Combined Parking Solutions Ltd - County Court Claim Form

The_Deep

Allieowen wrote: »

We have noted your posts online and despite our earlier PM via this system you continue to discuss the matter via an online forum. ... They are also indeed correct that a contractual offer is always subject to VAT.

It is only correct we advise that a copy of this PM has been retained and will form part of our court bundle.

I wonder what purpose Perky has for writing such letters, in my opinion they are verging on harassment, if this gets to court I hope the judge sees them.

We know that Perky is following this thread, I wonder if he would care to tell us what he hopes to achieve.

Half_way

It doesnt matter where you discuss this - online offline in the pub, posted to billboards- as long as you dont lie, tell the truth, and you are 100% honest with no trickery then you have nothing to fear.

I would advise that this is currently a live legal matter and as such posting copies of letters on an online forum is not how matters should be conducted and it is our intention to advise the court of your postings which have all been retained.

again nothing to worry about as long as you are being truthful and honest, you can discuss these matters in whatever way you see fit.

At the end of the day the charges levied by Combined parking solutions, VAT or no VAT are nothing short of a disguised unlawful penalty. Who in their right mind would agree to pay such a large amount of money as a contractual charge for something that could be found much cheaper ( and possibly free) elsewhere.

Coupon-mad

Allieowen wrote: »

We have noted your posts online and despite our earlier PM via this system you continue to discuss the matter via an online forum.

I would advise that this is currently a live legal matter and as such posting copies of letters on an online forum is not how matters should be conducted and it is our intention to advise the court of your postings which have all been retained.
I would respectfully request that you conduct yourself in a manner appropriate to ongoing legal action.

The posters are correct that this matter will proceed 'all the way' against your daughter, she ignored our letters (to which you obviously received as they have been posted online) and upon receiving the first charge she parked there again despite being on notice that charges apply.

The forum posters have neglected to advise you that they have been involved in many cases against Combined Parking Solutions and have never won any, however they always neglect to tell people of this.

I would strongly advise you obtain independent, qualified (none of the posters online are qualified) legal advice.

Posters of the online forums often give people advice and 'cast iron defences' then when the defendant loses they go all silent yet are very vocal when they win against other companies.

I would also add that the case against Beavis -v- parking eye is totally irrelevant to our case as they issue charges for breach of contract and your daughters offer to park was an offer to park.
The outcome of that case in the CoA will also have no bearing on ours.

They are also indeed correct that a contractual offer is always subject to VAT.

You may also wish to view our legal page and in particular the past cases (one was added today of Combined Parking -v- ODonnell) .. this will answer many of your questions about the charges and signage.

It is only correct we advise that a copy of this PM has been retained and will form part of our court bundle.

Nasty nasty - of course you can take advice from a forum! And this lot are beatable with the right Judge & the right defence (NOT about VAT!). Most people have neither the right arguments nor confidence nor a good Judge, but this could be achieved if you do.

The_Deep

this lot are beatable

Indeed, Kerry McCafferty gave the a real thrashing.

http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2014/02/civil-enforcement-limited-finally-turn.html

Mr Perky would be wise to study the transcript.

System

If you check the numbers: Period 12 months to 30/9/2014

Claims issued: 248
Not Defended : 169

Number going to Court: 22
Days at court: 19

So there are 8 -9 times more "wins" from people bottling than from court days. Seems to choose very, very well.

Get in a stiff defence and see how many miles up and down the M6 he wants to do for £100.

BenefitMaster

Just my two-pennorth. This OP needs to contact one of the organisations who can help with this, such as Prankster, or Parking Cowboys.

Regrettably, I can't get involved right now.