Parking Eye-Request for Witness to Attend

[lookinforinfo]

The Parking Prankster has posted a very interesting and helpful case where the Judge stated that the Witness statement included facts that were were "tantamount to perjury"-strong stuff.

http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2017/09/

 

In the Blogspot summary the PP points out that PE and others quite regularly send out Witness Statements that are a tissue of lies and can get away with it because they have no intention of having the witness appear in Court . So there is no comeback on those parking companies or their tame legal advisers who mislead the Court.

 

The PP thinks this is wrong and urges all defendants to call for the Parking Company's witnesses to attend Court thus putting an end to one of their disgraceful practices.

 

Obviously any current members who are having problems with PE should fire off a letter to them stating the above case and advising them that if they issue Court proceedings against them,

 

not only will their witness be called to give evidence,

the reason why that is being demanded will be included

so that the Judge will be forewarned of the type of company they are dealing with.

 

One imagines that PE will decide that it may be wiser to find some other motorist to take to Court.

[dx100uk]

That's exactly what EB has been advising for months

[brassnecked]

That's exactly what EB has been advising for months

Parking Eye is owned by Capita so dodgy tactics are in line with the usual we are Capita and are always right MO.

[ericsbrother]

Not quite in the same manner as my previous advice,

in this instance their pet solicitor was present

but the person who signed the WS wasnt

 

so the challenge is that the defendant cannot cross examine the witness,

challenges the veracity of the statement and thus requests either

the people suing you pitch up

or the paperwork is binned.

 

Many judges dont like ordering the striking down of paperwork presented in this way as the claimant will just appeal and start all over again,

clogging the court system more than it already is.

What it needs is one of the more senior judges to make an order on this and all the other courts will follow when requested to.

 

Now, the real problem is that most cases dont have the benefit of the defendant being aware of that sort of determination so it all carries on as it does now.

that is why PE and others are happy to tell lies in their WS,

they know that most of the time it will go unchallenged and when it is challenged nothing will happen to them.

 

There have been cases reported by posters here where PE have lied about planning permission,

the visibility of their signs

and their systems fialings in the case of "double dipping"

and where their cameras cover the public highway or access to other properties that are outside their jurisdiction.

 

It is not errors they are making,

they are deliberately tryng to prevert the course of justice.

 

With other parking co's the owner of that co has turned up to court and lied to a judge and got away with it.

 

Generally judges try to act even handedly so work on the precept that people arent lying and they then say they prefer one version of events over another.

 

Now, if that judge starts off with a basic belief that no-one would sue someone else if they didnt have a cause to do so

then that slants the playing field and means that instead of the claimant proving their claim

the defendant has to disprove it, not the law's intent at all.