Parking Eye LTD Witness Statement - Another one bites the dust

1505grandad

In para 10 PE seem to be confused as to how much "fee claimed for issuing LBC" is  -  £25 or "20?

Blindside6

If it assists, CNBC is the most appalling mess. Emails take weeks to be acknowledged and then, on at least two occasions, they have sent me replies to the same email from two different court officers. They have never lost anything of mine (yet), but two litigation opponents, both firms of solicitors, the first is regarded (by them) as one of the leading lawyer groups in the UK, the other is DCB Legal have each claimed CNBC has 'lost' documents (DQ and AOS/Defence respectively). Hope this helps.

YoungDriver123

The fact that they describe the illegible text which states the terms and conditions as “non essential” in paragraph 4 just goes to show they make up their own rules but can pick and choose  what rules to adhere to practice and have signs that are readable from a car and no working lights but have the cheek to question whether I can misread the sign. To me it read 1-4 hrs £6, parking enforcer didn’t correct me either, plus I didn’t even stay in there for an hour I believe it caught me driving in out then, in to park for the 1hr and out. 

I’m a bit worried about paragraph 4 stating I paid even though weren’t the correct sum therefore means it was clear. I don’t think this changes someone’s interpretation of a sign caused by the ambiguous wording and unclear signage though, thoughts how to fully defend this? 

Also, I feel like the parking enforcer being present, knowing how much I paid, saying what i paid is correct etc takes precedent due to law of estoppel? They say in paragraph 5 the contract can’t be agreed between me and the enforcer but I believe past case law showed opposite hence which I stated in my witness statement. 

Coupon-mad

Yes you are right. Promissory estoppel.

YoungDriver123

Thanks a million! Should I just lead on the promissory estoppel point in court then? Are there any points that are a MUST to mention when I use this to defend? 

What are my chances?

Coupon-mad

I don't know your case like you do.

Jot down the bullet points you think you must raise when it's your turn to speak.  If will help focus your mind & stop the nerves from striking you dumb!

YoungDriver123

Trial was today and i'm happy i can say another one bites the dust!!!!!! Come on guys! 
I was awarded £110 in costs which is okay. 

Judge completely agreed that the signs poor maintenance i.e no lights and locations where not sufficient for a contract to be assumed.
Apparently the POC given to the court was particularised and therefore the judge states if she looked at this case from the start she would've struck it out.
The claimant didn't supply photos at night which i did and then even tried to rely on my evidence in court to argue that the signs are clear and noticeable, the judge basically said so you want to rely on the defendant's evidence which clearly shows the signs are difficult to read at night to make your argument?? HAHAHA. 
I even noticed that the supply agreement Parking Eye gave was actually expired at the time of the incident! When breaking this down the judge said, so it's basically expired. After that victory was 99% in my favour. 

All my friends told me not to waste my time but im glad that the people here in this honourable Forum share the knowledge, this is what makes the UK the UK! 

Thanks,
Youngdriver 1
Parking companies 0

patient_dream

WELL DONE, very good court report
You had a judge who understood

We have said for a long time that Parking Eye signs were rubbish, now a judge has told the rubbish

Coupon-mad

YoungDriver123 said:

Trial was today and i'm happy i can say another one bites the dust!!!!!! Come on guys! 
I was awarded £110 in costs which is okay. 

Judge completely agreed that the signs poor maintenance i.e no lights and locations where not sufficient for a contract to be assumed.
Apparently the POC given to the court was particularised and therefore the judge states if she looked at this case from the start she would've struck it out.
The claimant didn't supply photos at night which i did and then even tried to rely on my evidence in court to argue that the signs are clear and noticeable, the judge basically said so you want to rely on the defendant's evidence which clearly shows the signs are difficult to read at night to make your argument?? HAHAHA. 
I even noticed that the supply agreement Parking Eye gave was actually expired at the time of the incident! When breaking this down the judge said, so it's basically expired. After that victory was 99% in my favour. 

All my friends told me not to waste my time but im glad that the people here in this honourable Forum share the knowledge, this is what makes the UK the UK! 

Thanks,
Youngdriver 1
Parking companies 0

Great news! Well done you.

ANOTHER ONE BITES THE DUST!

Have a great weekend & tell everyone you know.

V8Vinnie

This is really good to hear, I'm awaiting a hearing date from Parking Eye hopefully it goes the same way