Jump to content


parking eye spanked in court in manchester.


Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 3284 days.

If you are trying to post a different story then you should start your own new thread. Posting on this thread is likely to mean that you won't get the help and advice that you need.

If you are trying to post information which is relevant to the story in this thread then please flag it up to the site team and they will allow you to post.

Thank you

Recommended Posts

manchester county court,,1xj81016.

 

parking spy v smith,

 

,defendant parked on two occasions without paying,

,therefore owed damages for the contractual breach,,,

,pannone sent 4 solicitors attempted to claim costs of £4457-20,

,,parking spy/lie are now awaiting bill from pannones,,

,,dont you just luv it,,

,why employ all these solicitors for a small claims court????

and why this so called respectable solicitors thought they would get 4k is an ever bigger mystery????,,

,thanks to my mates on mse for this info,,

,its made my day/week/year/millenium.

Link to post
Share on other sites

oops, sorry in all my excitement i rushed my post, it appears smith had to pay £15-00,plus £95-00 costs, which may have been avoided if originally paid £15-00 for the contactual breach,,,anyway what i am trying to say is how much will parking spy have to pay pannone???? a lovely humungous amount i hope.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Link to post
Share on other sites
Link to post
Share on other sites

@crem - Actually the £15 paid represented the quantified loss of PE for 48 hours parking - strangely it even appeared on a list of tariffs shown on signs on the car park concerned. PE's claim for £120 "contractual charge" was dismissed out of hand by the judge as an unwarranted penalty. Pannone's attempt to recover £4457 in costs was deat with in similar fashion.(what planet are they on - it was the small claims court? ffs)

Link to post
Share on other sites

A judgement of this nature was always a racing certainty, the remarkable thing is that Parking Eye went for it HOOK LINE AND SINKER in trying to make a point by claiming huge legal expenses. All we need now is a second attempt by the numpties to take a similar route in Scotland where it is unusual other than in extreme cases to be awarded costs in Small Debt Actions. It is always nice to see petted lips in robes

On the subject of numpties, I note with particular interest that the British Parking Association has failed to mention this LANDMARK JUDGEMENT on their website. There again perhaps Patrick Troy is otherwise occupied writing his script for the Future of Traffic Management event in London on the 8th of December, after all it is pantomime season.

Link to post
Share on other sites

so, there is a chance they may take you to court if you dont pay up the £15?

but you can forget the so called penalty charge.

Not really a precdent for caes law though, as court not high enough, another judge may view things differently, but doubt it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...