Thank you. Its just a shame they aren't brought to book

so what if i turn up with my prepared argument , do they have to hear my case ?

If we didn't return it would the hearing still go ahead or would the court remove the case from the track ?

so we need a copy of the discontinuance from the court to make it official. if that doesn't arrive by thursday , then i presume we still attend court on friday

There ia a Notice of Discontinuance attached, so i guess we have to sign and return or debate a counterclaim. It would seem their claims for money are frivolous and vexatious or bordering on fraud ??

"we write to confirm PakingEye now consider this matter closed. We have notified the court that we do not wish to proceed with the above numbered claim. yours sincerely ParkingEye Enforcement Team

Cant seem to post attachments here anymore

Well its Bitter Sweet, but PE has dismissed the case

Any help or advice very much appreciated The last letter received from the court had The statement "each party shall deliver to every other party and to the court office copies of all documents on which he intends to rely on at the hearing no later than 14 days before the hearing' I am hoping to post next day delivery this afternoon or as soon as completed I am also just compiling some sets of photos with regard to 1. The varied signage 2. The gap in the perimeter where you can drive in and out avoiding the camera capture point 3. Wetherspoons Posset cup, signage and receipt as these now show conditions for extended time could you let me know if i am on the right track or doing the wrong thing here saying too much or the wrong format ? any help would be very much appreciated Cheers Parkingeye Ltd Vs Redacted.pdf

After another visit to the Portishead/ LIDl Carpark, I have been able to Confirm that there is in fact a Vehicle gap in the perimeter allowing entry in and exit from the designated area as described by BellX15

I was just reading some case studies where PE has claimed that planning permission was back dated to the time of application, i'm pleased i just came across this letter clearly stating valid from the date of this decision notice valid from time of decision .pdf

done thank you

Apologies....as usual lol, hope the pdf format is easier to read, it is not the full meeting notes, just the relevant ones Town Planing meeting.pdf

Thanks for the info, i will re check 3. and hopefully include it

Se are due at our hearing to the Small Claim Track on January 18th at 11am, and am now considering what should be included in our defence bundle. we have images of the signage, being different , with at least 3 or 4 types of sign, all carrying PPE logos, which one would consider makes the signage an 'Advertisement' Advertising consent neither applied for of consented to We have copies of the planing application and the date of its acceptance "4th May 2018" being after the said offence '13th March 2017', Copy of the BPA'S Code of Practice A copy of 'Portishead Town Council Minutes of Planning & Regulatory Committee Held on Wednesday 4th April 2018 18/P/2347/FUL where the text includes the line '....No planning consent given for the Original installation of the parking camera system or the signage that has been installed' (see attached images 1,2,3) should we include town and county planning act or other relevant regulations. we also have Shuteyeparks 30 page document listing sites with no advertising consent , any advice gratefully received