Friday, 9 May 2014

The Prankster replies to Hill Dickinson

[Edit. An earlier version of this post missed out page 4 of The Prankster's reply]

This is a continuation of the previous blog post

The Prankster replied to Hill Dickinson as follows.

The Prankster has never had a reply to this, or any other letter he has sent to Hill Dickinson, despite multiple attempts to contact them, and despite providing clear directions by which they may communicate with him.

The Prankster does not live or work in England, and is outside the jurisdiction of English courts. Nevertheless he has made every attempt to negotiate with Hill Dickinson.

It is clear that none of the letters Hill Dickinson send have any legal basis behind them, and are designed to bully and intimidate The Prankster in an attempt to stop him highlighting the murkier practices in the parking industry.

Happy Parking

The Parking Prankster


  1. Replies
    1. Gotta admit - you're on the ball!

      But then I think we all know that anyway.

  2. Would have been much easier to just refer them to the reply given in "Arkell v. Pressdram".

  3. Keep up the good work. HD and PE -Birds of a feather flock together

  4. it must cost 'em a fortune. Wish I'd trained to be a lawyer, it's cash in the bank.

  5. I can't comment on the defamatory bit, it's something I know little about, but it could be my next interest. Is it a civil tort ?

    The other bit's are laughable. Do Hill Dickinson have a different set of BPA guidance than I have ? I looked at every single sign in our Fistral Case, most were uncompliant, some were actually dangerous. Pranky's letter from HD didn't seem to reveal the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.

    Will look forward to examining the letter in detail.I'd be quite happy to sign any witness statements supporting our experience, they'll be true, factual, and signed by the real person.

    Bottom line.....I'm not sure Pranky has said anything that isn't true.

    Personally, I can see why parking employed staff are getting a bit p+ssed off by derogatory terms.They are, after all, human. The way they operate, in my opinion, are immoral.I don't think that's defamatory I'd be happy to support that argument. They sent us a load of stuff that just was untrue. Some of it was defamatory. Happy to share that with anyone.

    People, are after all, people, I wouldn't like to be called a "thief." And, to be honest, the law seems to be prevailing on the side of truth anyhow.

    If anyone is having a problem with Parking Eye, I'd be happy to share our experience. They hounded us through the courts, despite our repeated willingness to settle at mediation.

    They seem to be clutching at straws.

  6. You're certainly right about the capture of Reg Plates being the trip point for ANPR. Visited one of "their ?" P & D car parks a fortnight ago.
    Covered my reg plate on the way out and have heard nothing since. Didn't pay of course.......

    Libel is a narrow line to take when all it is capable of producing if they are proven to be right, is an amount for any provable loss as a consequence of it.

    They know that of course but of course Rachel has shown her position regarding her legal competence hasn't she?
    A law degree doesn't necessarily imply an equal measure of common-sense.

  7. Absolutely beautiful reply Pranky... FYI I am currently pursuing a different parking company (and their claims company) for harassment and attempted blackmail. Early stages, but I am confident that it will be successful.

  8. It proves that they are rattled. The fact that a large corporation takes the time to read the blog and make legal threats means you have their attention. You always do your homework and I can only recall a few mistakes or changes that you have made to your blog. A legal threat is often enough to put most people off, but not you it seems. Stick it to them!