Parking Eye: Basis of claim

[Michael Browne]

Posted on pepipoo

 

Parking Eye were asked them about their legal standing to bring any legal action on behalf of their principal and/or in their own name and to provide detailed breakdown of their pre-estimated losses, they claimed was owed to them. VCS v Ibbotson and VCS v HMRC.were also referenced

 

Here is their reply:

[peanutsallergy]

That should be a quick day in court for someone then.

[BankFodder]

How does that square with the Court of Appeal judgment in Parking Eye v Somerfields - in which in addition to their Lordships referring to Parking Eye's dishonesty and their mispresentation, went on to point out that Parking Eye had no basis for making any threats of legal action.

 

Should we trust Parking Eye? I'll leave that you to judge. Personally I would want much more than their say-so on anything.

I notice that Parking Eye have not expressly stated that they are authorised to take legal actions on their client's behalf? Why ever not? It would be so easy to say.

In the end, they can produce their arguments to a judge to decide.

 

On their argument as to what can be taken into account in terms of recoverable losses - I am sure that somewhere in the case law relating to unenforceable penalties, it makes it clear that marginal costs are not recoverable at all.

Could Parking Eye possibly be wrong on this issue?

 

Maybe someone can dig up the case.

[instrumentsofjoy]

How does that square with the Court of Appeal judgment in Parking Eye v Somerfields - in which in addition to their Lordships referring to Parking Eye's dishonesty and their mispresentation, went on to point out that Parking Eye had no basis for making any threats of legal action.

 

Should we trust Parking Eye? I'll leave that you to judge. Personally I would want much more than their say-so on anything.

I notice that Parking Eye have not expressly stated that they are authorised to take legal actions on their client's behalf? Why ever not? It would be so easy to say.

In the end, they can produce their arguments to a judge to decide.

 

On their argument as to what can be taken into account in terms of recoverable losses - I am sure that somewhere in the case law relating to unenforceable penalties, it makes it clear that marginal costs are not recoverable at all.

Could Parking Eye possibly be wrong on this issue?

 

Maybe someone can dig up the case.

 

Parking Eye? Wrong.....possibly

 

I think what I would take into account were I a judge - what costs would they have if they never issued a ticket. Thus - they have a vehicle to patrol the car parks - but - they would have it anyway whether they caught anyone or not.

 

Likewise the parking attendant. If he/she catches one person then that person is not liable for ALL the costs of the attendant. later halved if the attendant catches two people. Get the idea?

 

That came up in Ibbotson with which you seem familiar.

[peanutsallergy]

They've probably got wise to that.

So what's to stop them arguing -

They wouldn't need to be there if it wasn't for all the naughty motorists, so all the business costs are directly incurred having to catch them, so each motorist should pay a fraction (no idea of the numbers, but say 100 tickets a day, so a hundreth of the days business costs).

Was it covered in the Somerfield case?

[DBC]

Once again a PPC confusing day-to-day running costs oftheir business with the actual loss suffered by the landowner. And don't forget that it can only be the landowner loss and not what the PPC has to shell out to run their company.

 

This also came up in the" retail loss prevention" court case in Oxford where the security company tried to claim a vast amount for their security guard's time, only to be told by the judge that patrolling the shop was part of his "core duties" and would have to be paid whether he caught anybody or not.

[ericsbrother]

In essence they are claiming that their product is new and improved and in no way similar to either the old product or their competitor's products. If it were soap powder it wouldnt wash with me.