Savills agreeing to cancel but ParkingEye refusing!

salmosalaris

Don't they ask on the PCN and reminder to contact them if you were a genuine customer ? If so they are hardly telling fibs this time .
Be careful not to weaken your case by being overly aggressive or coming across a !!!!!! .
If you intend getting to a hearing it is vital to endear yourself to the DJ . Play a cuter game

You were a genuine custmer . If you spent provide evidence . You were beneficial to the retailers not taking advantage of free parking. Use the fact that the party that actually employs PE want to cancel therefore PE are hardly protecting the interests of the landowner .This blows Beavis and the legitimate deterrent out of the water .

Remember the Beavis judgment only justified what the SC admit would otherwise be a penalty in the specific circumstances of that case .

DJ's will probably blindly follow Beavis and you'll need to provide careful analysis of the judgment to change their mind .

hank_scorpio

salmosalaris wrote: »

Don't they ask on the PCN and reminder to contact them if you were a genuine customer ? If so they are hardly telling fibs this time .
Be careful not to weaken your case by being overly aggressive or coming across a !!!!!! .
If you intend getting to a hearing it is vital to endear yourself to the DJ . Play a cuter game

You were a genuine customer . If you spent provide evidence . You were beneficial to the retailers not taking advantage of free parking. Use the fact that the party that actually employs PE want to cancel therefore PE are hardly protecting the interests of the landowner .This blows Beavis and the legitimate deterrent out of the water .

They are not telling fibs? Part of their defence states they sent me correspondence on more than once occasion asking for me to provide proof that i was a genuine customer on the day and i havnt provided this to date. They have NEVER sent me anything of the sort, so yes, they are telling fibs because even if this was included in the PCN, this was sent before the Savills asked them to cancel and not after. Also, why state 'if i intend getting it to a hearing'...that is the last thing i want as it is a lottery with small claims courts. Savills know and agree with me that i was a genuine customer and have proof from them to back this up and they as the principle instructed PE to cancel. I fail to see how sending PE evidence at this stage would do anything at all, nor should i have to. The reason PE are refusing to cancel at this stage is because a claim form had already been sent at the time so want their 'costs covered' not because i didn’t provide evidence when asked.

salmosalaris

You misunderstand me .
AFAIR the back of the initial parking charge notice mentions advising them if you were a genuine customer under the "appeals" section . That is what they are referring to . I bet they don't state they asked after Savills contacted them , in which case where is the fib ?

I'm not suggesting you send PE evidence now , i was referring to your exhibits in the event of a hearing .

Savills could cancel but they won't .

PE just want your cash . These WP letters need exposing for what they are . They are not an offer of reduced payment but an admission they have no case .

hank_scorpio

Ok, I see the point you are making.

This is how part their defense point reads which is their counter argument in relation to my opening defense point that Savills have instructed them to cancel:

"Had the defendant appealed, providing evidence that they were a customer onsite, this would have been taken into account by our appeals team. Evidence of this has been requested on the correspondence sent to the defendant, and was not provided, and has not been provided to date."

That reads to me like they would have cancelled had i appealed and provided evidence. Obviously i didn’t appeal within the 28 day deadline. Therefore i am not sure why they have included the above point as it is now way past their appeal deadline. Savills have also informed them i was a genuine customer as well so i am a bit miffed as to why they have included that when that was for the appeals process. Its not up to PE to determine who is and isnt a genuine customer either, its the principle as far as i am aware.

salmosalaris

The "secret clause" argument is hopeless .
Such a clause would be in the contract between Landowner and PE , a contract to which you are not a party and unaware of .
The only contract relevant to you is the signage which makes no mention of genuine customers being allowed to breach the t&c.
If PE or the landowner decide ,as a gesture of goodwill , not to claim damages from overstayers who are genuine customers that is a matter between them .

If Savills and Parking Eye disagree it comes down to who you contracted with . If the signage is as in Beavis it would be judged you contracted with Parking Eye as Principal , so whatever Savills say is irrelevant to you . If however the signage makes plain PE are agent of a disclosed Principal then that is a different matter .

catfunt

Umkomaas wrote: »

OMG! :eek:

You've just spoiled my entire weekend!

Someone will be saying Father Christmas doesn't really exist next....

Guys_Dad

You should give them the proof, even at this late stage.

I believe that when you write "Had the defendant appealed, providing evidence that they were a customer onsite, this would have been taken into account by our appeals team. Evidence of this has been requested on the correspondence sent to the defendant, and was not provided, and has not been provided to date." that is precisely what they would say in court, along with "We would have cancelled the ticket saving us the court and lawyers' fees as well as not wasting the court's time".

I then think that they would claim commercial necessity to enforce the t&c clearly displayed on their signs if only to recoup their wasted costs.

That could be a persuasive argument to some DJs and, in honesty, since it is your money, do you want to take the risk?

Marktheshark

You can LBA saviles with the intention of adding them as counter claim.
That will get the contract as they will have to enter a defence of indemnity.