PE's Without Prejudice Offers keep getting better
Discussion
I'm in the advanced stages of a tedious litigation with Parking Eye. Summary is, I was an authorised visitor to site, they issued a ticket, and now keep insisting the ticket is valid, despite the land owner asking them to cancel it. I've counter claimed as I had to send a process server to site to gather evidence. We have a court date next year.
So, from this originally, despite me writing to them with all of the details and then appealing to POPLA;
To this, as the claim was issued and transferred to my local court, and that's about 200 miles away from their office. I wasn't a member of staff, and I had written to them three times. They're either just liars, ignorant or arrogant;
I did respond with a polite rejection and a counter offer of how they could settle with ME !
Now this;
Hearing fee is payable by them by the 28th, we were both also required to serve papers on each other and the court by the 28th. I've done my bit, but not had theirs yet.
I'm just composing my reply now.....
So, from this originally, despite me writing to them with all of the details and then appealing to POPLA;
To this, as the claim was issued and transferred to my local court, and that's about 200 miles away from their office. I wasn't a member of staff, and I had written to them three times. They're either just liars, ignorant or arrogant;
I did respond with a polite rejection and a counter offer of how they could settle with ME !
Now this;
Hearing fee is payable by them by the 28th, we were both also required to serve papers on each other and the court by the 28th. I've done my bit, but not had theirs yet.
I'm just composing my reply now.....
Well done.pork911 said:
Get disclosure of their contract/s with the landowner. And the land owner's request for them to cancel it.
Boom. At least 500 pages of their statements and enclosures in the post today. See below part of their witness statement of how their client did indeed request cancellation of the parking chanrge. Complete denial throughout of any communication with me. They certainly do like to intimidate with the volume of the defence....Loads of explanation and copies of Beavis, and references to that case.... Not read it all yet... have to do Christmas stuff now...
Surely the highlighted bit is close enough to get the case dismissed, not withstanding my defence of being in the visitors' log for the day in question ....
Out of interest, when was the original parking "infraction"? And clearly you lost at POPLA to get to this stage - how long ago was that?
I had a run in with PE back in May, after going through POPLA, which I lost back in August. I've been expecting to hear from them but nothing so far. I do think PE may have dropped the issue after losing a case to which the defence was very close to mine back in June.
In my case POPLA were useless. After I evidenced they could not chase me under keeper liability, PE stated they were not pursuing me as keeper and therefore did not have to answer to it. POPLA came to the conclusion that PE could chase me as keeper if they wished, and dismissed that appeal point. They also felt the judgement of the prior case was not relevant to their decision which I found rather odd, as they have held cases to see what the judge says in past. It felt a bit like they were an agent to the PPC rather than an independent appeals process!
It's quite satisfying to see someone hitting back - best of luck. Oh and Merry Christmas.
I had a run in with PE back in May, after going through POPLA, which I lost back in August. I've been expecting to hear from them but nothing so far. I do think PE may have dropped the issue after losing a case to which the defence was very close to mine back in June.
In my case POPLA were useless. After I evidenced they could not chase me under keeper liability, PE stated they were not pursuing me as keeper and therefore did not have to answer to it. POPLA came to the conclusion that PE could chase me as keeper if they wished, and dismissed that appeal point. They also felt the judgement of the prior case was not relevant to their decision which I found rather odd, as they have held cases to see what the judge says in past. It felt a bit like they were an agent to the PPC rather than an independent appeals process!
It's quite satisfying to see someone hitting back - best of luck. Oh and Merry Christmas.
Boom. In keeping with the festive spirit at the time, and in response to their last WP offer, I said I'd settle my counter claim for £110, and them dropping their claim. I noted the reflexive pronoun abuse too, as pointed out by the last poster, and it seems they can't read my email address correctly from the court's paperwork either. The thread stays true to it's title. Just had this in the post;
Drafting my response now, and having trouble keeping the smugness to a reasonable level.
Drafting my response now, and having trouble keeping the smugness to a reasonable level.
Great result mate 
catfood12 said:
Drafting my response now, and having trouble keeping the smugness to a reasonable level.
I see PE are still wedded to 'yourself' in their latest lettter and e-mail. 
I fell of my chair laughing at this bit in the letter
PE letter said:
...to accept your offer to make payment of £110 to yourself...
Somebody is trying to be a bit too clever by half and making a complete hash of it.At least the wording in the e-mail made sense even if the author was still unable to avoid referring to 'yourself'.
As for any response you are going to have do this yourself.
Smugness? Spinal Tap bro!
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff