damage to car left with airport parking !!

RS2000.

alfie_1 wrote: »

THEY are not naming and shaming ... but I can now.
if my emails to them do not result in payment then I have a strong case for court. I can now prove all points.


the reason it has been a "police matter" is because
illegal premises are being used for parking
fraudulent claims by company
uninsured drivers
unliscenced drivers
and the list goes on.


they want to shut down whole company when all evidence is in.
the reason I got their permission /advice... was because I did not want to be accused of slander ... I have got all my facts now.

From what you've posted you have no evidence that would win your case but good luck all the same.

alfie_1

thankyou


I believe in trying at least

oscarward

Before spending a lot of legal costs check if they have any assets. If they are going to be closed down then you may win your case to discover you are at the end of a queue to extract money from a very small and dwindling pot.

RS2000.

You do realise that if you can prove, the sat nav was in your car at the time it was positioning in the field. You'd still have to prove they caused the damage.

Civil court proof is balance of probability so you can prove the location of the sat nav. If you set the drop off location to get there and it moved after you left the country you have a fighting chance it was still in the car.

The damage could have been caused anywhere, I don't see how you'll prove they're responsible.

IamNotAllowedToUseMyName

RS2000. wrote: »

You do realise that if you can prove, the sat nav was in your car at the time it was positioning in the field. You'd still have to prove they caused the damage.

Civil court proof is balance of probability so you can prove the location of the sat nav. If you set the drop off location to get there and it moved after you left the country you have a fighting chance it was still in the car.

The damage could have been caused anywhere, I don't see how you'll prove they're responsible.

You "prove" it by going to court and making a statement under oath.

They defend it by denying it.

You introduce bad character - the unlawful operation of the site and so on, and the court then decides who it is going to believe - a dodgy set up using inappropriate premises (which a few photographs) would soon bolster the case.

So yes, you cannot necessarily prove that they did it, but statement from the OP that the damage only appeared at the time, any supporting witnesses, and so on should be good enough for the courts in such a case.

Whether it is worth pursuing in court is another matter, the companies will be dodgy and assetless, you can go after the directors as they have not got protection of a limited company if they act unlawfully, but the chances of extracting money from criminal scammers is likely to be small.

RS2000.

IanMSpencer wrote: »

You "prove" it by going to court and making a statement under oath.

They defend it by denying it.

You introduce bad character - the unlawful operation of the site and so on, and the court then decides who it is going to believe - a dodgy set up using inappropriate premises (which a few photographs) would soon bolster the case.

So yes, you cannot necessarily prove that they did it, but statement from the OP that the damage only appeared at the time, any supporting witnesses, and so on should be good enough for the courts in such a case.

Whether it is worth pursuing in court is another matter, the companies will be dodgy and assetless, you can go after the directors as they have not got protection of a limited company if they act unlawfully, but the chances of extracting money from criminal scammers is likely to be small.

Are the gateways to introduce bad character evidence the same in civil court?

IamNotAllowedToUseMyName

RS2000. wrote: »

Are the gateways to introduce bad character evidence the same in civil court?

I wasn't meaning to use it in that technical sense, not sure really, but the basic principle is that you provide a clear consistent, and convincing case then you will be believed in court. In this case, the other party will struggle to do that, as the OP will have the evidence of their dodgy operation.

Plenty of cases are decided on the plausibility of witnesses, rather than forensic evidence, criminal or otherwise. That's the point of appearing in court under oath, so the judges or jury can look you in the eye and decide whether you are going an honest account.

RS2000.

IanMSpencer wrote: »

I wasn't meaning to use it in that technical sense, not sure really, but the basic principle is that you provide a clear consistent, and convincing case then you will be believed in court. In this case, the other party will struggle to do that, as the OP will have the evidence of their dodgy operation.

Plenty of cases are decided on the plausibility of witnesses, rather than forensic evidence, criminal or otherwise. That's the point of appearing in court under oath, so the judges or jury can look you in the eye and decide whether you are going an honest account.

Any evidence you give has to be admissible, you can't just throw in their alleged dodgy dealing because you think it will help your case.

If in the case of the OP the terms and conditions state they may park the car at an alternative location, what have they done wrong?
The planning issue doesn't necessarily strengthen his case.

alfie_1

RS2000. wrote: »

Any evidence you give has to be admissible, you can't just throw in their alleged dodgy dealing because you think it will help your case.

If in the case of the OP the terms and conditions state they may park the car at an alternative location, what have they done wrong?
The planning issue doesn't necessarily strengthen his case.

alleged..... the police rang ME...


alternative location..... has to be as advertised. SAFE, SECURE, BARRIERED,CCTV.... THIS ONE HAD NONE OF THESE. thus they broke the terms of the contract.


planning issue..... if they have been told NOT to use the site by council and continue the council are preparing to prosecute.. it also means no insurance for those premises is valid.


now if that lot isn't DODGY DEALING then what is...


this is a website to try and help people. I am trying to point out what happens and I thought I had chosen wisely.
I may not win/get compensation BUT at least I will have tried. im an optimist NOT a pessimist.......


think of it as a warning to others rs2000, rather than a debate on wether I win or not....:D

RS2000.

alfie_1 wrote: »

alleged..... the police rang ME...
Yes, alleged unless it's been proven in court.

alternative location..... has to be as advertised. SAFE, SECURE, BARRIERED,CCTV.... THIS ONE HAD NONE OF THESE. thus they broke the terms of the contract.
What did the contract actually say?


planning issue..... if they have been told NOT to use the site by council and continue the council are preparing to prosecute.. it also means no insurance for those premises is valid.
Again another allegation yet to be tested in court, unless you've seen the insurance certificate you're speculating.

now if that lot isn't DODGY DEALING then what is...
Hence why I asked about the gateway for bad character evidence, without one you may not be able to use it.

this is a website to try and help people. I am trying to point out what happens and I thought I had chosen wisely.
I may not win/get compensation BUT at least I will have tried. im an optimist NOT a pessimist.......


think of it as a warning to others rs2000, rather than a debate on wether I win or not....:D

On a point of the insurance not being valid, if this company are going bump what you hoping for? The moral victory and a claim on your insurance.