ParkingEye ANPR PCN Claimform - overstay - M&U Phase 1, Portishead (Lidl, Travelodge, Subway), Harbour Road, Portishead,

[ScarletPreacher]

My concern with the mediation is putting all your cards on the table and allowing PE's legal team time to search for precedence of loopholes.

Remember

They are NOT our friends

they are there with the sole purpose of taking money from your wallet and putting into theirs pockets using ALL MEANS at their disposal

[bellx15]

I'm getting indications elsewhere that planning permission is pretty well irrelevant.

 

My concern with the mediation is putting all your cards on the table and allowing PE's legal team time to search for precedence of loopholes.

Remember

They are NOT our friends

they are there with the sole purpose of taking money from your wallet and putting into theirs pockets using ALL MEANS at their disposal

 

 

I know, but it costs them more than us to take it to court. It makes sense for them to settle.

[ScarletPreacher]

The entire issue is with regard to Contact law,

and that we entered into a legal contract when entering the Car park, which we have breeched

If the signage (The contract) and Cameras were erected without correct permission's That must make it 'Unlawful"

I'm not an expert but I would imagine you can not Ratify an Unlawful Contract ?

I know, but it costs them more than us to take it to court. It makes sense for them to settle.

[dx100uk]

i'm getting indications elsewhere that planning permission is pretty well irrelevant.i'

 

Then i politely suggest elsewhere is wrong...

And no to mediation

[ScarletPreacher]

Cheers

i'm getting indications elsewhere that planning permission is pretty well irrelevant.i'

 

Then i politely suggest elsewhere is wrong...

And no to mediation

[bellx15]

OK, but could you expand on that? Why do you have these opinions?

[dx100uk]

if the signs were not approved then they should not have been visible but covered up

so thus any contract they claim to have in unenforceable.

 

this should be an easy win for both of you

p'haps EB will pop in

[bellx15]

Yes, it certainly seems that way from a rational perspective. I was wondering whether there is any evidence that, in fact, the courts take the same view.

[bellx15]

My concern with the mediation is putting all your cards on the table and allowing PE's legal team time to search for precedence of loopholes.

Remember

They are NOT our friends

they are there with the sole purpose of taking money from your wallet and putting into theirs pockets using ALL MEANS at their disposal

 

 

But couldn't we view our appeals, to PE and to POPLA (if we'd been given the opportunity) in the same light? Don't we put all our cards on the table anyway? In any case, they have seen all the arguments before.

[dx100uk]

no

sorry but in some instances here its the blind leading the blind you two.

 

its better you go off and read other threads rather than speculating on things.

[honeybee13]

i'm getting indications elsewhere that planning permission is pretty well irrelevant.i'

 

Then i politely suggest elsewhere is wrong...

And no to mediation

 

 

Here's a case that was dismissed today where planning permission or lack of it was pretty important. Post #49.

 

 

https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?486090-UKCPS-MIah-Claim-Form-Parkit-Bridge-St-Sheffield-S3-8NS

 

 

HB

[ericsbrother]

Parking co's like to tell lies on this point to courts and they get believed unless the defendant has covered all bases rather than just quoting the relevant law as it has around 15 different sections regardingh what does and doesnt need PP

 

 

 

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. The more times this is brought up the greater the liklihood it will get discussed anda common stance taken on this. look at how judges tened to ignorwe the POFA when it was first used to fight a claim and now look at how fed up judges are with companies that dont follow it to the letter.

 

 

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 the signs were not approved then they should not have been viable but covered by

so thus any contract they claim to have in unenforceable.

 

this should be an easy win for bother of you

p'haps EB will pop in

Edited August 29, 2018 by honeybee13
Paras

[bellx15]

Here's a case that was dismissed today where planning permission or lack of it was pretty important. Post #49.

 

 

https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?486090-UKCPS-MIah-Claim-Form-Parkit-Bridge-St-Sheffield-S3-8NS

 

 

HB

 

 

That's true, but in that case temporary planning permission expired in 2015. In our cases it is now active.

 

 

"I found that the car park only had temporary planning permission to operate as such which lapsed in 2015!"

[dx100uk]

same as you then!

the planning permission was not granted yet

stop chasing your tail its getting to be annoying:lol:

[bellx15]

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?

[bellx15]

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?

[dx100uk]

no very few retro cases

yours was not granted when you entered the carpark

the signs did not have PP.

 

but again this is ONE avenue

EB in your own thread has pointed to the others.

 

yes research is good but you appear to be looking for ways the claimant will beat you.

it should be the otherway around

 

you've 2 good reason now

research the reast

[bellx15]

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.

[dx100uk]

Because you are looking for it!!!

 

Man up ...stop reading into things that makes you want to fail............

[ericsbrother]

this then begs the question why didnt you pay up at the beginning? answer because you thought it wrong.

What do you think court entails? answer is it is more like an interview than a trial you see on the telly with people striding around shouting at witnesses and demanding answers. That wouldnt go down well in small claims track.

 

The blogspot bit I am referring to is not a case history but a link to a leared article and I'm sure was publicised late last year. Also have a look at the parking prankster web site, which is different to the blog. There are loads of compelling and persuasive cases there that may help.

 

 

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

Edited August 30, 2018 by honeybee13
Paras

[bellx15]

 

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?

[ericsbrother]

Well saying that the 2007 act doesnt apply, claiming they have implied permission when that is not the relevant section of the law, claiming retrospective permission when that doesnt apply etc. the problem is it will be your job to challenge this and to do so with authority. As already said, judges tended to ignore the POFA and the necessity to cross every t and dot every i to create keeper liability,Now they understand that a lot more after the thousands and thousands of cases put before them so it will eventually be a formality to demand evidence of planning permission for their equipment.

 

his blog dated the 16th Dec 2017 is an article with a link at the bottom to shuteyepark's research.

[lookinforinfo]

Parking Eye are perfectly aware that they have not had planning permission for their signs. This is a criminal offence so they cannot form a contract with motorists for that reason. They know that and they also know that they will lose in Court but that has not stopped them writing hundreds [possibly thousands ] of tickets and gaining money that was not owed. Not only that but they gave an undertaking to the BPA that they complied with all the legal requirements necessary to run their business and to enable them as members of the BPA to obtain motorists information.

 

The fact that they lied to the BPA to become members [and it was a major lie since they have not PP from many Councils around the Country so a deliberate act not a minor omission]. It also means that they are in breach of GDPR by applying for data from you both since they had no reason to demand it. They knew that you both owed them nothing but instead of dropping their cases against you they are continuing with their claim could be fraud by false representation. [Dishonestly sending you an invoice for an amount that they knew had no legal justification.]

Fraud Act 2006.

 

Should you actually end up in Court then you should claim exemplary damages as well as breach of the GDPR and your expenses. That is why you shouldn't pay them a single penny. That is the Principle-you don't owe them anything. It is also the principal £175 is a lot to pay for nothing.

[bellx15]

Thanks, both.

 

 

Is the SAR important in this context?

[dx100uk]

nope

any docs they have they MUST produce them at/by disclosure stage[witness statement]

pers i'd sit tight