Many thanks

I would be very grateful if you would consider letting me have the case reference and copy of judgment for your case against UKCPS where you successfully sued them for trespass. http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?377246-UKCPS-liable-for-trespass- This is for the Supreme Court case of ParkingEye v Beavis, where rather unusually extra written arguments have been allowed after the hearing. There is a very tight deadline on this. My email is [email protected] If you require me to prove I am part of the Beavis defence team, I am more than happy to do whatever it needs. Regards PS. I do not have a high enough post count to PM Mr Davey. If someone readin gthis could do the PM and then post here to say, 'done' I would be grateful.

All PE POPLA cases are stayed until the Beavis judgment is in, so GPEOL is not a slam dunk win and will depend on the Beavis judgment.

So looking forward to this. Should other people be encouraged to issue a counterclaim or is this only for the experienced?

To put some further meat on this, the breakdown is given as follows Direct costs (inc salaries, postage, printing) 1.46 IT 0.78 Overheads and development 0.60 As this is mostly done electronically, postage and printing are negligable. With 2,000,000 enquiries a year, that puts the salary bill at 2,900,000, or 97 people at 30,000 a year total cost of employment. What do these 97 people do? Answer...there are not 97 people servicing PPC enquiries!

This is classic misinformation from the DVLA. The true cost of processing a PPC appeal is tiny. However, what the DVLA have done is lump all costs onto the PPC for the entire system, which is also used by many other users, such as police, councils, etc who either pay nothing or pay cheaper rates. In actual fact the PPCs are therefore subsidising everybody else. If the PPCs vanished overnight most of these costs would remain because the system is used by many other users.

I was referring to cases where they issue a court claim. They only take about 500 cases to court a week so if you are not one of those then I agree with you that they will not currently always go all the way because they do not have enough resources to chase every case. A back of envelope calculate gives me an estimate that this is 5-10% of ignorers, but I would be happy to accept a more reasoned estimate.

I'm going to agree with most of that, apart from 'Nonsense' and 'it's not PE's appeal service'. As someone who has also been inside of a court room I can confirm that the court will consider the industry standard dispute process an appropriate ADR. This consists of an appeal to the operator, followed by POPLA. I'm surprised you don't think this is a good strategy.Operators always lose at POPLA when the question of pre-estimate of loss is brought up, while at the courts we see it is a bit of a lottery depending on the judge and the quality of the litigation team employed by the claimant. Therefore a viable strategy is to try and resolve before the hearing and give the court as many reasons as possible to get the case in front of POPLA.

Ah - I missed that. If PE have not yet started court, and it's just a 'threat' then you should be able to get them to cancel. It's only once they file court papers that they seem to dig their heels in.

It's great that you had the ticket. In all normal situations most people would now expect the parking company to cancel the charge and pull out of the court hearing. But this is ParkingEye! You still need to file a defence or ParkingEye will get a default judgement against you. I would suggest something along the lines of; RenegadeImp may be able to suggest something better. A ticket was purchased for the period in question and no parking charge is therefore due. A copy is enclosed as part of my evidence. As ParkingEye have no cause of action I invite the court to strike out the case. As ParkingEye have failed to follow practice directions I have not yet have the chance to enter into dialogue with them and follow the proper pre-court action. This will minimise costs and time for both parties and also the court. If the court does not strike the case out I request that the case be stayed so that pre-court action may be followed. After this, I request the courts permission to file a fuller defence, once I understand what ParkingEye's case actually is.

Both. they are not mutually exclusive. If you don't offer to settle they will always go all the way, and will fork out more money than they make for an LPC Law litigant. They lose money, but get bragging rights on their web site. They don't drop cases, as far as I can tell. But, so far I have never known them not settle if you attempt to negotiate.

Update. As you did pay, PE usually settle for £50 to cover their costs. Perhaps you keyed in your registration incorrectly. Unless you are good in court, its probably worth paying £50 to make this all go away. But try the landowner route as well.

Hi RenegadeImp, do you have a solid defence that carmor can use? ParkingEye have won most cases in the last few months because defendants were apparantly not using a solid defence and were up against experienced litigators who can bamboozle and confuse a novice defendant. ParkingEye are quite happy to lose money on every single case that goes to court it seems, so that they can scare people into paying up. Carmor, my advice is to get a solid defence in, hopefully from RenegadeImp, and then meanwhile to put pressure on the landowner to cancel the charge. This has worked well in the past. If PE did not give you a letter before action that is compliant with practice directions, then complain to them, the court and the solicitors regulatory association. Ask the court to refer the case to the industry standard ADR, which is PE's own appeals service followed by POPLA. PE lose every case in POPLA where pre-estimate of loss is brought up, so they will refuse at first, but keep trying. You can also negotiate. PE don't really want to go to court because they lose money and have settled for as low as £27. If you would be prepared to pay a lower figure rather than go to court, then start negotiations. PE are known not to be able to justify their solicitor fee of £50, so they will knock that off for a start. Ask them to knock off the £15 filing fee because their LBA was not compliant. Then see how much lower they will go. Remember, they will go as low as £27. Good luck

35 days is the time specified in the BPA code of practice, section 22.9. cant post urls, but here is the link. change xxx to www xxx. britishparking.co. uk /write/Documents/BPA_Code_of_Practice_2012_Version_1_October_2012.pdf No idea how they actually arrived at this.

Parking Eye seem to be caving in when POPLA is threatened, so it may be worth writing one time to them if you would rather this ends sooner rather than later. They know that otherwise it will cost them an extra £27 and you will ignore them anyway. Dear xxx, Re: your invoice ref: xxxx Following advice on the Consumer Action Group parking forum, I wish to appeal on all possible grounds, including but not limited to the following: 1) The vehicle was not improperly parked 2) The parking charge (ticket) exceeded the appropriate amount 3) I am not liable for the parking charge I will not be providing any other details or entering into any other correspondence with you. I require you to either cancel your invoice, or refuse my appeal within 35 days of the date on this letter. If you refuse my appeal, I require you to provide me with the POPLA appeal code. If you do not resolve this with 35 days as per the BPA code of practice section 22.8, then I will deem you to have upheld the appeal. Yours, xxx

Did you find this out by trying to do POPLA online? If so, it might just be that their online system is not working because it is new. Try posting via snail mail directly to POPLA, and include a photocopy of the PPC document giving you the POPLA code, plus copies of your emails asking for a new code. As well as your other reasons, ask POPLA to uphold your appeal because the PPC are not following the POPLA process correctly. You could also try waiting a little while. According to the BPA code of practice, the PPC have 35 days from your initial appeal to either uphold it, or reject it and provide you with a valid POPLA code. Once 35 days have passed from the date you initially appealed, contact the PPC to inform them that they are out of time and that since they have not provided a valid POPLA code you consider they have upheld your appeal and the matter is now closed.

Parking Eye seem to be caving in when POPLA is threatened, so it may be worth writing one time to them if your girlfriend would rather this ends sooner rather than later. They know that otherwise it will cost them an extra £27 and you will ignore them anyway. Dear xxx, Re: your invoice ref: xxxx Following advice on the Consumer Action Group parking forum, I wish to appeal on all possible grounds, including but not limited to the following: 1) The vehicle was not improperly parked 2) The parking charge (ticket) exceeded the appropriate amount 3) I am not liable for the parking charge I will not be providing any other details or entering into any other correspondence with you. I require you to either cancel your invoice, or refuse my appeal within 35 days of the date on this letter. If you refuse my appeal, I require you to provide me with the POPLA appeal code. If you do not resolve this with 35 days as per the BPA code of practice section 22.8, then I will deem you to have upheld the appeal. Yours, xxx