Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • It's normally that information is usually given how it is stored. I.E. if kept physical then physical copies get sent out. If kept digital then digital copies get sent out. It's the idea that the information you get back is exactly how they keep it and exactly how they hold your data. It's why you'll quite often see screenshots of CRM systems on SARs and such
    • I think final version of WS now prepared with exhibits added.  All numbered properly. Of course it can still be tweaked if necessary. Laura will not need it on 25 June as that is just a Preliminary Hearing for her to represent her son. But as DCBL messed up and thought it was WS time why not prepare things calmly in advance. Defendant's WS - versione 3 + attachments.pdf
    • Your case shows the idiocy of employing a solicitor to do things you could easily do yourself. Had Countryside dealt with their own case they would have entered judgement on 4 June and there would have been no way back for you. But they thought they were clever by running to Rachael and Sean of BW Legal for a more "professional" (aye, right) service.  These dodgy solicitors can only make money on private parking cases by doing everything on the ultra cheap and certainly cant check the judgement date for every single separate case. Ho!  Ho!  Ho! Anyway, glad you got the defence filed OK. The next stage is that the central bulk court will send out a simple form called a Directions Questionnaire to you and to Countrywide which is part of the allocations process to your local court.  If you read this short thread you will see all the stages of the court process  https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/406892-highview-parking-anpr-pcn-claimform-urban-exchange-manchester-claim-dismissed/#comments
    • It is already trespass, nothing further needed to make out trespass. Not sure where ‘interference with goods’ helps you / how you’d bring a claim for that that stops them parking there.
    • Thanks Dx,    For some further information, the holiday was booked as a package holiday for 2. One of the 2 had to be changed, and changing costs £700 for a new flight as "tickets had been issued and they cant do a name change". I cant quite figure out how compensation works for things when it comes to package holidays.    From what I can tell  - The plane was due to land in Turks and Caicos to drop off passengers, something happened during descent, resulting in technical fault.  - The rest of the original flight from Turks & Caicos -> Montego Bay was cancelled  - A New flight was put on today, which was then delayed by 1.5hrs aswell  - Hotel was provided for the night after much hassle.  - 1.5 days, 2 evenings of holiday lost  If I understand correctly, since the original flight (LHR -> Turks -> Montego Bay) was cancelled, they are both entitled to a refund on that full flight? I can't quite work out if they are only entitled to a refund for the equivalent of Turks -> Montego Bay, or for the full LHR->Turks->Montego Bay, since it was issued as one ticket/all Virgin, and they should have arrived yesterday..?)  I can't work out how to get the cost of that compensation, or whether its a set figure, and how the loss of days of holiday is factored in   I am aware:  If you received less than 14 days’ notice of the cancellation, you are generally due compensation, awarded in pounds or euros depending on where your flight was due to depart from, according to the following scale: £220 / €250 for all flights of 1,500km or less (e.g. Glasgow to Amsterdam); £350 / €400 for all flights between 1,500km and 3,500km (e.g. East Midlands to Marrakech); £520 / €600 for all other flights (e.g. London to New York). Compensation will be reduced by 50% if the arrival time of the replacement flight doesn’t exceed the arrival time of the original flight by: two hours for flights of 1,500km or less; three hours for flights between 1,500km and 3,500km; four hours for all other flights. So I "think" its £520pp for the flight part as compensation (7500km)... but some sites say its a full refund for the flight... is it both?  Thanks,  Ryan  
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
      • 1 reply
    • Hello,

      On 15/1/24 booked appointment with Big Motoring World (BMW) to view a mini on 17/1/24 at 8pm at their Enfield dealership.  

      Car was dirty and test drive was two circuits of roundabout on entry to the showroom.  Was p/x my car and rushed by sales exec and a manager into buying the mini and a 3yr warranty that night, sale all wrapped up by 10pm.  They strongly advised me taking warranty out on car that age (2017) and confirmed it was honoured at over 500 UK registered garages.

      The next day, 18/1/24 noticed amber engine warning light on dashboard , immediately phoned BMW aftercare team to ask for it to be investigated asap at nearest garage to me. After 15 mins on hold was told only their 5 service centres across the UK can deal with car issues with earliest date for inspection in March ! Said I’m not happy with that given what sales team advised or driving car. Told an amber warning light only advisory so to drive with caution and call back when light goes red.

      I’m not happy to do this, drive the car or with the after care experience (a sign of further stresses to come) so want a refund and to return the car asap.

      Please can you advise what I need to do today to get this done. 
       

      Many thanks 
      • 81 replies
    • Housing Association property flooding. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/438641-housing-association-property-flooding/&do=findComment&comment=5124299
      • 161 replies
    • We have finally managed to obtain the transcript of this case.

      The judge's reasoning is very useful and will certainly be helpful in any other cases relating to third-party rights where the customer has contracted with the courier company by using a broker.
      This is generally speaking the problem with using PackLink who are domiciled in Spain and very conveniently out of reach of the British justice system.

      Frankly I don't think that is any accident.

      One of the points that the judge made was that the customers contract with the broker specifically refers to the courier – and it is clear that the courier knows that they are acting for a third party. There is no need to name the third party. They just have to be recognisably part of a class of person – such as a sender or a recipient of the parcel.

      Please note that a recent case against UPS failed on exactly the same issue with the judge held that the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 did not apply.

      We will be getting that transcript very soon. We will look at it and we will understand how the judge made such catastrophic mistakes. It was a very poor judgement.
      We will be recommending that people do include this adverse judgement in their bundle so that when they go to county court the judge will see both sides and see the arguments against this adverse judgement.
      Also, we will be to demonstrate to the judge that we are fair-minded and that we don't mind bringing everything to the attention of the judge even if it is against our own interests.
      This is good ethical practice.

      It would be very nice if the parcel delivery companies – including EVRi – practised this kind of thing as well.

       

      OT APPROVED, 365MC637, FAROOQ, EVRi, 12.07.23 (BRENT) - J v4.pdf
        • Like
  • Recommended Topics

Parking Eye: Basis of claim


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4145 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then

 

Please click the "Report " link

 

at the bottom of one of the posts.

 

If you want to post a new story then

Please

Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 

 

Thanks

Recommended Posts

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:

PEdetailedreply-03a_edit_zps762ed5c2.jpg

PEdetailedreply-03b_zps9b5ce66b.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...