Parking Eye ANPR LOC Now claimform - Teanlowe - Booths Poulton Le Fylde

[brassnecked]

As LFI says indicate they have another 2 weeks to give you the information or you will bring a Claim against them for failure to provide the requested data.  if you read Hitman's thread below they obtained a succesful CCJ against a fleecer for just that.  Would make PE look a bit silly if you did the same.

 

 

[FTMDave]

Was it a CPR request or a SAR that you sent?

 

There is a massive difference.

[Robert63]

It was a CPR 31.14 request.

[FTMDave]

Well a CPR 31.14 request is just that, a request.  If they don't want to reply, they don't have to.

 

But their rubbish reply will help you.  Later on in your Witness Statement you can write that PE did reply to a CPR request but refused to supply either a valid contract with the landowner or proof of planning permission for their signs, and you believe they don't have these permissions.

 

 

 

 

.

[dx100uk]

threads merged

 

all posts should now be showing

 

dx

 

[dx100uk]

i know there are two PCN's

the 1st here not litigated again

and the 2nd that has the claimform

all the docs need sorting as they are mixed up unnamed and confusing .

once ive dont that i will re split the threads

 

[dx100uk]

dunno whats going on 

the backroom techs are going to looking things 

 

something is wrong with the forum.

 

dx

 

[Robert63]

Hopefully it'll sort itself out.

Any how, it's time to put in the defence, 

 

This is what I'm going to put.

 

The Defendant contends that the particulars of the claim are vague and generic in nature which fails to comply with CPR 16.4. The Defendant accordingly sets out its case below and relies on CPR16.5 (3) in relation to any particular allegation to which a specific response has not been made.

 

1.       The Defendant is the recorded keeper of the vehicle.

 

2.       It is denied that the Defendant entered into a contract with the Claimant.

 

3.       As held by the Upper tax Tribunal in Vehicle Control Services v HMRC (2012) UKUT 129 (TCC), any contract requires offer and acceptance. The Claimant was simply contracted by the landowner to provide car-park management services and is not capable of entering into a contract with the defendant on its own account, as the car-park is owned by and the terms of entry set by the landowners. Accordingly it is denied that the claimant has the authority to bring this claim.

 

4.       I any case it is denied that the Defendant broke the terms of the contract with the claimant.

 

5.       The Claimant is attempting double recovery by adding an additional sum not included in the original contract.

 

6.       The Particulars is denied in its entirety. It is denied that the Claimant is entitled to any relief claimed or any relief at all.

 

I'm not sure about point 5, as they are trying to claim for legal expenses but appear to be representing themselves.  

[FTMDave]

Will try to sort out the thread problems later.

 

Meanwhile - well spotted - twice!

 

Every single parking company invents £70 Unicorn Food Tax in their claims, which is why we put point 5.  The only exception is - Parking Eye! 

 

On the other hand they have invented these £50 legal costs.  So change point 5 to

 

5.       The Claimant is claiming £50 legal representative's costs although they have no legal representative.

 

Then it's good to go.

[Robert63]

All changed and ready to go.

[FTMDave]

I've tried to set up two seperate threads again but annoyingly one post refuses to move.

 

At least this thread, the most important one, is reasonably coherent.

 

Will try again tomorrow.

[Robert63]

Defence sent last night and received this morning. 

[Robert63]

we've just received ParkingEye's witness statement and N180.

I'm going to ignore their N180.

I'll get the witness statement scanned and put it up later. 

[FTMDave]

It's extremely early for a WS to arrive.

 

Yes, please scan it up later.

[Robert63]

Witness statement from Parkingeye the first few pages are Beavis.

Parkingeye Witness Statement.pdf

[FTMDave]

This is a new one.

 

I knew it was too early for a Witness Statement.

 

They have prepared some daft Reply to Defence.  I haven't seen anything like this in the seven years I've been on the site.  Just guessing, but it's probably intended to put the wind up you, as it will go to the central bulk centre and won't be read by anyone.

 

I'll have a read through the whole lot when I have time, probably at the weekend.

[dx100uk]

be interested to see what MCOL status is now? please look

 

seems like we must be hitting PE hard of recent when CAG is involved...they are panicking 

 

not only are they now sending out their proposed N180 DQ early, but are also revealing their witness statements early too to  ensure a defendant wets themselves twice before the court has ever reacted to the filing of a defence from a defendant.

 

interesting.

 

bit like lowells on court claims.

 

dx

 

 

[Robert63]

This mornings MCOL Status.

MCOL Status 22032023.pdf

[brassnecked]

Having read through the PE missve that passes for a WS, I have to concur with FTMDave and DX  it initially is a ramble through Beavis taking it out of its contec=xt as many other fleecer's do, its not a universal automatic case winner at all, and can be used against a fleecer equally when they do that.  Seems that many judges are now awake to PPC shenanigans, and one reading that might lose the will to live after the big expansive ramble on beavis.

[Nicky Boy]

I certainly lost the will to live!

 

What stands out to me is the so called "contract" with the land owner.

[dx100uk]

So not gone anywhere

No sign of DQ n180 being sent out on status page 

 

Dx

[FTMDave]

3 hours ago, Nicky Boy said:

I certainly lost the will to live!

Me too.  Ye gods.  They should use this in murder cases.  Anyone sentenced for murder will have to read a Parking Eye document every day.  That'd be a deterrent.

 

Pages & pages completely irrelevant to Robert63's case, saying that if there is a contract between PE and the landowner then there is a contract and if the signs are good there is a contract between PE and the motorist.  Er - no arguments there.

 

I love the bit about the defence and reply should be "contained in as few documents as possible".  Aye, so we'll send 40 pages of irrelevant waffle.

 

3 hours ago, Nicky Boy said:

What stands out to me is the so called "contract" with the land owner.

Yes, superb!  No name, no job position, no date and no signature.  Basically just a blank form.  I'm sure that'll convince a judge - 

[brassnecked]

makes you wonder if they have even submitted it, its that bad

 

[Nicky Boy]

As DX said, because the DQ n180 hasn't been filed on MCOL, the fllecers "Reply To Defence" can't have been filed either.

 

They need to be filed together...

 

CPR15

Reply to defence and defence to counterclaim

15.8  If a claimant files a reply to the defence—

(a)the claimant must—

(i)file the reply with a directions questionnaire; and

(ii)serve the reply on the other parties at the same time as it is filed; and

(b)the reply should form one document with any defence to counterclaim, with the defence to counterclaim following the reply, unless the dates on which they are due to be filed differ from one another.

 

Also, with reference to (b). Does all their crap count as "one document"?

[brassnecked]

There we go, as was assumed another frightener, they would be stupid to actually submit that garbage.