Savills agreeing to cancel but ParkingEye refusing!

Half_way

I beleive the term is the Principal is Jointly and severally liable for the actions of its agents ( or something like that ) If the liability can be shifted to the slippery eel so that he/she can be held personally liable ( ie it hits them in the pocket and not the company they work for) even better - although this may be just wishful thinking

The_Deep

I do not think that a firm like Savilles is going to be blackmailed into putting pressure on PE. They can argue that they have tried to be helpful, but you are an awkward customer and have been threatening them.

You have correspondence from them basically sympathizing with you, use that if it gets to court, and try to open a gap between your case and that of Beavis. Also, concentrate on the contract, PE have lost many claims at PoPLA because their contract does not give them authority to go to court.

beamerguy

The_Deep wrote: »

I do not think that a firm like Savilles is going to be blackmailed into putting pressure on PE. They can argue that they have tried to be helpful, but you are an awkward customer and have been threatening them.

You have correspondence from them basically sympathizing with you, use that if it gets to court, and try to open a gap between your case and that of Beavis. Also, concentrate on the contract, PE have lost many claims at PoPLA because their contract does not give them authority to go to court.

The Deep is right, no threats to Savilles. BUT, if as said the guy from Savilles has said that he would cancel it but it is too late, then he must be part of your defence. Even though it is a small claims court, you still have to swear to tell the truth, will the guy of savilles do that

Any plaintiff can cancel their claim up to the day of the court.

It seems to me that Parking Eye now think they are god's gift to fines since the Beavis case, they must be very careful because cases such as these will disturb the judges and sooner or later Parking Eye will become a joke in the county court system.

With the bank charges scandal, the courts put a block on further claims until advised further. The only point a judge will rule on reflects the beavis case and charges. Right now, any other claim in defence is an individual one and its still open season for us.

The advice must be that if you get a Parking Eye invoice, you build up your own images of the area.
One clear point is with the ANPR CAMERAS. They only see you on entry or exit, they do not take into account the time taken to find a parking space

hank_scorpio

I have included the point that Savills requested PE to cancel in my first defense. I obiviously have proof of the emails exchanged between myself and Savills which i will include as evidence in my final defence. Is this enough? What else can i do...ask the regional manager for a statement?

I am currently rebutting the evidence from PE and have covered the camera/time parked stuff. As far as i am aware, a 14 minute overstay should fall within the grace period set out by the BPA CoP. Phoned the court earlier...they havnt received a copy of my letter or email in which i asked for POPLA.Sent this in October 2015 which was before the hearing date was booked so im pretty annoyed. They have given me another email address so ive sent off another request. I expected that type of behaviour from PE but not my local court.

I know when people request information from parking eye they use 'Part 18 request'. However, i have read i cant use that as its too late. Is it ok to just request information that is relevant for my defence as long as i justify it or is there an act or something that i have to use?

hank_scorpio

Quick question ladies and gents...

As part of my defence, i stated the principle requested PE to cancel as i was a genuine customer etc. PE's response to this in their defence pack says something along the lines of they have asked me for proof that i was a genuine customer on the day on more than one occasion, however, this has not been provided.

Now, i know this might shock you all, but PE are telling lies there. They have never at any point asked me for proof nor was this an issue as when i spoke to Savills they agreed i was a genuine customer and i have an email from them proving this.

Is this a case of Parking Lie raising additional points in their defence which should not be allowed unless they pay the court a fee or am i getting the wrong end of the stick?

System

defence pack says something along the lines of they have asked me for proof that i was a genuine customer on the day on more than one occasion, however, this has not been provided.

1. Its is a matter of fact that you were a genuine customer on the day.

2. It is also a matter of fact that their contract with the landowner's agents allows for cancellation for "genuine customers", and as such they collateral contract fails on this point.

3. There is no requirement as to when the matters of fact should be made known - as they are facts. There is no liability to ParkingEye at all and continuing in their action is vexatious and punitive costs should be demanded.

trisontana

You could also point out that PE seem to have a secret clause in their T&Cs which states that if you are a genuine customer then they will let you off. Ask them where this is stated on their signs?

Umkomaas

Now, i know this might shock you all, but PE are telling lies there

OMG! :eek:

You've just spoiled my entire weekend!

The_Slithy_Tove

hank_scorpio wrote: »

Now, i know this might shock you all, but PE are telling lies there.

So you will, of course, be requiring PE to substantiate that claim by producing to the court the original (and genuine, not cobbled-together-after-the-fact) communication to you where they asked for such proof.

hank_scorpio

Umkomaas wrote: »

OMG! :eek:

You've just spoiled my entire weekend!

Apologies Umkomaas. Please forgive me. I know these things can be hard to take but its better that you know the truth :rotfl:


Appreciate the replies, as it happens i have included the point about the contract having a 'secret' clause in it and have asked for PE to send me a copy of the unredacted contract which they still have not and my court hearing is a month away. My original question still stands though, is this an additional point PE are raising? If so, i need to contact the court to advise them of this and PE will have have to pay more money to add it.