Jump to content


Parking Eye Dovecot St Stockton - Over stay PCN - claimform received


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 2684 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then

 

Please click the "Report " link

 

at the bottom of one of the posts.

 

If you want to post a new story then

Please

Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 

 

Thanks

Recommended Posts

No, there is abosolutely no point as it is effectively saying that you agree that you owe something but not the full amount.

 

 

you wont be treated any worse by saying no but saying yes can be harmful

(will be a waste of time at least)

 

 

They have been caught out committing a criminal offence and still want money from you.

 

 

They will try and tell the court that they are not covered by the law a

s their signs are "informational" just like signs saying FIRE EXIT or BUS STOP, yeah right...

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 55
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

doesnt matter, there wasnt the PP at the time of the event so they didnt have a contract.

typical PE though, will probably tell lies to the court and hope no-one notices or challenges them.

 

I am appealing a case on same pp issue. I want to make the council enforce their obligations that these contractual signs are not informational or warning signs. Do you have any court cases references or judgements where it has been ruled that the signs breach pp? Thanks

Link to post
Share on other sites

You cant counter claim for costs of defending a claim....particularly in Small Claim Track.

 

Andy

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHER

 

Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group - The National Consumer Service

If you want advice on your Topic please PM me a link to your thread

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 3 months later...

They definitely haven't got planning permission for the signs meter and anpr including advertisement consent for the signs, going to court 11th of next month, retrospective permission was granted about year after the parking incident,this was only enforced by the council after my enquiries, has there been a case won on these grounds?

Link to post
Share on other sites

This gives you a problem, the planning permission is retrospective so they can have their signs there but other english law is not retrospective so no contract at the time.( ie how can you read and agree to something that in essence doesnt exist)

I wouldnt like to have the PP as my only defence under such circumstances so make sure that you have something else as well in your defence papers that you have to send to both PE and the court.

Link to post
Share on other sites

no, not having it is a criminal offence. I am worried that they will claim that the retrospective consent means that they can claim retrospective contractual matters. At the time of parking they didnt have a contract to offer as it was a criminal compact but I'm worried that they will say that the retrospective permission suddenly kicks into life a dead duck. That is what you should be investigating.

Link to post
Share on other sites

there is also the defence of "de minimis". Ie the matter is to trifling to bother the courts with and this would be about the 70p difference of the ticket paid for and the tariff. They didn't offer you the opportunity to make good their loss, they just went straight for the £100

Link to post
Share on other sites

Not sure if its standard but the most effective and cheapest form of counsel on a claim that the claimant is unsure of :-)

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHER

 

Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group - The National Consumer Service

If you want advice on your Topic please PM me a link to your thread

Link to post
Share on other sites

they do this because they are too afraid to turn up themselves. They have already included £50-100 in their original claim for lawyers fees so they are unlikely to impress anyone if they ask for more.

Anyway, you are going to win, LPC wont have any great detail about the claim

So get reading about whether retrospective planning consent can create a contract retrospectively. They will have to prove it does so you need to find examples of cases where it was thrown out and quote them.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Did they get their costs terrier ?

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHER

 

Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group - The National Consumer Service

If you want advice on your Topic please PM me a link to your thread

Link to post
Share on other sites

This is not good news, how and why was this case lost when so many others have been won? What can be learned from this so the same mistakes are not made?

 

Poster has failed to elaborate and explain in detail for others.

 

Andy

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHER

 

Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group - The National Consumer Service

If you want advice on your Topic please PM me a link to your thread

Link to post
Share on other sites

from the briefest explanation

it looks like the retrospective planning consent allowed the contract to be made.

 

 

The judge should have elaborated on this point as the law is not retrospective.

 

 

For example, if they banned chewing gum and backdated that law then they wouldnt be in a position to prosecute anyone owning chewing gum a year ago, just deem that any transfer of ownership back then didnt create a new ownership for compensation purposes.

 

 

This has been the case since slavery was banned and more recently changes within the Firearms Act and the CITES rules governing the sale of ivory. You may own ivory objects made since 1947 but you cant buy or sell them, you cant even mend them if you are a restorer.

 

The OP could possibly appeal if the judge didnt explain his reasons fully but the cost would be very great if he lost.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Apologies for the brief info ,

 

 

ericsbrother has more or less summed it up,

 

 

because planning can be retrospective

this means the sign is as legitimate as it would be if prior permission was granted,

 

 

the sticking point for me as ericsbrother quite rightly points out

the law is not retrospective the crime has been committed it can't be undone,

 

 

I think the judge has just thought of it as a planning permission issue without any criminal activity

however I did point out regulation 30 of the town and country plannining regulations, which she googled and said this relates to advertisements, which obviously it is, but she said it in away to discount it ,

 

 

I replied this is what they applied for in retrospect she then seemed to acknowledge it,

I did want to probe further into that but as she said her view she wrapped it up quickly,

 

 

for information as we'll the advocate did not have the evidence pack I sent Parking eye (recorded delivery)

he was totally in the dark

he had no idea that it was about planning permission,

was going off the popla appeal that [pardon the pun] in retrospect was my naivety to that there would be empathy or morals to the corrupt private parking industry,

 

 

please see below link which has got me wondering?

Should I appeal what would be my financial exposure if I lost?

Assuming I would need to appoint a solicitor ?

 

http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2016/08/parkingeye-discontinue-two-cases.html

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...