profit) are they making?

I have loads more, loads and loads, I intend to put this dirty, pathetic crapita company in the gutter where it belongs,

Thank you for the template spot, excellent!

da_rule

The no proof of parking thing is something which the case I linked to on Parking Pranksters website nicely covers.

The 'no unauthorised parking' issue you raise is interesting. As you say they are not really offering anything. The correct claim would probably be one of trespass rather than breach of contract.

nigelbb

danielfoley22 wrote: »

How can they be forming a contract with anyone when their signs explicitly state no unauthorised parking? They are not offering anything, therefore there are no foundations for a contract.

Exactly! You cannot enter into a contract to do something that is forbidden. If it was permit holders only then parking is not offered to those who do not hold a permit. The only action open even if you did park is to be sued for trespass by the landowner/leaseholder not by a 3rd party parking management company.

fisherjim

"I intend to put this dirty, pathetic crapita company in the gutter where it belongs."

That's the sort of fighting talk I love!:)

danielfoley22

Fantastic

This isn't my first run in with Capita, they tried taking me to court for no TV licence, when one of their tv licensing people came to the door they asked if I had a licence, I said no, they said do you have a TV, I said Yes, and I watch TV on it, when they tried to take me to court, I requested a copy of the evidence that showed I had actually broken the law, I used some case law and printed a snippet of from the TV licensing website that said "You do not need a TV license to watch catch up TV"

They dropped the case before court,

Seriously, have Crapita got nothing better to do then to try and exploit, rob and steal from people?

I love communities like this, sticking together to put companies who think they are above the law in their place, and even as far into the ground as possible.

What upsets me too is that so many people just told me to pay the fine, I refused, why should I pay for something when I hadn't done anything wrong?

ampersand

Loving your Thread, df22, BUT DON'T CALL IT A [STRIKE]'FINE'[/STRIKE].

Crapita will be ruing their over-priced purchase as plunging credit rating shows, also CCJ's against them.

'Seriously, have Crapita got nothing better to do then to try and exploit, rob and steal from people?' - no, they have to make up the slack somehow.

Coupon-mad

I love this thread and your fighting attitude too. You do know there's a PE test case to be heard fairly soon (date to be kept secret until it's over). Did I write your defence, your username rings a bell? If so then you will have seen about the Cambridge cases as I mention them in defences. Keep an eye on this forum for an update in the end.

You now await your N180 DQ (see the links in the NEWBIES thread post #5 about small claims, includes a hyperlink showing a summary by bargepole covering the forms & what happens when). You then complete that and it's allocated to your local court and by then you will know the outcome of the test case too.