Updated Success Settled, Myself Taking Parking Eye POPLA or Parking Site owner to court

Terry1931

Coupon-mad said:

Terry1931 said:

Welcome Break Pay Parking Eye 

They don't.

I'm pretty sure that it will be a unique experience for The Parking operator to have the summons for a change...see how they like it and if they can be bothered to defend it.  

They won't be appearing or affected; your defendant is WB.

Welcome break employ Parking Eye to enforce and recover parking fees, they may do this by payment or by other contract terms.

The defendant WILL BE Welcome BREAK but their only form of defence is to ask for evidence from Parking Eye so they will be involved and will be asked to appear if I challenge this evidence.
Their evidence needs to be spot on first time otherwise they will get dragged into the case. And I am pretty sure their evidence will not be standing up to Court.

If I allow Parking Eye to take me to Court then they get to modify their case against me, However if I take Welcome break to Court Parking Eye as a witness in Welcome Breaks defence they will only get one chance.

As I said previously this puts me in charge of proceedings and not defending proceedings

Umkomaas

The defendant WILL BE Parking Eye but their only form of defence is to ask for evidence from Parking Eye so they will be involved and will appear f I challenge this evidence.

Are you sure?  It's getting a bit confusing. 

Terry1931

Umkomaas said:

The defendant WILL BE Parking Eye but their only form of defence is to ask for evidence from Parking Eye so they will be involved and will appear f I challenge this evidence.

Are you sure?  It's getting a bit confusing. 

Sorry I corrected that statement in an edit

Redx

Nobody is going to receive a summons , it's not a criminal case and no magistrates are involved

It's a civil case , using MCOL via the CCBC , over a contract law issue , or some other civil law disagreement between the parties

Clearly WB are possibly Legally liable for the actions of their agents , but I doubt that parking Eye will be involved , unless you make them both jointly and severally liable under civil law

So definitely no summons , and MCOL limits the charges that you can claim , plus the total too

Parking eye won't be being paid by welcome break , or vice versa , it's a mutually beneficial arrangement

Trainerman

Not wishing to hijack the thread, but a quick question on the principle. As some of you know, I want to force a PPC to take me to court, as I am sure they will lose. However, to prove my point , and get a real court to look at it (rather than the hairstylists at Popla), is it feasible to pay a ppn then sue the landowner for the return ? Thanks

Coupon-mad

Welcome break employ Paring Eye to enforce and recover parking fees, they may do this by payment or by other contract terms.

They don't employ them and nor do they ask them to recover parking fees.

They have a contract and act as an agent of Welcome Break, but the parking firms set it up so that they (not their client landowner) are the principal in the contract with the hapless driver.

Most PPC contracts say: "we'll look after your land for free, guv, in exchange for us bullying your customers and issuing fake £100 fines, but we'll tell you that we are doing a useful service and 'preventing abuse' of your car park, and we'll provide you with some 'rich data' reports about footfall and car park use, so that you are impressed by us and so that you let us carry on, oblivious to us ruining your reputation and fining genuine patrons, which we all know we are going to do."

Terry1931

Redx said:

Nobody is going to receive a summons , it's not a criminal case and no magistrates are involved

It's a civil case , using MCOL via the CCBC , over a contract law issue , or some other civil law disagreement between the parties

Clearly WB are possibly Legally liable for the actions of their agents , but I doubt that parking Eye will be involved , unless you make them both jointly and severally liable under civil law

So definitely no summons , and MCOL limits the charges that you can claim , plus the total too

I dont know why you side track on the terms, the broad outline of the post is more important.

Welcome Break will get a nasty letter on their office doorstep, call it a summons or whatever......lets see how they like it.


How will Welcome Break defend themselves against my claim without involving Parking Eye

Coupon-mad

is it feasible to pay a ppn then sue the landowner for the return ? 

In theory, yes, but you have to plead a claim properly and have a cause of action against the landowner.

Redx

Terry1931 said:

Redx said:

Nobody is going to receive a summons , it's not a criminal case and no magistrates are involved

It's a civil case , using MCOL via the CCBC , over a contract law issue , or some other civil law disagreement between the parties

Clearly WB are possibly Legally liable for the actions of their agents , but I doubt that parking Eye will be involved , unless you make them both jointly and severally liable under civil law

So definitely no summons , and MCOL limits the charges that you can claim , plus the total too

I dont know why you side track on the terms, the broad outline of the post is more important.

Welcome Break will get a nasty letter on their office doorstep, call it a summons or whatever......lets see how they like it.


How will Welcome Break defend themselves against my claim without involving Parking Eye

Terms are very important with your proposed plan of action , when it comes to the legal side of it , even though I already disagreed with it and told you so

So if you are going to do it , get the basics right and cut the fiction and untruths

No summons , and neither side pay the other , it's a mutually beneficial partnership

The MSA won't be the landowner , they will be a lessee , the government is the landowner probably the Department of Transport

Terry1931

Trainerman said:

Not wishing to hijack the thread, but a quick question on the principle. As some of you know, I want to force a PPC to take me to court, as I am sure they will lose. However, to prove my point , and get a real court to look at it (rather than the hairstylists at Popla), is it feasible to pay a ppn then sue the landowner for the return ? Thanks

That is exactly what you should do, and is what I am doing.

It has several advantages.

First is peace of mind, you are now in the driving seat and if your case is strong you will be judged in a proper court  a MCOL COURT, not a Kangaroo court which is POPLA, but going through POPLA shows that you are willing to proceed reasonably.

So yes go through POPLA then pay the charge and then issue the MCOL against the Landowner

Paying the charge then , Proceeding to MCOL distinguishes you from all the belligerent non charge payers who wait for futher proceedings to be inflicted upon them.

Payment and MCOL immediately gives you the upper hand.

I have taken great delight in writing to Welcome Break informing them of my intentions to procced to Court to reclaim and giving them 7 days to settle