Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • ok so there are 2 letters in one envelope PPS saying account passed to legal team and the one attached any guidance on next steps gratefully received
    • so tell us about the event and when you got the original NTK as this isnt it. What time did you enter the land? did you buy a ticket and then top up with the one you have illustrated or something else?   If it is local to you can you show us some images of the signage there plus the blurb on the payment machine itself, the latter is most important as that is what the contract is if the wording is different to the signs around the place.
    • Hi   QQ; I tried the IRL claim in September 2018 and Mr Lender rejected it, I tried again yesterday and they have said they are not willing to re-open the investigation and that they will post a copy of their letter from September 2018.   I understand you need to go to the FOS within 6 months if you are not happy with a complaint outcome, however, as this is some 15 months ago that time has passed.   My question is; how do I go about re-opening this complaint so that I can now send to the FOS?  am I stuck because I didn't do anything about it within the 6 month time frame?   Thanks 
    • At the moment you have the evidence they are in the wrong and arent actually sure they are chasing the right person legally speaking.   Now if their original NTK  was sent it should contain any photographic evidence they have of the event and if that shows peoploe sitting in ther car then it means there was no breach of the conditions BUT if you appeal, ask them for evidence etc you may well drop yourself in it so my advice is to sit tight and let them waste their money chasing you.   If you feel yo need to contact anyone then get on to ESSO's  people and point out that one of their concessions is busy breaking the law in the way they are allowing random people to photograph the occupants of their customer's vehicles and that you will be interested to knwo what they think of unregulated snappers photographing children without permission and would they like it if you sent someone round to do the same to them?   basically you are trying to embarrass them into taking action as the garage isnt owned by them but they do have a lot of clout and can put the place out of business with a snap of the fingers if they wish. gte details of the owners of the actual site and if Esso wont act you go after them and point out that they have employed a bunch of bandits who are breaking the law and that you are inclined to sue the  for the breaches as the parking co are merely their agents.   The last peopel you wnat to contact is the parking co as they are ignorant liars and bullies. Save  what you have until the very last moment and hit them hard at that point as they wont be able to change their story or play with their evidence at that juncture.   None of this will necessarily be a quick fix though and that is another thing the parking co's rely on, your desire to end this quickly. Peopel pay up because they " dont want the hassle" rather than because they are in the wrong. Very few parking co's get everything right so the number of proper legit cliams they can make is probably around 2% of the ones they shove out
    • A number of already existing PD loans that she has an arrangement to pay with and she's taken this one out - as the saying goes robbing peter to pay paul!
  • Our picks

Surfer01

What precedents have been set?

style="text-align:center;"> Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 2503 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

We have had various cases recently where PPCs have been involved, but all these relate to issues before 1st October. However have any of these cases set any precedents that may assist a defendant in a parking dispute after the 1st October 2012?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Small claims courts don't set precedents.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Small claims courts don't set precedents.

 

I think we all know that, however I was referring to the appeal cases like Parking Eye vs Somerfield or VCS vs HMRC which were high court cases as I am sure that the judges made rulings which favoured the motorist like in the HMRC one regarding the motorist and contracts?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not aware that any precedents have been set. The Court of Appeal case against Somerfields was focused upon the effect on the contract of Parking Eye's dishonesty, deceit and false representation.

In this case they were specific to Parking Eye.

The other matters which are of more general interest - such as Parking Eye's abuse of any authority to being a legal action, or the level of the charges demanded were not the focus of the judgment - and so although they are highly persuasive - and all but binding upon the County Courts, they are not binding precedents.

However, it would be a very brave judge at County Court level who would refuse to follow these opinions of the Court of Appeal.

 

I think that we can safely say that anyone who has received a demand for money is at least entitled to have sight of the parking management contract insofar as it shows that the parking company has the power - not just the authority - to bring a legal action, and also to receive a full breakdown of how the money demanded amounts to costs incurred by the alleged infraction by the motorist.


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

PE vs Somerfield with reference to last paragraph "The case is important because it introduced firmly the notion of proportionality into the doctrine of illegality in the field of contract law: that is, the Court effectively held that the claimant will only be deprived of the entirety of its remedy where that would be a proportionate response to the illegality in question."

 

The judgement makes it very clear that only Somerfield were entitled to any monies extorted from drivers.

 

'Under the ParkingEye scheme, after that had expired, a charge was imposed. The Judge found that sufficient notice of the charges was given to create a contract between the motorist and Somerfield whereby the motorist was contractually bound to pay Somerfield the charges of which notice was given if he or she overstayed.'

 

Isn't this a precedent?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

BTW as PE are offering a service and VAT has to be paid on doing a "service" surely they should have a VAT number on each "ticket" they issue?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
PE vs Somerfield with reference to last paragraph "The case is important because it introduced firmly the notion of proportionality into the doctrine of illegality in the field of contract law: that is, the Court effectively held that the claimant will only be deprived of the entirety of its remedy where that would be a proportionate response to the illegality in question."

 

The judgement makes it very clear that only Somerfield were entitled to any monies extorted from drivers.

 

'Under the ParkingEye scheme, after that had expired, a charge was imposed. The Judge found that sufficient notice of the charges was given to create a contract between the motorist and Somerfield whereby the motorist was contractually bound to pay Somerfield the charges of which notice was given if he or she overstayed.'

 

Isn't this a precedent?

I don't think that it is because so far as I understand, the locus of PE to bring a court action depends upon their status within their relationship with the carpark owner. This means that in this respect the CA judgment is highly specific. You could say that it forms a precedent to the extent that "where there is an identical contract/relationship between a landowner and a management company purporting to act on the landowner's behalf, then that management company has no locus to bring an action.

However this would not form an general binding principle that management companies may never sue a motorist directly.

I can see a number of ways that the landowner/management company relationship could be altered so that the management company does gain the necessary status and so I don't think that it would be possible to prevent it without an Act of Parliament - which would never happen.


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Going back to your original question surfer, I'd be surprised if anything post 1 oct 2012 had reached a higher court yet given that it's only just over 3 months ago and our courts don't tend to move that fast.


 

What's Best for You?

 

 

The Consumer Action Group is a free help site.

Should you be offered help that requires payment please report it to site team.

 

Alliance & Leicester Moneyclaim issued 20/1/07 £225.50 full settlement received 29 January 2007

Smile £1,075.50 + interest Email request for payment 24/5/06 received £1,000.50 14/7/06 + £20 30/7/06

Yorkshire Bank Moneyclaim issued 21/6/06 £4,489.39 full settlement received 26 January 2007

:p

 

Advice & opinions given by Caro are personal, are not endorsed by Consumer Action Group or Bank Action Group, and are offered informally, without prejudice & without liability. Your decisions and actions are your own, and should you be in any doubt, you are advised to seek the opinion of a qualified professional.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't think that it is because so far as I understand, the locus of PE to bring a court action depends upon their status within their relationship with the carpark owner. This means that in this respect the CA judgment is highly specific. You could say that it forms a precedent to the extent that "where there is an identical contract/relationship between a landowner and a management company purporting to act on the landowner's behalf, then that management company has no locus to bring an action.

However this would not form an general binding principle that management companies may never sue a motorist directly.

I can see a number of ways that the landowner/management company relationship could be altered so that the management company does gain the necessary status and so I don't think that it would be possible to prevent it without an Act of Parliament - which would never happen.

 

As I understand it, in order for a motorist to raise a valid defence in court, the motorist would need to to ascertain the relationship between the PPC and the leaseholder I could ask them to produce a copy of the contract. Is this correct?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Going back to your original question surfer, I'd be surprised if anything post 1 oct 2012 had reached a higher court yet given that it's only just over 3 months ago and our courts don't tend to move that fast.

 

Surely not much changed with the Act anyway and previous case law could be used in some aspects?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Surely not much changed with the Act anyway and previous case law could be used in some aspects?

Absolutely.


 

What's Best for You?

 

 

The Consumer Action Group is a free help site.

Should you be offered help that requires payment please report it to site team.

 

Alliance & Leicester Moneyclaim issued 20/1/07 £225.50 full settlement received 29 January 2007

Smile £1,075.50 + interest Email request for payment 24/5/06 received £1,000.50 14/7/06 + £20 30/7/06

Yorkshire Bank Moneyclaim issued 21/6/06 £4,489.39 full settlement received 26 January 2007

:p

 

Advice & opinions given by Caro are personal, are not endorsed by Consumer Action Group or Bank Action Group, and are offered informally, without prejudice & without liability. Your decisions and actions are your own, and should you be in any doubt, you are advised to seek the opinion of a qualified professional.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
As I understand it, in order for a motorist to raise a valid defence in court, the motorist would need to to ascertain the relationship between the PPC and the leaseholder I could ask them to produce a copy of the contract. Is this correct?

In addition to any other defences, the motorist's defence would probably begin with a para.1 -

"The claimant does not have locus to bring this claim and the defendant puts the claimant to proof on this issue.

If the court finds that the claimant does have locus, then

par.2

para.3

 

etc"

 

Something like that, anyway.

 

In other words the defendant motorist has merely to raise the issue and it then falls to the claimant to establish their locus by proof.


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It might be that in the light of recent decisions that the claimant begins their POC by asserting that they do have locus.

In that case the defendant's first para would be

It is not admitted that the claimant has locus as alleged and puts the claimant to proof on this issue

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...