Case dropped by PE.

Thanks for the help.

Interesting. I have the same letter from ParkingEye, declaring discontinuance, but no accompanying form to be signed.

I am finding it hard to believe that the case would proceed, given that PE has sent this letter.

SP - The signs say: "Failure to comply with the terms and conditions ...etc" and "which are set out in this notice" (in the small-print).

Where are they? Nothing on the sign is labelled "Terms and Conditions".

Hi SP - just to let you know what I have found out about this car park.

A couple of months ago I revisited the site, and discovered the following.

1. PE only has cameras and signs covering the 'inner sanctum' (nearest the shops).

2. The outer sanctum around the edge has no surveillance. No signs or cameras.

3. There is free passage from the inner to the outer and vice versa. The perimeter fencing is incomplete.

The upshot of all this is that PE has no way of determining where you parked - inner or outer sanctum, so has no evidence that you have incurred any charges.

I am interested in whether you will use this defence, as my case comes up on Feb 5th, and I intend to concentrate on this one argument.

And good luck!!

Yes, I went through all that, but then my defence was too long to be accepted on the MCOL website, so I had to email it. I've done everything I was supposed to do.

Regarding my next move, I am now waiting to see whether I receive an N180 from the court.

I can log in to the website, but then it invites me to respond to a particular claim. It is rejecting the claim number/password provided on the claim form, so I can't get in.

mcol? Sorry, don't know what that is.

Yes, I hope so! But why would they submit an N180 yesterday?

September 6th, by email. Acknowledged by the court.

While I am waiting for an N180 from the court, it might be worth mentioning that I will be in the Portishead area again next week. I'm anxious for advice on what sort of on-site checks I should do to build up my evidence base?

Yes, sorry. I've just started doing that.

I see. So does this imply that they are already prepared to find a compromise solution? Or are they just pretending?

ScarletPreacher - any developments? I've just received a photocopy of PE's form consenting to mediation, but without any accompanying letter or message I've no idea what I'm supposed to do with it. I have one or two suggestions, but ...

Thanks. But no, I meant just in this particular case.

Would some kind person be good enough to summarise the errors PE make regarding location of their signage, please?

(Lidl, Travelodge, Subway), Harbour Road, Portish

It also sounds like they know it was a planning breach.

I notice they say they have the relevant consent, but they don't say when they obtained it.

OK, good.

Thanks, both.

Is the SAR important in this context?

OK, good. Someone else edited it into numbered paragraphs. I wrote it out in a single block.

for the moment you arwe stating something quite simple, you dont owe them any money because you didnt enter into a contract with them or whatever. ....

 

Only go about one small reason now and you will be denied the opportunity to raise other things later whereas the no contract argument allows you to raise anything you can dig up from procedural errors to planning or details on the signage

Yes, I see. This is very helpful - thanks.

Post #49 provides a verbatim transcript, as far as I understand what is being asked for.

Is there something missing?

 

As for retrospective permission, it doesnt exist in this type of case and where it has been raised by PE they have basically lied or pulled the wool over the judges eyes and the papaer shows why retro cant apply. It is for you to bring this up though, the judge wont know and isnt there to do your work for you

This seems crucial to both of our cases. I've looked, but so far I haven't found the paper you mention.

So what sort of lies does PE resort to here?

OK.

I suppose I am being rather negative, but with reason.

The prospect of having to defend myself in court, when obviously I don't have much of an idea what I am talking about, is daunting to say the least.

If I put this back into a realistic perspective, £175 is not the end of the world.

It might be kinder to myself just to throw in the towel and pay it.

So all in all it makes sense to me to be testing the optimistic point of view, rather than just going along with it.

Personally, I find the prevailing judicial set-up profoundly unjust.

No, it doesn't look the same as me. The difference is that in our cases the permission is currently in place, and in many cases courts have allowed retrospective permission.

"stop chasing your tail its getting to be annoying"

Not sure what you mean. Research is good, yes?

On the parking pranksters blogspot last year there was a link to a superb paper written by a retired lawyer on this very point so find it and read it. Yiou will need to understand the different parts of the regs to argue succinctly because no judge is going to bother to do your work for you.

 

Basically the law is the law but it is your job to raise the points and not rely on just being right, you have to prove it.

If this is the relevant piece, or even if it isn't, the whole things looks like a bit of a lottery to me.

http://parking-prankster.blogspot.com/2017/12/the-great-private-car-park-planning.html

Would you say it is easier to pursue the unclear/contradictory signage route?