motorwaymadness
-
Posts
71 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Post article
CAGMag
Blogs
Keywords
Everything posted by motorwaymadness
-
Thank you! I'm printing that out for my to-do list.
-
Ah that's a great help, thank you. I'll keep you all updated. They left it right up to the deadline which has actually done me a great favour as my work crisis has calmed down a bit during that time. So they can now have my full attention in fighting this thoroughly.
-
Oh I see. If they reject it as well I'll do that then. Just didn't want to come across as the unreasonable one. I think the rest of the form is quite straightforward. I get the opportunity to transfer to my local court now as well. Do we know what the next stage is? Just a hearing date or do they give us more paperwork and possibly some instructions?
-
Thanks Billy's Mate. Do you know if PE tend to accept or reject mediation?
-
Hello all. I was hoping to post next week that the deadline had elapsed and I'd heard nothing. But alas, some paperwork has arrived this morning: Notice of Proposed Allocation to the Small Claims Track; a directions questionnaire; and some information on the mediation service. So, mediation. Is this to be attempted?
-
Ok, thanks DragonFly. It'll be an er, Welcome Break from PE.
-
Ok, thanks DragonFly. I'm happy with the waiting game. It'll be an er, Welcome Break from PE.
-
Not yet DragonFly. I left filing my defence until the last minute to give me as much time as possible until the next stage. So now just waiting... I'll update as soon as I hear something. Do you know how long that takes?
-
Maybe PE are right and they are dealing with a dimwit here. Ever had one of those moments where your brain screams at you to stop doing something but your body hasn’t enough time to react? That’s how I felt in the millisecond after this annoying fly finally landed somewhere on my desk where I could swat it. I think I’ll name it ParkingFly. Maybe sensible to file online now though... [ATTACH=CONFIG]53092[/ATTACH]
-
Indeed ericsbrother. An appropriate use of HMCS? This has naff all to do with my credit worthiness. The punishment is no more appropriate than it is proportionate. For anyone who missed it at the beginning of this thread, DragonFly posted this which I found enlightening: http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2014/08/parkingeye-dodgy-practices-exposed.html
-
That's reassuring DragonFly. I know they're a bit er, 'selective' with the cases they choose for their propaganda. That begs the question how many people have been hit with CCJs by default for these pathetically trivial matters? Thankfully I deal with financial stuff at work so I understand what a CCJ is and why I can't afford one. But how many don't understand what that can mean for them? How many don't have the time, money or mental capacity to make PE go away? How many simply hide in fear? How many mortgage applications get declined or interest rates hiked in PE's bid to teach us all a lesson by sabotaging our credit records? It's probably the case that the more vulnerable you are, the better candidate you make for a default CCJ off PE. And on that sad note, I have our outline defence statement tweaked. DragonFly I haven't changed much - any point posting on here or shall I post it straight in the postbox?
-
And another thing... Where does the arrogance come from that they think thousands of people are just dying to spend their nights in WB car parks? When I stop at a motorway service station it’s for as short a time as possible. I want to get back on the road and head for home as a matter of urgency. Am I unusual in my approach to these things? Ooh the allure of the WB car park with its glorious tarmac, so hard underfoot. With the soothing roar of juggernauts thundering down the M1 I lie in my motor under the protective gaze of CCTV cameras, all snuggled up next to my handbrake that gives me a reassuring nudge in the thigh as I try to get comfortable. How could I resist all that when all I’ve got waiting for me at the other end of the motorway is a deliciously snugly king-sized bed, a hot shower, slippers, curtains that close, a toothbrush, a family, coffee that doesn’t cost the price of a full day’s parking in a reasonably-priced car park and most importantly... a proper alarm clock? But that’s not going to form part of my defence statement so had better get back to work. Rant over.
-
That's fab, thanks DragonFly. That list of requests from PE - do you mean that's the disclosure I ask for at the allocation questionnaire stage or am I sending that directly to them now? Thanks robj - yes I've seen that one. Moto has a policy of not enforcing penalties against motorists who stop for safety reasons. So the message is don't be afraid to stop at a service station - just make sure it's a Moto one! WB CEO Rod McKie defended their contrary policy in a similar AOL Cars story: "If customers did not have to pay at night, our car parks would be full of people sleeping in cars, vans, caravans, etc. This is a major concern for us." I visit Moto service stations as frequently as I do WB ones (and probably more frequently from now on) and I can anecdotally confirm that Moto car parks are no less empty at night than WB ones. I wonder if Mr McKie bases his policy on quantitative research or whether that's as grumpy a melodramatic excuse as it sounds...
-
I do hope so Billy's mate and thanks for your support, it made me smile. I agree armadillo, there is a clear public interest angle to all this. Though if I was doing PR for WB or PE I think I'd be suggesting they take the small hit to kill the story. Obviously it'd still be great if they see sense and do that, but we'll have a better story for the Mail if they don't. I need to get my defence outline finished this week. DragonFly - should I now be including details of the settlement in that? I'll get it all tweaked and posted here asap.
-
Ok, thanks DragonFly. That makes sense. I'll ping off a version of what you said.
-
Haha, DragonFly you have exceeded my expectations yet again! Thanks for that, it's very cool. ;-) I thought I might add one more bit to that last email, after armadillo's post of last night which got me re-thinking about the Press. Good coverage has been achieved a number of times in The Telegraph, ITV News, The Mail, Guardian and some locals, on ParkingEye pursuing motorists who chose to sleep for safety reasons. But I haven't yet found a reported or unreported case of such a matter getting as far as court. If that makes my case a first - the first time they've actually tried suing a driver for sleeping for safety reasons - then it's more newsworthy than any of the above. I can't find evidence online of any similar case getting that far - but can one my more knowledgeable comrades correct me if they know differently?
-
Hi guys I've sent a number of responses to WB's parking team now and it sounds like her hands are tied (by PE, presumably), though I'm totally unconvinced that this matter is now "out of PE and WB's hands" as is claimed. I think the email conversation is now drawing to a close and I wonder if you can help me formulate a sensible response to the following last email: "Once again please accept my apologies but due to the court summons there is nothing Welcome Break nor Parking Eye can do other than offer you the chance to pay the £60." I would like to respond with what they could do, if they had the will. It's clearly not out of their hands is it? The court isn't forcing them to receive £60 off me before they're allowed to drop it is it? MCOL - which I've used to respond and PE might have used to claim - states in their FAQs: "I’ve been paid in full, or I want to withdraw the claim – how do I do that? You should contact the Court directly, either by email, letter, fax or telephone. If you are withdrawing your claim you should also confirm that you have notified the defendant." Sounds pretty simple to me. They would lose the court fee which they willingly paid, but that doesn't mean they can't withdraw it does it? It just means they don't want to. I'm quite sure the only things stopping them are greed and ego - unless I'm missing something? Is it actually more complicated than that or can I help them out and explain exactly what PE could do and what WB could do?
-
I would say the Mail are indeed still interested in the parking cowboys, and none more so than ParkingEye. Interesting feature here on our very own claimants (one of several very recent stories on the subject): http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2713646/We-curb-parking-cowboys-says-Cabinet-Minister-Victory-Mail-campaign-official-probe-launched-bully-boys.html
-
Thanks guys. A politician once told me: "The secret to winning a debate is to keep one killer blow up your sleeve and save it for when they've exhausted their arguments." I'm not ruling the Mail out, just taking it one step at a time.
-
I've found a couple of interesting things on the internet. - Firstly (and you may already be aware of this), the UK's biggest motorway service station owner Moto (WB being the second largest) operates a policy of not enforcing penalty notices against tired drivers. - Then I came across this Press release (link below) about a Driver Fatigue Awareness Day run by council road safety officers and also attended by the fire brigade. It offers advice for people in my situation including: "Find a safe place to stop if you feel drowsy - not the hard shoulder" and "Drink two cups of coffee or a high-caffeine drink, then take a short nap to allow the caffeine to kick in." Where was this Driver Fatigue Awareness Day held? None other than Welcome Break's Newport Pagnell services! The Press release quotes Welcome Break site director Mike Ashton: “This is a great idea which highlights a potentially serious problem. It also highlights that the services at Newport Pagnell have been providing refreshment for all drivers for 50 years.” http://portalconstructor.co.uk/safermk/documents/PR_122_-_fatigue_whilst_driving_release.pdf
-
Thanks DragonFly. It arrived Aug 21st. I filed an acknowledgement on moneyclaim.gov.uk yesterday and requested 28 days instead of 14 to file my defence because I'm up to my neck with other work, was grateful for a bit of breathing space when I found that option. What I meant about their costs was they've told their client (who has told me in writing) that £60 will cover their costs to date. So how come they've tried to claim £100 off me already, and are taking me to court for that £100, plus court costs? Does it not help that we now have an admission from them that they're suing for more than they're allowed to?
-
I did precisely that already DragonFly! Except that I highlighted it in yellow not red ;-) WB are waiting for me to get back to them on how I wish to proceed. I think I'm much more comfortable going to court now than I was. Shall we go for it?
-
Hi guys. It's not over until it's over I'm afraid. Received an email this morning from WB saying I failed to mention this was going to court (incorrect, it was mentioned repeatedly in my letter), therefore "You can either file a defence to the courts and have a court date set or if you do not wish to attend court, we can have the court summons and charge dropped but you will need to pay the costs that have already occurred which is £60." Can someone advise on two points: - WB says: "...this is out of Welcome Break's and Parking Eye's hands so the only way to get this cancelled is to pay the £60 or set a court date." Really? - Interestingly, they state clearly the costs already incurred are £60. So where does the £100 come from if they're only allowed to retrieve costs? Look forward to hearing your thoughts. MM
-
Thanks guys. It is a bit of a bitter pill but realistically, worth swallowing. Another time I'd have loved to fight to the end, but on this occasion I have matters more worthy of my attention than pests like PE. The bitterest pill is actually this, in their response email from my acceptance of their offer: "Please be aware going forward parking at Welcome Break is free for 2 hours, anything after this time frame you do need to pay for." Was it really necessary to try and get the last word in by stating the bleedin obvious when they could have left it amicably? I feel like replying with a massive dose of sarcasm but no, I shall rise above it. A small grumble anyway when they did they right thing. I shall continue to use their services. I'm not daring to close the book on this until the settlement is paid and court action cancelled but I shall update you all on that in due course.
-
Comrades, I have news. The landowner’s parking team have just responded with an offer accepting the original £11, plus a £10 administration fee. It’s a carefully-worded email that couldn’t be described as a U-turn, the settlement offer being ‘a goodwill gesture’ that they will arrange with PE if I’m happy to pay that sum. I haven’t responded yet, thinking you guys deserve a say after all your support. But I do quite like this company and I’m happy with their offer. And I’m sure DragonFly’s defence statement and everyone’s advice won’t go to waste, remaining on this thread as a permanent help to others. What do we think? Does this constitute a victory against PE?
Latest
Our Picks
Reclaim the right Ltd
reg.05783665
reg. office:-
262 Uxbridge Road, Hatch End
England
HA5 4HS