Parking Eye - "dishonest" - used "police-like" letters, falshoods, "semi-literate", misrepresented their authority

[BankFodder]

Not my words - but the words of the Court of Appeal.

 

 

Dishonest without intending to be, apparently.

 

So of course ParkingEye had an incentive to operate the “fine” system aggressively.

 

7. This it did – too much so: some of the letters it wrote to motorists contained falsehoods. The first letter was not so held. It perhaps might have been. For it was dressed up rather like police issued document with a chequered edging and described the amount claimed as a “penalty” when it was no more than a contractual obligation to pay.

serious falsehoods

Sent "semi-literate" letters

 

It said “ParkingEye will issue proceedings” indicating that ParkingEye had authority to do so. It did not.

No intention to bring legal proceedings at all!!!!!

In any event neither ParkingEye nor Somerfield actually had any settled intention of issuing legal proceedings if the money was not paid. The contract provided by Schedule 2 that if the registered keeper did not pay after a fourth letter, no further action would be taken but detailed records of non-payers and persistent offenders would be stored. If Somerfield decided to sue ParkingEye was to assist.

The Judge not only found that the third letter contained falsehoods but that those falsehoods were deliberately made by the relevant ParkingEye executive,

Hence the Judge found ParkingEye was guilty of the tort of deceit on those occasions when the third letter was sent on its behalf. ParkingEye does not challenge this decision.

See the judgment attached for the whole grisly story.

 

Of course this Court of Appeal judgment is about Parking Eye but you may find similarities in the way of doing business used by other private parking companies.

 

Apart from anything else this is more evidence of the slack attitude of the British Parking Association to the behaviour of their own members.

The BPA must be aware of this. What action have they taken against Parking Eye for their breach of the Code of Practice?? If anyone knows, then please let us know.

 

The BPA is the outfit which pretends to want to set an Independent Appeals Service.

 

Has Parking Eye's access to the DVLA database been suspended? I don't think so.

 

 

 

If you have paid money to Parking Eye then you have a basis for claiming it back. certainly, if you have paid the so-called "full rate" then you have clearly paid an unenforceable penalty and you should go and get you money back

 

Please note that the trial judge held that the initial sum was an enforceable charge. The Court of Appeal referred to it but did not consider it and made no finding which approved it .

In other words, don't let Parking Eye or any other parking company tell you that there is binding authority for saying that the initial charge is valid. That would be a porky.

 

Thanks to user:Tomtubby for discovering this judgment.

 

Important rider - the Court of Appeal decision was based upon the Parking Eye arrangement as agreed with Somerfields in 2005.

 

If their agreements are different elsewhere then that could affect the situation.

 

Now original High Court judgment also available below. Thanks to Tomtubby again.

[lamma]

be good to get the original high court case as well. This jumps from the page "This semi-literate letter was false in a number of respects: i) It said that the debt was due to ParkingEye. It was not. It was due to Somerfield." As per the Dft guidance document - and the law !

[tomtubby]

Bankfodder.

 

Thanks to user:Tomtubby for discovering this judgment.

 

 

Thank you for your kind words.

 

This most significant Judgment from the Court of Appeal was only released in court earlier today and a "little birdie" sent a copy to me. Given the seriousness, I am pleased to share this with others.

 

For the past few hours I have been reading and re-reading this Judgment and in the morning, hope to be in a position to have more information.

 

What I do know is that this appeal by Somerfield Stores followed a Judgment that was was made over 18 months ago (March 2011) following a 3 week hearing in the Mercantile Court.

 

The immediate question that springs to mind is this:

 

Apart from Somerfield Stores, Parking Eye Ltd and their legal representatives..... WHO ELSE IN THE PRIVATE PARKING INDUSTRY KNEW OF THE INITIAL JUDGMENT?

 

Did the BPA know?

 

Did DVLA know?

 

If not...WHY NOT !!!

[BASFORDLAD2]

The DVLA need to be informed then, or have parking eye changed their letters?

[lamma]

Bankfodder.

 

Thanks to user:Tomtubby for discovering this judgment.

 

 

Thank you for your kind words.

 

This most significant Judgment from the Court of Appeal was only released in court earlier today and a "little birdie" sent a copy to me. Given the seriousness, I am pleased to share this with others.

 

For the past few hours I have been reading and re-reading this Judgment and in the morning, hope to be in a position to have more information.

 

What I do know is that this appeal by Somerfield Stores followed a Judgment that was was made over 18 months ago (March 2011) following a 3 week hearing in the Mercantile Court.

 

The immediate question that springs to mind is this:

 

Apart from Somerfield Stores, Parking Eye Ltd and their legal representatives..... WHO ELSE IN THE PRIVATE PARKING INDUSTRY KNEW OF THE INITIAL JUDGMENT?

 

Did the BPA know?

 

Did DVLA know?

 

If not...WHY NOT !!!

 

It seems the High Court hearing would have been at first instance rather than on appeal, so it would not be an authority. Hence not published.

[tomtubby]

High Court ruling..YES but cannot and should not be ignored.

[lamma]

Ignored ? No. I would argue that that is the wrong word however. As it wasn't (by the looks of it) an authority then it can say says nothing that Judicial Notice can be taken of. And as it is unpublished there is nothing to ignore. Believe me I wish it were otherwise. But you have revealed this CoA to us and that really is something. Besides all the good 'legal stuff' have a look at the payment percentages in the Somerfiields stores car parks. Rather encouraging and it goes against the perceived wisdom.

[tomtubby]

Just had a couple of glasses of white so do forgive me if I have misunderstood the following:

 

 

Last November there was an important court case brought by Parking Eye at Manchester County Court ( Parking Eye v Smith). Regulars on here will remember that Parking Eye's lawyers; Pannone attended the hearing with 4 of their solicitors and tried to get the court to agree to award them costs of £4,457.20 They lost.

 

What is concerning is that 9 months EARLIER in March 2011 Mr Mike Kennedy; Partner at PANNONE represented Parking Eye in the Mercantile Court in the case of Parking Eye v Somerfield Stores.

 

That hearing was over a 3 week period and from the Judgment, Pannone (representing Parking Eye) would have known that if a legal case were to be taken that it would need to be by Somerfield Stores Ltd and NOT Parking Eye

 

Therefore, why was this same legal company issuing a claim in Manchester County Court 9 months later against Mr Smith !!!

Edited October 18, 2012 by tomtubby

[dx100uk]

so

 

are we or should we be making a thread that outlines there is a way to reclaim that what parking eye have charged?

 

dx

[BankFodder]

I think that Parking Eye will have had a duty to inform the BPA. Whether of not they did so - who knows.

Certainly, this judgment was handed down in July - about 3 months ago. The BPA must know about it and the question is - what action have they taken against Parking Eye?

Very little I imagine.

 

It needs an FOI request to the DVLA to see if they have been informed of this judgment and when.

 

Can you reclaim from Parking Eye? Yes, I think so..

 

At least anyone who has paid the full amount should be able to recover all of it - not just the portion which might be considered to be a lawful charge if the money had been paid over in response to one of the unlawful letters.

 

Also it seems to me that on the basis that Parking Eye's behaviour is in breach of their so-called "Code of Practice", that they may have operated an unfair commercial practice contrary to CPUT and therefore complaints should be made to Trading Standards and the OFT as well.

 

 

 

************************************************

Important rider - the Court of Appeal decision was based upon the Parking Eye arrangement as agreed with Somerfields in 2005.

 

If their agreements are different elsewhere then that could affect the situation.

[BankFodder]

Finally - it seems to me that not only have Parking Eye brought further discredit to their own already discredited industry but that also they are not alone in their way of doing business and so therefore much of the Court of Appeal judgment must be generally applicable.

[lamma]

Therefore, why was this same legal company issuing a claim in Manchester County Court 9 months later against Mr Smith !!!

 

I imagine that PE would argue that as it was a different location and (probably) a different contract between PE and the landowner/occupier that the facts were different. As I recall the decision in the Appeal Court fell short of saying the moneys were due to the landowner in all cases. Believe me I am not arguing as pro PE and anti TT. The decision is very interesting but I do have issues with it and not just the extant one.

[BankFodder]

I understand that Somerfields are no longer owned by the Coop - bought for $1.6b in 2009.

 

I'm not sure how that ties into this case which I thought was started later than that.

[dw190]

I understand that Somerfields are no longer owned by the Coop - bought for $1.6b in 2009.

 

I'm not sure how that ties into this case which I thought was started later than that.

 

Somerfield, formerly known as Gateway, was a chain of small to medium sized supermarkets operating in the United Kingdom. The company also previously owned the Kwik Save chain of discount food stores. The company was taken over by the Co-operative Group on 2 March 2009 in a £1.57 billion deal,[2] creating the UK's fifth largest food retailer. The name was phased out and replaced by the Co-operative Food brand in a rolling programme of store conversions ending in spring 2011.

[BankFodder]

Nick Smith MP for Blaenau Gwent has indicated that he is taking an interest.

[BankFodder]

Somerfield, formerly known as Gateway, was a chain of small to medium sized supermarkets operating in the United Kingdom. The company also previously owned the Kwik Save chain of discount food stores. The company was taken over by the Co-operative Group on 2 March 2009 in a £1.57 billion deal,[2] creating the UK's fifth largest food retailer. The name was phased out and replaced by the Co-operative Food brand in a rolling programme of store conversions ending in spring 2011.

 

That makes it clearer. Ta

[tomtubby]

The original Judgment is crucial and hopefully, a copy may be available asap

Edited October 18, 2012 by tomtubby

[lamma]

Wonderful ! I look forward to it.

[BankFodder]

For the moment I think that the advice must be that Parking Eye will not be suing anybody unless their Supermarket clients bring the case themselves. This is most unlikely.

One purpose of these management contracts is to allow the High Street brands to distance themselves from the business of suing their own customers.

It is a kind of extraordinary rendition.

Instead of flying you out of the jurisdiction to be tortured in Pakistan or Morroco, the High Street brands can wash their hands and leave it to the parking companies to do the dirty work - and to attract the hatred.

 

I can't imagine that Boots, Asda, B&Q, Morrisons, whoever - whether they are currently using private car park operators or not, really want to see their names in claim forms and judgments as having the people successfully or not to pursue their own customers.

 

Frankly, this judgment will be all around the industry by next week and any one who tries to sue a driver/keeper directly is open to challenge on the basis of abuse of process.

Don't forget that not so long ago a judge in Sc unthoorpe also concluded that VCS parking had no basis for suing directly and the judge even wondered whether there might not have been a question of contempt.

 

As Tomtubby has already remarked, if Parking Eye and their advisors Punani were aware of the Somerfield judgment when they sued Mr Smith in Manchester (even though they lost!!) there could be a question of an impropriety there.

 

Watch this space

 

*********************************

Important rider - the Court of Appeal decision was based upon the Parking Eye arrangement as agreed with Somerfields in 2005.

 

If their agreements are different elsewhere then that could affect the situation.

[GuidoT]

http://www.lep.co.uk/news/business/firm-wins-big-payout-in-court-fight-with-store-1-5037957

[BankFodder]

http://www.lep.co.uk/news/business/firm-wins-big-payout-in-court-fight-with-store-1-5037957

 

Yes, I saw that and I think that they have fully misunderstood the point and the effect of the judgment.

 

I have the name and number of the journalist and I'll be calling him tomorrow

[tomtubby]

Parking Eye may well believe that they have scored a "victory" against Somerfield. If I were them, I would NOT be opening the blubby just yet. This "award" could very easily come at a huge cost to them and other private car park operators.

 

As I have said many times, the poorly drafted Freedoms Bill ( introduced on 1st October) looks very likely to lead to "rouge ticketing" and as far as I am concerned, will lead to an unprecedented number of "tickets" being given to shoppers who overstaying in a supermarket. The grocery chain should be DELIGHTED to have shoppers spending their hard earned cash in their stores. Instead, the likes of Parking Eye will in my opinion drive customers AWAY !!!

[BankFodder]

In 2009 we received a letter from Parking Eye's solicitors complaining of defamatory posts and required us to remove them.

 

In view of this judgment we will be restoring those posts in the next few days.

 

Parking Eye complained about being accused of being dishonest and of using correspondence which falsely represented them selves as official in some way.

 

We now see that Parking Eye was abusing the laws of defamation to suppress legitimate comment about their activities.

 

I should say that quite a few websites and blogs received similar letters - including, for example, MSE.

We all removed content.

 

What goes around, comes around.

[lamma]

One wonders if, or how, they could object to a stiicky about the case that showed the Judge's comments.

[dpick]

Yeh lets see them sue the JUDGE

 

dpick