Jump to content

Parking Pain 108

Registered Users

Change your profile picture
  • Content Count

    30
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

1 Neutral

About Parking Pain 108

  • Rank
    Basic Account Holder
  1. Hi Sorry for the delay but Ive been away on a trip to India and didn't have time to post. good news! I rang the court and they said indeed the case has been struck out. thanks for all the help on this its great to have support in fighting back against such injustices - otherwise lacking basic knowledge you wouldn't know even basic procedures. I made a donation - much appreciated thanks to all those who helped with advise keep up the good work!
  2. Hi, I received this letter from the court (19 October) stating that Parking Eye was sent "Notice of Proposed Allocation to Track" but they failed to file the "Directions Questionnaire" with CCBC by the date specified and that if they do not file it within 7 days their claim will automatically be struck out without further order of the court!
  3. Hi youturntopay thanks again I guess this will sound stupid but I just found a letter my wife had tucked away while i was abroad it is the "Notice of allocation to the Small Claims Track" which includes the N180 which is due... tomorrow 8th October. Yes I realise it doesn't look good. Its asking if I agree to the case going to mediation, if i agree this is appropriate, if i wish to use written evidence of an expert etc I understood I should not agree to mediation but just read somewhere that the court expects you too?, In any case I'm reading up on it now but thought I should make a post quickly as it needs to go off tomorrow!. I will try to upload the form now. - I realise I messed up time wise but any advice would be greatly appreciated.
  4. Hi I was recently away and when I returned I received a letter from Parking Eye about settling the case through mediation, I was wondering how I should best respond?
  5. ok thanks: yourturntopay: yes thanks for your advice will do regarding the donation dx100uk: I rang the court today they said they received the defence yesterday and it was in time, ericsbrother: ok I'll have a look at those unfair contracts regs and s62 of the Consumer rights ac - what error did you make in the defence? thanks dx100uk & ericsbrother
  6. OK thanks I emailed it to the address someone from the court gave me - ccbcaq@justice.gov.uk - so I presume they know what they're talking about! Might be confusing to upload at MCOL as well?. I'll post a paper copy to PE as well I'll let you know when I hear anything Thanks for the help
  7. OK Thanks ericsbrother - (just need to finish form and scan and email only takes a minute to do) So just to double check you think theres no need to mention the signage or lighting/condition of the car park? Just send the above?
  8. 1) It is admitted that Defendant is the recorded keeper of [motor vehicle]. 2) It is denied the defendant entered into a contract with the claimant because there was no obvious signage that restricted a short 10 mins stay (also inadequate lighting in the car park?) 3) It is denied that the Claimant is entitled to the relief claimed or any relief at all due to the claimants self declared grace period of 10 minutes or more as stated in the claimants own documentation. Is it good to mention the lack of lighting also? -also the general state of repair being very poor - missing posts, no lighting, faded bay markings etc or is the above sufficient?
  9. Great thanks I'm not sure on the 2nd clause tho?? you say give a brief reason why .... because the proper Claimant is the landowner. Or Because the driver was there purely to fix sat nav?
  10. OK so then like this? 1) It is admitted that Defendant is the recorded keeper of [motor vehicle]. 2) It is denied that the Claimant entered into a contract 3) The Particulars of Claim is denied in its entirety. It is denied that the Claimant is entitled to the relief claimed or any relief at all due to the claimants self declared grace period of 10 minutes or more as stated in the claimants own documentation.
  11. OK thanks, I've not dealt with a county court claim before - you say the usual two? you mean these two below? or something else there is no 'usual' for me! 1) It is admitted that Defendant is the recorded keeper of [motor vehicle]. 2) It is denied that the Claimant entered into a contract with the Defendant. As held by the Upper Tax Tribunal in Vehicle Control Services Limited v HMRC [2012] UKUT 129 (TCC), any contract requires offer and acceptance. The Claimant was simply contracted by the landowner to provide car-park management services and is not capable of entering into a contract with the Defendant on its own account, as the carpark is owned by and the terms of entry set by the landowner. Accordingly, it is denied that the Claimant has authority to bring this claim. The proper Claimant is the landowner. 3) The Particulars of Claim is denied in its entirety. It is denied that the Claimant is entitled to the relief claimed or any relief at all due to the claimants self declared grace period of 10 minutes or more as stated in the claimants own documentation. [included as attachment] ["parkingeyeicon operates a minimum grace period of ten minutes or more on all sites which gives the motorist time to enter a car park, park, and establish whether or not they wish to be bound by the terms and conditions of parking. A grace period of 10 minutes or more is in place at this site which is fully compliant with clauses 13.2 and 30.2 of BPA code of practice which states ‘If the parking location is one where parking is normally permitted, you must allow the driver a reasonable grace period in addition to the parking event before enforcement action is taken. In such instances the grace period must be a minimum of 10 minutes"]
×
×
  • Create New...