ParkingEye ANPR PCN PAPLOC Now Claimform - New Directions Holdings, Lambourne Crescent, Llanishen, Cardiff, CF14 5GL ***Claim Discontinued***

[Cardiff Devil]

Yes that is encouraging.  Have sent it to info@parkingeye.co.uk and to the court again, this time confirming that they have been sent it.  Fingers crossed that'll be sufficient.  Thanks as always for the prompt response Dave.

I'll keep you posted as to developments.

Cheers

CD

[jk2054]

oh sorry I didn't realise you were not plannign to copy

pers any email to court always copy def/claim

simply put 

"def copied by way of service"

No explanations needed, no personal message to them just copy by wos

[Cardiff Devil]

Hi JK. It wasn't that I didn't plan to, I just didn't realise that it was necessary as this was a request to the court and didn't concern the other party. Doesn't matter now, as it's sorted.

Nothing back from the court yet but I did receive a letter from ParkingEye today offering to settle for £70, not the £200-odd that they're claiming in court.

I'm almost half tempted to write back to them to say "give ME the £70 for wasting my time with this rubbish and I won't countersue you for the GDPR breach".

Edited March 2 by Cardiff Devil

[FTMDave]

Interesting.

We've seen them make the £70 effort before - but only in their most hopeless cases.

I wonder if they've cottoned on to the very short stay and the contract grace period.

 

[brassnecked]

They might well have realised they are on to a loser, so trying to look generous to someone they have now realised isn't scared of them.

[Cardiff Devil]

My thoughts exactly.  They must have cottoned on to the fact that I have their unredacted contract which should sink their case and hopefully land them in hot water.  I'm now wondering if they're going to bottle out before the hearing or whether they'll try and see it through.

An update received from the court today;

The District Judge has made the following comments:

“Objection to lay on file for consideration by the Judge on the date at the time of the hearing as per paragraph 2 of the order of 24/1/24”

So it looks like this is not going to get looked at until the day of the hearing at the earliest.  Means I'm going to have to get my witness statement and evidence pack in order in case it does go ahead on the papers.

I'll start putting something together and post it up here for feedback once I have a first draft.

 

[Cardiff Devil]

Morning all.  Received the witness statement and "evidence bundle" from Parking Eye.  Unsurprisingly they're happy for this to go ahead on the papers.  No surprises there. 

The claimant also has until 2.00pm today to pay the hearing fee, or else the claim gets struck out.  Will wait and see what happens here.

I'm going to try and get this scanned up for your perusal today, and also my first draft at a witness statement, as I'll likely need to get this in by the end of the week regardless.

[Cardiff Devil]

Right, PE's witness statement and my own are now (hopefully) attached.

Thanks

CD

PE_WitnessStatement_Redacted.pdf Draft Witness Statement - Redacted.pdf

[FTMDave]

Both WSs have uploaded fine.

You know the drill with me, knock off work late, so will have a good Night Owl read through this evening late over a beer.

Three quick initial things.  I don't think there's any need to go into detail about teaching your partner to drive because they will use these details to pretend you shouldn't have been there.  Just simply state that you weren't the driver and that you had a package to deliver to the company.

A LOADING IS NOT PARKING section would be good too.

You've uploaded PE's WS but not their 53 pages of (presumably) daft attachments.  Did they include the contract?  if so, was it the heavily-redacted version?

[Cardiff Devil]

Perfect, thanks Dave.

Yes, the remaining parts of their "pack" were an aerial shot of the site, with the locations of the signs marked, pictures of random signs, copies of the NTK and all the letters they'd sent, plus the heavily redacted contract.  Rest assured I'll be including the non-redacted version as part of my evidence.

Basically as far as I can tell it was a carbon copy of the "reply to defence" pack they sent a couple of months ago.  Hence why I didn't see the need to include it all again, plus it'd have taken me ages to scan it all one page at a time but I can do if it's necessary.

Cheers

CD

[FTMDave]

Thanks.  This is a LOADING IS NOT PARKING section from another WS.  Ir can be tweaked and included.  More late this evening.

LOADING IS NOT PARKING

18. In the case of Jopson V Homeguard, Claim No. 9GF0A9E, 29.06.2016, also a residential parking case, Judge Harris makes persuasive observations on what constitutes "parking". "The concept of parking, as opposed to stopping, is that of leaving a car for some duration of time beyond that needed for getting in or out of it, loading or unloading it." Judge Harris goes on to list examples. "A milkman leaving his float to carry bottles to the flat would not be “parked”. Nor would a postman delivering letters, a wine merchant delivering a case of wine."

19. In this case the driver was there to collect a paying passenger and never left the vehicle even for a moment.

[Cardiff Devil]

Legendary, cheers Dave.

I've updated the first part as you suggested and have inserted a section regarding Loading vs Parking.

I'll wait until you've had a proper look later before I post up a second draft.

Thanks, as always for your help

CD

[FTMDave]

OK, how about this?

I've royally knackered your layout and numbering, but hopefully any new bits can be added to your original.

Alterations in red.

I've moved your Terms of contract section further up as it is your ace.

Draft Witness Statement.pdf

Edited March 12 by FTMDave
Irrelavent stuff removed

[FTMDave]

I quoted a recent persuasive case in your No keeper liability section.  The unredacted name of the defendant which you can quote is in the PDF here  https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/465769-premier-park-euro-car-parts-gatwick-80-crawley-rh10-9pl-no-parking-period-quoted-so-pofa-not-respected/

Their WS is dynamite, especially para 16 where they again hide the consideration & grace periods.  However, I'll comment in the morn, tiredness is kicking in here.

[lookinforinfo]

You could add at the end of paragraph 13 "However I am grateful that having parking Eye referred to the Beavis case as it gave me a reason to check it.  I realised that though their Lordships agreed that the penalty clause was engaged, it was not regarded as relevant in that case  because Parking Eye had a legitimate interest in keeping the car park clear for new motorists. This is not the case in Llanishen . There can  be no legitimate interest involved here since the car park was closed."

[FTMDave]

New version attached.

It takes into consideration their WS.

I had stupidly quoted verbatim about the recent persuasive case and had suggested that the vehicle was parked.  Have sorted that.

A short section added at the end about the Unicorn Food Tax - in fact two different types of feed for the unicorns from PE!

I have added LFI's Beavis magic.  i was unsure how to properly explain the Beavis case - LFI did it in two lines.

Draft Witness Statement-2.pdf

[Cardiff Devil]

Top notch service as always.  Thanks Dave and LFI.  

I'm currently applying a new coat of gloss to my WS based on the suggestions mentioned.  I'll post a new draft up shortly for consideration.

Thanks

CD

Here goes, Witness Statement 2.0

Thanks

CD

WS Draft version 2 - Redacted.pdf

[FTMDave]

That is simply superb.

Well done!

[lookinforinfo]

You would hope that Parking Eye would do the correct move and withdraw their case. It is a waste of everybody's time . If they do decide to carry on go for every penny you can squeeze out of them Cardiff Devil.

Train fare, parking, loss of wages, time spent on the case at £18 per hour , baby sitting costs etc etc. are a few examples. Don't be shy go for them.

[Cardiff Devil]

Cheers Dave, I couldn't have done it without you. Top man.

LFI: Of course you'd think they'd realise they're beaten already but this is Parking Eye we're talking about here, so anything could happen.  If it goes ahead "on the papers" then there won't be any expenses incurred with regards to attending court (which also fists their "legal representation" argument).  Hopefully we get a decent judge who either schedules this for a normal hearing, or just strikes the thing out entirely.

Of course there's a chance that all of this could be for nothing if they've neglected or simply forgotten to pay the hearing fee.  It was due to be paid yesterday by 2pm so we'll see what happens on that one.

Thanks again both of you for the help.

CD

[FTMDave]

Remind us of your WS deadline please.

[Cardiff Devil]

WS deadline is the 19th, hence my surprise that PE sent theirs so early.  I'm looking at getting everything printed off and posted at the end of tomorrow at the absolute latest.

[FTMDave]

So when you send in your WS you need to include the letter to the judge as well.

Given this will happen at WS stage you might as well go in all guns blazing with the letter and tell the judge you want to question PE's representative, among other details, about the matters in your Terms of contract between Claimant and Landowner section, i.e. that PE have deliberately redacted and hidden that there is a 25-minute consideration & grace period, and as you only stayed for 10 minutes that would immediately settle the case.      

[AndyOrch]

51 minutes ago, FTMDave said:

tell the judge you want to question PE's representative

Litigants cant question the opposite party they do not have right of audience, you request the judge raise the matter with the claimants rep.

[Cardiff Devil]

Update!!

Arrived home tonight to find a letter from ParkingLie.

They have discontinued the claim. There's a copy of a Notice of Discontinuance on the back that's dated March 8th. Just over a week after they sent their £70 settlement offer.

I'll be contacting the court tomorrow to make sure that this is legit and they're not trying to pull a fast one.

Thanks everyone for your help with this. Now on to the claim for the GDPR breach...

Thanks

CD

Edited March 14 by Cardiff Devil