Parking Eye CCJ Challenge

KeithP

AMP279 wrote: »

I had done the acknowledgement of service but stupidly at the time I ticked the box marked counterclaim as I wrongly thought this was all part of the defense. What should I do next : 1. Can I get in touch and ask to remove this (I noticed that I have to pay for this) and if so who do I need to contact? 2. Will this affect the additional 28 days period I was hoping to gain and is there anyway I can check when the exact deadline is? 3. Once I put my defence together is there somebody that could check it for me and if so how do I go about sending this?

1. There's a phone number for the CCBC on your Claim Form.

2. See my earlier post for your exact Defence filing deadline.

3. Post your draft Defence document on this thread for critique if you wish.

AMP279

Many thanks yet again! Should I be asking Parking Eye for a SAR? Also fisherjim mentioned 'Note the HI website has wrongly called this a "Fine" it's not it was an invoice for failing to observe Parking Eyes devious T&C's.' Should I include this in my defence do you think?

KeithP

AMP279 wrote: »

Many thanks yet again! Should I be asking Parking Eye for a SAR?

Yes, as suggested in post #2 of the NEWBIES thread.

AMP279 wrote: »

Also fisherjim mentioned 'Note the HI website has wrongly called this a "Fine" it's not it was an invoice for failing to observe Parking Eyes devious T&C's.' Should I include this in my defence do you think?

I wouldn't bother.

fisherjim

AMP279 wrote: »

Many thanks yet again! Should I be asking Parking Eye for a SAR? Also fisherjim mentioned 'Note the HI website has wrongly called this a "Fine" it's not it was an invoice for failing to observe Parking Eyes devious T&C's.' Should I include this in my defence do you think?

Won't help, that's just the stupid hotels mistaken terminology, a bit like their mistaken idea that Parking Eye are a decent firm to engage.


But if a PPC had used that terminology they would have be in trouble.

AMP279

Many thanks fisherjim and all the other messages! I have emailed the DVLA asking for a SAR but the email bounced back so will post a letter asking for this. I was also going to contact PE regarding a SAR but 'funnily' enough it seems impossible to find an email contact address. Should I post the request? Any ideas welcome....Once I get the information from the DVLA and PE what am I looking for here and can I use any of this as hard evidence for my defence?

Le_Kirk

AMP279 wrote: »

Many thanks fisherjim and all the other messages! I have emailed the DVLA asking for a SAR but the email bounced back so will post a letter asking for this. I was also going to contact PE regarding a SAR but 'funnily' enough it seems impossible to find an email contact address. Should I post the request? Any ideas welcome....Once I get the information from the DVLA and PE what am I looking for here and can I use any of this as hard evidence for my defence?

What e-mail address did you use? This has proved successful in the past: -
[EMAIL="dpo@parkingeye.co.uk"]dpo@parkingeye.co.uk[/EMAIL]

AMP279

Many thanks for that I have emailed a request but I assume if they have 28 days to respond they will not provide this before I have to submit my response by the 20 09 19?

Le_Kirk

The PPC will have 30 days to respond to the SAR but fear not, as the facts and data from that will prove more useful to you at witness statement stage.

AMP279

Nice one Le_Kirk and it also forces them to do more work! I am preparing my defence and it occurs to me that the PE system has a fundamental flaw that I could include in my defence and as part of the reason for this situation.
You are meant to key in your VRN to validate before inserting your coins into the system (something that I did not pick up on as it unusual practise hence my stressful predicament), then the ticket is issued.
I missed the keying of my VRN part but the machine was still able to take my money and issue a ticket. The simple solution would be for the machine NOT to issue you a ticket essentially blocking this process until you have firstly keyed in your VRN details. IMHO PE are on a win-win situation here as it can take your money and then issue a PCN surely this is UNFAIR towards the consumer and would be a very simple thing to sort out. What are your thoughts on this? Have I gone off on a tangent??

Le_Kirk

AMP279 wrote: »

I am preparing my defence and it occurs to me that the PE system has a fundamental flaw that I could include in my defence and as part of the reason for this situation.
You are meant to key in your VRN to validate before inserting your coins into the system (something that I did not pick up on as it unusual practise hence my stressful predicament), then the ticket is issued.
I missed the keying of my VRN part but the machine was still able to take my money and issue a ticket. The simple solution would be for the machine NOT to issue you a ticket essentially blocking this process until you have firstly keyed in your VRN details. IMHO PE are on a win-win situation here as it can take your money and then issue a PCN surely this is UNFAIR towards the consumer and would be a very simple thing to sort out. What are your thoughts on this? Have I gone off on a tangent??

You will find that many regulars on here (and quite a few newbies) will agree with you on this (myself included) and with technology available it should be made mandatory but of course if PPCs adopted that method they would not be able to lure unsuspecting cash donors into their trap! There are several car parks near me with pay on exit where you search for your VRM via the payment terminal screen and when it comes up, you pay exactly what is required. When you leave, the ANPR recognises your car and the fact that you have paid and lifts the barrier.