Park With Ease - Lake District Parking

Redx

Risk007 wrote: »

Thanks both. Depressing so it is really not worth the grief and aggravation of fighting as I will not win. Worth going after the signage issue?

possibly, this "may" win it for you


if this went to court you would defend it by arguing many legal points, including no locus standii , poor signage , not a gpeol , IPC CoP issues (not BPA CoP as they are not BPA members) , Contractual Issues , Unfair terms - plus anything else people think of or you read in other court threads here or on pepipoo forums

the IAS might find in your favour on signage issues etc, but I doubt it

nobody can tell you if you will win or lose in court, only a fool would try to tell you the outcome before its concluded (or started)

they allowed you a day or more to pay online or by phone, you didnt do this, they say their signs tell you to do so, you say you didnt see the signs, but if parking on private land it is YOUR JOB to ensure your car is legally parked there and not trespassing

yes these car parks have chaned, no its not nice, but this is why you have to be more carefull now because they make a lot of money from private car parks

as mentioned above, be extremely careful where you park your car

ps:- they do not use CCTV, they use ANPR cameras

Risk007

Thanks to all again.

We will not be going anywhere in the car from now on in the Lakes if there is a need to park...unless as you say it is council parking.

It is depressing the state the UK is now in and I feel it is worse in England. Austerity and dog eat dog. Money is everything. What a great society and set of values and morals we now aspire to!

Just for the hell of it I will wait to see what if any, response I get from Lowther. I have been going through what contacts I have in the Lakes to see if there is anyone with a connection with them.

Redx

we know, its been happening for years and most of the people replying in this forum have been fighting it for years too , its not new, but its new to you

Coupon-mad

Risk007 wrote: »

What is the damage if I get court papers? Will that be a civil or criminal case?

As others have said, just a civil case and pretty rare from PWE. Worst case scenario for people who lose at a hearing (and you have a defence including the machine being out of order AND you offered to pay the tariff) is about £120 payable as it was only a £50 ticket. No ccj, nothing, no effect on credit rating if you lost at a hearing then had to pay. It would then be over and you would have had a decent hearing from a real Judge considering your defence properly.

If I was willing to pay the £25 to get them off my back, have I a right to argue that the 14 days could not start until the letter was actually delivered to me?

You can't get them off your back by paying £25, so forget about sending a cheque for this amount by post because they will return it. You have already done the right thing by responding and offering the tariff. That looks very reasonable if they try a small claim later.

Do you have any stats on how many parking companies actually refer cases to court and how they decide which ones to refer and which ones not to pursue?

Apart from ParkingEye, it is VERY unlikely. Highly rare. This is them, run by a guy previously associated with dissolved companies:

https://bmpa.zendesk.com/hc/en-us/articles/203549792-Park-With-Ease-Ltd

Depressing so it is really not worth the grief and aggravation of fighting as I will not win.

I completely disagree. This is just 'ParkWithEase' not some hotshot firm and even if they get Gladstones solicitors acting for them, here is a post I made this week about their cases, when I posted on another forum as SchoolRunMum:

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=104923

Look at the links in post #2. At least one of them is a PWE case, defended well.

A case would be like the blind leading the blind against you, I would say - and I'm sure, so would the Parking Prankster (see the links). Very defendable and only risking maybe £120 if you lose. Not a huge risk at all and perhaps well worth the experience, if they should try!

If this was me I would keep up the landowner complaints and keep all letters but just sit tight and wait and see if they try a claim, knowing it is rare and you have various issues to defend it which significantly differ from the Beavis case. We would help you and if you lose it would not be the end of the World.

I would stop worrying about it. I would not resign yourself to paying this at all.

pappa_golf

Northlakes wrote: »

The letter is deemed to have been delivered within two days of posting.

only if posted by ROYAL MAIL (directly) they probably use UK mail as an intermediary , and as such have no proof when it entered the royal mail system

Northlakes

Some of us would enjoy the fight but I think the OP priorities may be elsewhere and sometimes life can be a bit too short for having arguments with the lowlife of PPC's.

hoohoo

If the driver is not the keeper then they have already agreed there is no liability.

Otherwise, the signage does not meet the Beavis criteria (the charge of £50 is hidden in the small print). This means a win is possible in the courts.

Otherwise this is a distance contract, and the signage does not contain the statutory information, so the contract is not binding.

These are your three winnable points, in order of likelihood of winning.

If you lose in court, then the costs should be:
1) The £50
2) £25 filing fee
3) £25 hearing fee
4) £50 Gladstones filing fee

So £150
Other costs are not allowed in the small claims court.

They will need to pay a solicitor £150 to £200 to turn up on their behalf which they cannot claim back. plus probably another £100 or so to Gladstones. So the question is, are they stupid enough to fork out £300 to get £50? Sadly, the answer is often yes, but you can treat this as a red-letter experience where you get to find out how the courts work, for a mere £100.

C_Mababejive

I think the site is owned by the Lowther estate. Good to see the landed gentry are still keeping the prols under their jackboot.

Coupon-mad

C_Mababejive wrote: »

I think the site is owned by the Lowther estate. Good to see the landed gentry are still keeping the prols under their jackboot.

You need a sarcastic smiley there or people might think you mean it!


So, hoohoo and I both agree, wait and see and treat it as an 'experience' day, if it happens...if you win you won't regret it as people feel so elated! Risk007 your username suggests you are not averse to the idea.

Northlakes

C_Mababejive wrote: »

I think the site is owned by the Lowther estate. Good to see the landed gentry are still keeping the prols under their jackboot.

If you were to research the disputes within this family you wouldn't want to be part of it.
http://www.cwherald.com/a/archive/legal-battle-looms-over-lowther-family-s-325-million-fortune.288979.html

http://www.builderandengineer.co.uk/feature/bank-blows-hole-cumbria-masterplan
http://www.cwherald.com/a/archive/new-squares-developer-wound-up-but-questions-remain-oversite-lease.332436.html