The Parking Prankster has heard that the ParkingEye dirty tricks brigade are at it again.
Over the weekend documents have been arriving for cases scheduled this week, containing new witness statements and two pages of complicated new legal arguments.
This is, in The Prankster's opinion, a cynical abuse of process. Practice Directions require that all documents be served at least 14 days ahead of the hearing and in any case ParkingEye should certainly seek the permission of the courts to file new legal arguments.
A lay motorist with no legal experience will have little chance to come up with an answer to these new arguments in the 4 or 5 days before the hearing.
The Prankster would like to hear from anybody who has been treated in this way at prankster@parking-prankster.com. (Any other dirty tricks ParkingEye use are also welcome information)
The Prankster suggests the following.
At your hearing, point out that you only just received these documents, that they introduce new and complex legal arguments and that you have not had a fair chance to have time to research an answer. Ask that the hearing be postponed at ParkingEye's expense to give you time to prepare.
Point out that in a case heard last week that it was adjourned and rescheduled for a whole day, and that your case is likely to be of similar complexity. State that you would be prepared to use POPLA instead as alternative dispute resolution, and that you would be prepared to be bound by its verdict. Point out that this will limit costs of ParkingEye t o£27, and that this has been ordered by the court in the past.
If the case goes ahead anyway, ask the judge to look at clause 22 of the contract (the ParkingEye LPC Law representative will have a copy, but you should also download from here.) and say that in 2 previous recent cases the judge has found that this means ParkingEye cannot bring the case in their own name.
Happy Parking
The Parking Prankster
Over the weekend documents have been arriving for cases scheduled this week, containing new witness statements and two pages of complicated new legal arguments.
This is, in The Prankster's opinion, a cynical abuse of process. Practice Directions require that all documents be served at least 14 days ahead of the hearing and in any case ParkingEye should certainly seek the permission of the courts to file new legal arguments.
A lay motorist with no legal experience will have little chance to come up with an answer to these new arguments in the 4 or 5 days before the hearing.
The Prankster would like to hear from anybody who has been treated in this way at prankster@parking-prankster.com. (Any other dirty tricks ParkingEye use are also welcome information)
The Prankster suggests the following.
At your hearing, point out that you only just received these documents, that they introduce new and complex legal arguments and that you have not had a fair chance to have time to research an answer. Ask that the hearing be postponed at ParkingEye's expense to give you time to prepare.
Point out that in a case heard last week that it was adjourned and rescheduled for a whole day, and that your case is likely to be of similar complexity. State that you would be prepared to use POPLA instead as alternative dispute resolution, and that you would be prepared to be bound by its verdict. Point out that this will limit costs of ParkingEye t o£27, and that this has been ordered by the court in the past.
If the case goes ahead anyway, ask the judge to look at clause 22 of the contract (the ParkingEye LPC Law representative will have a copy, but you should also download from here.) and say that in 2 previous recent cases the judge has found that this means ParkingEye cannot bring the case in their own name.
Happy Parking
The Parking Prankster