County Court Claim from Parking Eye Ltd (Home Bargains)

silverchoice

Can someone please give me advice on my email above

Coupon-mad

This really needs no offer but start at £25 in this case, if she must, and make it timebound:

silverchoice wrote: »

"WITHOUT PREJUDICE SAVE AS TO COSTS

I am willing to make a time limited offer to settle this case before going to court.

I have a freedom of information request reply from the council confirming there has been no planning permission to reduce the free parking period from 2 hours to 1.5 hours (see attachments).

I have evidence that ParkingEye has already withdrawn two claims, one in Bury and the other in Cambridge where the following defence has been used (see attachment). The defence centres on ParkingEye’s failure to obtain planning permission and advertisement consent and that no man should profit from his crime; it being a crime not to have advertisement consent.

I also have a newspaper article about Portslade Aldi being fined for ParkingEye steering the retailer to unlawfully change the free parking time without permission and will use this in evidence to demonstrate that changing local shoppers' allowed time shows significant disregard for the rules of a Local Authority.

Kindly note that the driver of the car is elderly and needed more time for daily activities, and was a genuine shopper at Home Bargains.

So, even if the allowed time had been the two hours set by the Local Authority Planning Dept, then the additional 5 minutes to drive in, plus just 6 minutes grace to drive out, is well within allowed BPA Code of Practice observation and grace times and the Beavis case is fully distinguished.

You have illegally changed that allowed time and if you fail to discontinue this claim and settle at my offer of £25, then I will seek punitive costs on the indemnity basis at the hearing, and will expose your firm's wholly unreasonable conduct.

This offer is available for seven days from receipt of this email.



"

silverchoice

Coupon-mad wrote: »

This really needs no offer but start at £25 in this case, if she must, and make it timebound:

Thanks a lot for this.

silverchoice

Will they probably repond by email or letter?

KeithP

Yes, definitely.

silverchoice

I have just received the following email from
Parking eye:

“Good afternoon,

Thank you for your correspondence received in relation to the above referenced Parking Charge.

ParkingEye can confirm that we are unable to discuss this Parking Charge with yourself without signed written authority from the person named on the charge due to General Data Protection Regulation.

Written Authorisation can be sent either via email or by post to the below address.

Please note ParkingEye dispute any costs you claim to have incurred and will oppose any application or claim that you may wish to pursue in relation to any such costs.

Yours faithfully,

ParkingEye Enforcement Team”

Redx

sounds as if the person who emailed them did not provide proof of ID under GDPR, like a picture or scan of the N1 claim form, or a pic or scan of the V5C etc (the defendant)

Coupon-mad

Don't tell me someone else emailed them and not the Defendant?

Surely not. Come on you can't do things like this, it's not your claim.

silverchoice

Coupon-mad wrote: »

Don't tell me someone else emailed them and not the Defendant?

Surely not. Come on you can't do things like this, it's not your claim.

You know I’m doing this on my mother’s behalf because she is 73 years old and hasn’t got a
clue what to do. I signed the email from her so how do they know
It wasn’t her?

Redx

they dont , thats the point

under GDPR there should be proof attached so they know it came from the defendant and not from anyone else

putting her name at the bottom of an email is not "signing it"


you can do the donkey work, but you cannot "act" on her behalf , because you need a letter of authority or a power of attorney