The Prankster has been made aware of recent sharp practices by ParkingEye's legal department.
ParkingEye's bungling legal team were caught out when they tried to pull a fast one on an unsuspecting motorist.
With the court hearing imminent ParkingEye made a half-hearted offer to settle to the motorist, 'accidentally' sending it to the wrong address so that the offer had expired before it arrived. The motorist had an extremely strong case - so strong that ParkingEye sent a letter to the court complaining that it was 16 pages in length (which is ironic considering the length of their 'reply to defences'). ParkingEye also complained that the motorist did not include a copy of the British Parking Association Limited's Code of Practice. This is extremely ironic as ParkingEye regularly refer to many documents in their court claims, including the BPA Ltd Code of Practice, and never include copies. Perhaps if ParkingEye cannot lay their hands on a copy this is why they regularly break the code of practice, especially in areas of mandatory entrance signage and failing to justify pre-estimate of loss at POPLA time and again.
After considering the offer the motorist decided he would lose more money taking a day off work than he would get back in court (costs are limited in the small claims court) and so decided to accept.
He paid online the same day, and phoned ParkingEye to confirm the payment had been accepted. Most people would now consider the case closed, but ParkingEye decided to try and sneak one over on the motorist.
They didn't cancel the case and prepared to turn up for the hearing, no doubt to try and get judgement for the full amount.
The motorist only found out when he phoned the court the day before the hearing was due, and was surprised to find it was still on. He phoned ParkingEye who told him they had decided to 'drop the cancellation'.
Cue a lot of worried reorganisation by the motorist so he could actually turn up in court after all.
Finally, just after 5pm, ParkingEye emailed to say they had decided not to pursue the case after all. No doubt now their trick had been discovered, they realised they would be in for a pasting if they actually turned up in court.
Naturally the motorist was still skeptical. The next morning, after much to-ing and fro-ing on the phone between himself, ParkingEye and the court, the motorist finally got confirmation the hearing was cancelled one hour before it was due.
Can ParkingEye do this?
The Prankster considers that ParkingEye would be on extremely shaky legal ground if they carried on to a hearing after offering and accepting a settlement. They may well get a default judgement for a larger amount than the settlement if the defendant did not show, and ParkingEye did not inform the judge of the settlement.
However, The Prankster considers the court would be extremely cross when the full facts came out later; however, it would be time consuming for the motorist to unravel.
Meanwhile, the costs to ParkingEye for not cancelling will be significant.
As ParkingEye did not cancel the court case more than 7 days before the hearing they will still have to pay the £50 hearing fee. No doubt the solicitor from LPC Law will not be happy with being cancelled on the evening of the hearing and will still want his £300.
All in all this underhand tactic has proved costly to the chaotic ParkingEye legal department, easily wiping out the motorists settlement and leaving them with another big loss.
Recently, ParkingEye have lost large amounts of money each time they have gone to court.
Are you a victim of ParkingEye's legal Tricks?
The Prankster has heard many tales of ParkingEye 'losing' letters sent to them, 'forgetting' phone call conversations and the like.
The Prankster therefore recommends that anyone accepting a settlement from ParkingEye is extremely careful and does the following:
- Keep detailed records; get a free proof of posting, record phone calls and take screenshots of web pages.
- Insist on written confirmation
- Check with the court the case is cancelled. If not, write to the court with ParkingEye's written confirmation
Have you been a victim of ParkingEye's bungling legal department? Letter sent regarding someone else's case? Dodgy witness statements? Letters you sent never 'arrived'? Letters they send to the wrong address? Sharp practices? If you want The Prankster to blog anonymously about your case please get in touch via the usual email address.
Oh Dear
ReplyDeleteThe pressure of having to sign some 500 or 600 claim forms a week (and remembering to cross her fingers each time she does so), plus keeping a weather eye on the situations vacant column must be taking its toll on Rachel.
Who would believe it? A PPC described by a High Court Judge as being "deceitful" stooping to this?
Shame indeed! and they hold themselves as the best the industry has to offer, be afraid, very afraid.
One suspects it's more down to incompetence then anything under hand. With so many LBA's issued, the last thing they expected was for Joe Public to actually fight back.
ReplyDeleteAn interesting possibility. If ParkingEye wish to contact me and confirm this was due to incompetence I will publish a clarification on their behalf.
DeleteJust look at how many claims PE are issuing in comparison to the rest of the industry (https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/168158/response/413891/attach/html/3/AFINAL%20REPLY%20TO%20LEWIS%2084035.doc.html) - incredible!!
ReplyDeleteWell I hope that the "best of the best" at PE arel now in line to "reap the whirlwind" of their egregious litigious activity.
ReplyDeleteWhen PoFA came in it was clear only a few of the PPCs had the wherewithal to "test" out the court route, too many of the PPCs were financially hanging on by their fingernails and it was clear there were may be only a handful that had pockets deep enough that could "blaze the way" and swallow the sort of losses the Prankster indicates exist each and every time they go near POPLA or a courtroom regardless if they win or lose.
Since then there have also been the attempts of POPLA itself to alter the "cup and ball game" with the ahem "witness statement" fiasco so what might be next?
If POPLA are to become fully independent on 1st Oct this year (and to date I would suggest there has not been enough "success" to make it a compelling proposition for the PPC punters) Then I would think that poor old Rachel and CEL cannot continue to carry the litigation pathfinder process much longer so that the model is right for a regime change in October.
After all it seems poor old Rachel is now cracking under the strain through the bizarre actions of the PE ahem, "Legal Team"and I would think (as any business minded person might do so) that the PE board must be wondering if their investment in Rachel and the 1000s of Court claims she is producing (at a substantial loss to them) is well founded or are they just pouring money down the drain at POPLA and any court to hearing without any good effect for themselves or the industry as a whole.
Personally I think BPA/POPLA et all might have an "Ardennes Offensive moment" (like a last ditch effort by the 3rd Reich to alter the European War in 1944) sometime before October 2013 which would see the BPA try to substantially alter the POPLA MO prior to "independence" as if they do not, I cannot see who in their right minds might take it on as venture or which (if any) of the PPCs would continue to pour money into it unless it was substantially rigged in their favour.
Best
RR
I can confirm the reports of gross inefficiency by the legal team at this bunch of chancers who masquerade as an organised company called Parking Eye - Clampers in Suits or the pointless people as I call them.
ReplyDeleteDuring the course of their CC claim against me for 175 quid (RK of a vehicle driven by my partner who overstayed by 29 minutes)I was sent three separate sets of documents in error on three occasions. In addition to sending documents that related to the wrong sites they sent me an internal breakdown of logs of monitored posts of users of the PePiPoo forum - where usernames including mine were highlighted where they related to discussion of legal actions with PE - they also sent a very important document relating to their authorisation to act for a landholder well after the deadline for the case papers to be in for the hearing and incredibly the judge allowed it to be used.