Parkeye Court summon and hearing date from court

ih8parkingeye

Redx wrote: »

depends on whether or not PE have a valid case and you do not

if they have followed POFA2012 for example, if their signage was clear , if they have landowner authority , if they are taking the correct person to court and if they know that the defendant has liability under the current laws, then I fail to see what your legal defence to the PCN can be

this should never have been IGNORED in the first place, because it was easier to appeal it to PE and then to POPLA and you would know what their evidence was at the popla appeal evidence pack stage

PE eat people for breakfast if that person hasnt done their homework, plus if they can prove that your case is the same as the BEAVIS case they already have a court ruling against BEAVIS so they can just say "BEAVIS CASE YOUR HONOUR" and the judge is likely to be bound by that legal precedent due to nothing in your defence to dispute it

what you need is something that ISNT like the BEAVIS case that is a legal argument that will win in a court of law, and so far you havent provided anyone with a decent defence point in law

so settling out of court could well be your best option seeing as you failed to research your case and failed to realise that your case seems to be identical to BEAVIS , therefore not winnable unless you had something different to offer

you sound like you work for parking eye

Redx

Wilsonleung wrote: »

you sound like you work for parking eye

stupid sarcastic comments wont help (I am a retired engineer from the comms industry, not the parking industry)

if you had done any research whatsoever, you would know that I have been helping people on here to fight these pcn charges for 6 years and also that I contributed to the BARRY BEAVIS fund to take on PE in court. I also can recognise a lost cause when I see it, especially when its like the BEAVIS GROUNDHOG DAY

you would also know that member BARGEPOLE helped out in the Beavis case and knows what he is talking about and he rubbished your defence in post #2 based on his experiences in court and in the PE case

you have done very little research on this pcn and have sleepwalked into this court case, despite the help on here being available since 2012

to accuse other members on here will not help your credibility one iota and regular members seeing this thread will know that you have been told exactly where you stand on this

you are flogging a dead horse and are ridiculing those that are telling you to cease and desist because you wont get that dead horse back into the race

you need to stop being the complainant in the deceased parrot sketch and accept that you went about this all wrong, you didnt research the BEAVIS case , you didnt appeal it to PE and then to POPLA , you didnt ask for our help when it mattered (including helping to hone a a defence that may have triumphed in adversity) and now you think we are to blame for your woes , even though we get nothing out of it and try to help others for free on here (and have done for years)

"dont shoot the messenger"

you know what needs to be done, you just cannot bring yourself to do it or to blame the person you see in the mirror for it getting to this stage

ps:- look to my name on the left and it clearly says this underneath (my rep)

Thanked 23,714 Times in 14,287 Posts

a ratio of approx twice per post

Quentin

You are being given sound advice, though clearly not what you want to hear!

Shooting at the messenger is a poor way to respond as well as uncalled for