Jump to content


Registered Users

Change your profile picture
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by nelmo

  1. Bugger - appeal lost. Yes, they may take it to the next stage but I foresee a letter from PE in my near future
  2. Maybe but the judge gave the impression that he just wanted to be shot of the whole thing and having an appeal court decision to fall back on would have suited him fine it only took him 5 minutes to decide to stay the case...
  3. Case stayed, pending the 'Beavis' appeal. I tried to argue that the Beavis case was different to mine because PE do not pay Morrisons any monthly fee to act in the car park, whereas they do pay in the Beavis case, so easier for them to calculate a PEoL. Judge registered this but wasn't convinced enough to carry on. Personally, I think this was because he didn't know enough of the issue - he told the PE solicitor to schedule a full half day if they re-list the case so he has time to research all the notes.
  4. I have checked the original parking permission - nothing to help me there, sadly.
  5. Great, my case is next Wednesday, the day after the Beavis appeal judgement is due (although it may come out later). According to the Prankster blog, if Beavis loses, so do I! If the judgement is not out by then, they might stay the case until it does. My main point of defence was the fact that Mmorrisons is not the landowner and so have no right to allow PE to run the car park. This was based on a land registry search of who the landowner is - it is officially Safeway Stores Ltd. and not strictly Morrisons. I thought this meant that Safeways (who still trade in the US and are thus an act
  6. I contacted them originally - they came back to say they had persuaded PE to withdraw the claim IF I paid their £60 'costs'. They didn't seem to understand the whole idea of the illegality of PEs position or the principle of having to pay to park in a free car park. I can sort of understand Morissons point of view - they are trying to stop local office people parking all day for free in their car park. In the cut-throat supermarket business, the cost of car park management (barriers, tickets, extra staff) is prohibitive, when they can hand it over to a company like PE and it costs them no
  7. Thanks for that - they have quoted the Beavis case, so will make sure this is mentioned - is there a link to somewhere I can prove it is on appeal? The letter offering to dismiss the case if I pay costs says 'without prejudice' on it - I thought that meant I couldn't use it in court?
  8. Ok, been a while but finally have my court date as mid-April and I've just received the wad of paper from PE. Even though they never replied to my CPR 31.14 request, they have now included a document which is supposedly their contract with Morrisons. Two points: 1. Can I get it excluded on the day as evidence because they didn't send it when I asked? 2. According to the Land Regitsry, Morrisons are NOT the landowner, so surely this contract is useless? In the contract, they have a line that says; '[Morrisons] being the landowner of the site (or as a tenant or licensee and
  9. Ah, nice one, that is what I wanted. Interesting that in the one most relevant to me, the case lasted about 10 minutes! The defendant hardly said a word. In that case (PE v. Sharma), PE even had a contract with the landowner (which they don't have in my case) and PE still lost!
  10. I already have my own thread - look at the recent posts, there is one started by me which I just updated a few minutes ago....
  11. This site is just a list of cases with one-line summaries - anyone know how to get the full decision?
  12. UPDATE - never received anything from PE from my CPR31.14 request (permission from landowner) and never heard back from the landowner either. I suspect the landowner just have an office with a receptionist to show some legal presence in the UK as they don't trade here any more. I submitted my skeleton defence to the court and, today, PE have replied to say they will continue to court. They sent me an interesting 46 page defence document! In it, they cite a recent case against them in East Anglia, which they won. Reading through it, there are some useful tips in there and one glaring
  13. Would you be able to PM me? I can't PM you as I don't have enough posts I am going through a similar case (but too late for POPLA) and the full details of your win would be very useful to me. Hope you reads this...
  14. I have got the letter, don't worry - in fact, my lever arch file is starting to look quite healthy... I thought that letter could show PEs willingness to resolve the issue and me ignoring it could be a negative thing? I thought this line from the letter was more damning: 'It has come to our attention that you were a genuine customer on the date of the Parking Charge event' - admitting I was actually using Morrisons and not just abusing the car park. I have been back to Morrisons to ask if any such physical contract/agreement with PE even exists but they bever replied. I didn't chase
  15. After I contacted Morrisons with proof thatI had been shopping in their store on the day in question, PE have now sent me a letter offering to drop the claim if I pay them £60 (their costs). I was tempted at first but then realised that I would be paying them £60 for staying 15 minutes beyond an arbitary time limit set by themselves on land they don't own, in a free car park . Not happening. Morrisons have no proof that they gave PE permission to set-up and anyway, found out that the landowner is still Safeway. I've sent them a letter to ask if they were asked for permission...pretty unl
  16. I found one planning application from 1991 which seems to be when the original site was built (?) but there is no specific condition of who could use the car park. As regards previous cases, I'll just take a list of cases and references with me and just use them if it seems the judge is unaware of the history. Still can't work out where to get transcripts from - any ideas?
  17. How do I get transcripts or details from previous cases? Nothing obvious when I search online... How do I best explain why I ignored the initial letters from PE, in case I am asked? I can't think of a good reason...
  18. The wording I posted is from the small claims court paperwork and it does say, at the end, 'this is in relation to parking charge xxxxxx'. Is that significant? As to the signs, I don't think I have anything to complain about - even though I never saw any of the signs until I went to look for them, there are lots of them - however, difficult, if not impossible to read from a car, if that is significant? This is a close-up (sorry, can't seem to make these pics any bigger): [ATTACH=CONFIG]53798[/ATTACH] This is at the entrance, on the pillar tot he left: [ATTACH=CONFIG]53
  19. Thank you both - I'll follow up with the council. The wording of the claim does not mention that case, just: '...for parking on private land in breach of the terms and conditions (the contract). PEs ANPR system...captured vehicle xxxxxxxx entering and leaving the car park, overstaying the max stay time. The signage, clearly displayed at the entrance to and throughout the car park [true but impossible to read from a car], states that this is private land, is managed by PE and is a max stay site, along with other T&Cs by which those who park on site agree to be bound. In accordance
  20. Hi, I'm starting this thread to keep a track of my progress in fighting a small claims court notice I received today. Background: my local Morrisons handed control of their car park to ParkingEye about 5 years ago as it is a free car park but they found local office workers parking there all day - perfectly sensible. Unfortunately, this caught out a lot of locals who would go to Morrisons and then a few other shops on the local high street. This happened to my wife only a few months after PE took over. We recieved a fine in the post from them wh
  • Create New...