Printfriendly

Friday, 9 May 2014

Hill Dickinson try and gag The Prankster

In view of the recent attack on MoneySavingExpert, The Prankster thinks it is in the public interest to publish recent correspondence between himself and Hill Dickinson, who have been briefed by ParkingEye to gag The Prankster.

It is clear that Hill Dickinson have been misinformed by ParkingEye. However, it does Hill Dickinson no credit that they have merely accepted ParkingEye's instructions without attempting any fact checking themselves.

For instance, Hill Dickinson imply that ParkingEye's letters before claim were never deficient. As ParkingEye have apologised to the courts several times that their letters before claim did not comply with Practice Directions, this is a clear case of Hill Dickinson failing to their homework properly. Frankly, it makes them look like idiots, when they write stuff like this, and they only have their clients, ParkingEye, to blame.

The following should therefore serve as a warning to current and potential clients of Hill Dickinson, as well as current and potential clients of ParkingEye.







The Prankster's reply is here.

Happy Parking

The Parking Prankster

8 comments:

  1. Just nearly choked to death laughing!

    ReplyDelete
  2. Ha ha, they are clutching at straws now.

    Not really an expert in "defamation" law (yet), but I'm left wondering if they are ticking the right boxes.

    Are they liars ? depends on your definition of "lie" If it equates to untruth, then the law does not seem to come down on the side of PE.

    The bit about signeage is interesting. Are they using a different set of guidelines than us ?

    ReplyDelete
  3. Sounds like somebody shouted "let 'em 'ave it" from chorley towers and not for the first time.

    ReplyDelete
  4. "He has deliberate lied to the court" - great lawyer speak there! LMAO

    ReplyDelete
  5. It's a shame he's being harassed. Planting seeds of doubt is a common ploy amongst professionals. I wonder if he should ring fence his worries by becoming "Parking Prankster Limited."

    ReplyDelete
  6. At least we now know why ParkingEye were unhappy with the Prankster's guide,

    http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2014/01/disgruntled-customer-returns-guide.html

    ReplyDelete
  7. Just read this through. All I can say is I have evidence and proof of 99% of PPs allegations, and I am willing to testify as a witness in any court.

    How weak can Parking Eye be to go to these lengths? Apparently they have a reputation to lose, I think they lost that a long time ago.

    The truth hurts. If they went to court with this they would be eaten alive by the judge.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I think that they(PE) lost any decent reputation a long time ago. They are now building a new reputation aided and abetted by HD. It's called shooting yourself in the foot or putting it more crudely- blowing your own balls off.

      Delete