Jump to content

Beamengine

Registered Users

Change your profile picture
  • Content Count

    98
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

Beamengine last won the day on July 27 2016

Beamengine had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

51 Excellent

1 Follower

About Beamengine

  • Rank
    Basic Account Holder
  1. TLT - I thought they were more closely linked to Barclays.
  2. Get in touch with the Manchester Evening News and get some more articles published. Start off with the lack of signs stating that it is private land as required by the IPC code. That should start a vigorous discussion with the Council
  3. Citizen's Advice have upgraded their public guidance and this is a brief but good source of informati0n that answers your questions: https://www.citizensadvice.org.uk/Documents/Advice%20factsheets/Consumer%20Affairs/c-going-to-court.pdf In particular it states that either party can object to a decision based on the papers.
  4. ES Parking is a member of the IPC so have a look at their IPC code of practice http://www.theipc.info/resources/brandings/brandmedia_2_Code-of-Practice.pdf In particular section 14 refers to predatory tactics; the poor signage coupled with a claim for stopping could be regarded as predatory. Para 15 on page 13 states that stopping to read signs must be treated as a period of grace. The signage certainly does not comply with that shown in schedule 1 for an entrance to private land so a complaint to IPC under schedule 2 would be appropriate. You should also consider making a formal co
  5. The request for a paper hearing was very sneaky as it would mean that you would not see the papers they have said will be provided with the evidence. That would mean that you would not have the opportunity to challenge it. My only experience of a hearing without the parties being present ended up with the defendant submitting papers to the court the day before the hearing but I only received them the day after. Not surprisingly the judge used the arguments their late submission to dismiss the claim. The lesson of this is that even if the judge decides that the hearing can be held in the a
  6. HPH2 once again using Robway to handle all of the correspondence. I have set a LBA to HPH2 as I have at last persuaded ICO that their regitration was not in accordance with the DPA by failing to identify a representative within UK jurisdiction - they are based in Jersey. The response I received was from Robway addressing an earlier LBA against them! dx100uk, despite your previous comments about HPH2's status only Hoist Finance UK and Robway are registered with FCA. HPH2 are not listed as a trading name of Hoist who are their representatives according to the ICO regi
  7. Ginger, You should send in your defence as soon as possible, there is little point in waiting in any case. It need only be the four points I set out as it is a skeleton set of points and the claimant will have to demonstrate that they can satisfy the judge on all four to succeed. They will struggle to do that even if they do have a basis that the road is private throughtout its length. I agree that it is best under the corcumstances that you do not counterclaim. My reasons and circumstances are different to yours as I believe that ES Parking deserve to be judged as vexatious wh
  8. I will let you know the outcome of my current claim for £750 following an improprer PCN.
  9. I agree that Ginger should not counterclaim unless she feels that she would wish to pursue ES Parking for distress as she has indicated if they lose. Even then I would recommend that she simply puts it behind her and get on with the more important things in life. Letting go is difficult but there are times when it is best approach by far. File the defence and wait to see what happens.
  10. Not as ridiculous as their accounts for 2014 which show a profit of £28M but corporation tax of £0,169M. That a rate of 0.6% which makes the contributins from Amazon and Starbucks look generous. :censored:Of course Parking Eye are part of the Capita group which runs a large slice of the governement's contracted out services ranging from student loans to civil service pensions. It make the Supreme Court's ruling in the Beavis v. Parking Eye so much easier to understand. After all we all want our privatised NHS car parks to be available to those that can afford to pay f
  11. Once a claim has been withdrawn with the agreement of the court it is regarded as closed so it is not possible to make a counter claim – it would have to be a new claim. In this case the cause of action would be a breach of the DPA for which compensation for injury to feelings and distress can be claimed under section 13(2). The burden of proof would be on the basis that ES Parking unlawfully obtained the personal data because they had no reasonable cause. If they have already withdrawn their claim because of that defence they would struggle to explain that and it woul
  12. A defendant can request a stay if, for example, there is an attempt at mediation but only a judge can order a claim to be stayed or struck out. A defendant can make an application for a claim to be struck out because it is vexatious and/or entirely without merit. While the claim is active this can be effected by a counter claim and in this case a claim for distress. The cause of action would be that the claimant did not have reasonable cause to request the keeper details which would be unlawful under the DPA. The claimant can withdraw the claim at any time and this would avoid the
  13. When does the clock start ticking for the 33 days? Is it from the date that both parties receive the allocation questionnaire, their responses or the date of the track allocation? What are the terms of an autostay? It would presumably need a court order to lift it but is there a time limit before an application to strike it out be made? I did find this official handbook which is equally useful for defendants: https://www.judiciary.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/JCO/Documents/Guidance/A_Handbook_for_Litigants_in_Person.pdf
  14. I agree, they will have to demonstrate they have cause for action which means all of these points would have to be covered. I too doubt that they will bother to pay the allocation fee. If they don't I would only allow the case to be stayed if they provide valid reasons and then I would request a deadline before the claim is struck out.
×
×
  • Create New...