PE's Without Prejudice Offers keep getting better

[catfood12]

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.....

[catfood12]

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 ....

[catfood12]

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.

[catfood12]

Chaps

Thanks for all of the replies.

pork911 said:

It depends on PE's contract with the landowner. I would fully expect that to place some restriction on the landowner's ability to have PE cancel the tickets, perhaps even making it PE's sole decision when it comes down to it. That would be entirely proper (....once the landowner has decided to protect their parking by using PE).

OP I earlier mentioned disclosure of the contract (between landowner and PE) you had 500 pages of statements and enclosures and understandably focused on the request from landowner to cancel but did you receive that contract?

In my original correspondence with PE, I did ask them for an unredacted copy of their contract with the landowner, copying large chunks of an older letter Surveyor101 had posted on another PE thread here. (I have since acknowledged Surveyor101 more than once on other PE threads). They ignored my letter, but in their evidence pack for the court, they gave me a reasonably heavily redacted copy of the contract. It does read a bit like a lease, in the way that it gives PE the rights to manage the car park, but allows landowner's visitors to use the car park and be exempt from charges. This bit isn't too tightly defined, i.e. exactly how the details of the landowner's visitors are notified to PE.

In their witness statements they gave three different versions of how visitors are registered, with a (non-existent) terminal in the reception, then that with the landowner's agreement the terminal was removed, and then a register. Their submissions were a shambles, and would no doubt have annoyed the judge if we'd made it to a hearing.

They said in their witness statements that they'd be represented by a solicitor from a firm (who's name escapes me now). I looked them up, they seem a board lawyers in Canary Wharf, that use solicitors/Legal Execs etc from local firms around the country. I guess in the end it was a business decision, that their representation would cost more than the £110 they could pay me.

I'm not exactly a reasonably well built company director, but not easily worried, certainly not by PE's attempts at extortion. The sheer bulk and aggressive nature of PE's initial letters are very bullying. My wife is easily worried, and PE's threats of court action, bailiffs, seizure of goods, destruction of credit rating right from the outset do clearly work in bullying people to pay up.

One of my other points was that PE don't have planning permission for the signs in the car park. I checked all planning applications going back years for the area. I have lots of time to cause mischief on trains and planes at the moment, so will be writing to Southampton Council to point this out, and see if I can't cause some action here too.

Edited by catfood12 on Monday 30th January 10:40

[catfood12]

Red Devil said:

This shower. They appear frequently in the Parking Prankster's blog.
Those they farm cases out can be ill prepared and some may have no right of audience at all.
The Legal Services Act 2007 defines who can or cannot conduct litigaton and on what basis.
Defintely worth a closer look.

That's the lot. Great website, but I bet they rent out the greenest Legal Execs or Paralegals, as the clients like PE have beaten them down on price, and not allowed any prep time for the case. I was looking forward to the hearing and cross examining the legal representative they sent !

[catfood12]

roofer said:

I have a meeting tomorrow with an extremely important man in Southampton Council, i'm going to ask the question.

Super. Car park in question is Town Quay Southampton. A search will reveal planning for stuff such as Red Funnel's access, and signage for some of the businesses, but not one sign for the car park. I do so hate planning breaches. :-)

Edited by catfood12 on Monday 30th January 19:38

[catfood12]

roofer said:

We have a site in Bugle St i will be visiting with him, a mere walk over the road. ABP Car Park ?

It is, as per highlighted PE's witness statement on page one of the thread, where ABP asked PE to rescind the charge. We were engaged by ABP on a project, and told to park in Town Quay, but didn't know at the time that ABP owned Town Quay too. They do have parking issues, hence engaging PE to enforce the public's parking, and their other tenants' parking such as the big NHS lot and Pier One Hosting that are there, but as events have borne out, PE don't appear to be the best at managing this in a professional manner. This PE sillybks in this thread has had further implications that aren't for discussion in a public forum where there is a professional engagement between the landowner and the defendant, with PE sat in the middle being obtuse.

Edited by catfood12 on Monday 30th January 23:02

[catfood12]

Thread (and the postman) delivers.

[catfood12]

djdest said:

What was your counterclaim for?

I had completed my vehicle's details in the site's visitor's book to entitle me to park free of charge. PE would not verify the entry made in the book, so I had to engage a Process Server to attend site to gather evidence.

[catfood12]

djdest said:

Make sure you check with the court yourself it has been discontinued, some are known to say it has yet continue anyway and win by default of you not turning up!

Thanks, I did think that, but they've sent me a copy of the N279, Notice of Discontinuance, and I submitted one for my Counter Claim, and copied them.

My local County Court is ten days behind with opening the post ! Time was getting tight, so I emailed them a copy too, as well as the posted one.

[catfood12]

Cheque cleared. Nice..... End of thread. Summary is don't be intimidated by their bullying letters and vague legal demands for money.

[catfood12]

Bounced for nostalgia after a mention from Spikyone.

The cheque did clear.

I've had a couple more from them too since, however I must be very fortunate, as they keep letting me off the tickets purely as a gesture of goodwill.