The dreaded parking eye..... **Ticket Cancelled**

[kirkbyinfurnesslad]

As with any case, it comes down to the judge. However, in most cases, the judges dont have a clue what they are doing. And before you say anything, thats been proven multiple times. If the judge finds in favour of the claimant, you can always appeal providing more info.

 

Yes and no. You can only appeal if the judge has erred in law. It's jot just a case providing more info in an appeal

[renegadeimp]

Well, if the judge finds in favour of the claimant (PE) in cases of private parking as with all threads etc here, then of course he would have erred in law. For the claimant to succeed, they would have to show proof of loss as a result of the defendants overstay/whatever. They cant, so it is considered a penalty charge. This is unenforceable in law. Unfortunately, too many times judges sit in on a case like this and do not have the relevant experience to judge on such matters.

 

Thats why you could have 2 identical cases with 2 different judges and have 2 different outcomes.

[kirkbyinfurnesslad]

So by your rationale every case that a ppc wins( I am not defending any ppc) the judge has made a mistake in law and they could in theory ALL be over turned on appeal?

[Scouse Magic]

Hi RenegadeImp, do you have a solid defence that carmor can use? ParkingEye have won most cases in the last few months because defendants were apparantly not using a solid defence and were up against experienced litigators who can bamboozle and confuse a novice defendant. ParkingEye are quite happy to lose money on every single case that goes to court it seems, so that they can scare people into paying up.

 

Carmor, my advice is to get a solid defence in, hopefully from RenegadeImp, and then meanwhile to put pressure on the landowner to cancel the charge. This has worked well in the past.

 

 

If PE did not give you a letter before action that is compliant with practice directions, then complain to them, the court and the solicitors regulatory association. Ask the court to refer the case to the industry standard ADR, which is PE's own appeals service followed by POPLA. PE lose every case in POPLA where pre-estimate of loss is brought up, so they will refuse at first, but keep trying.

 

You can also negotiate. PE don't really want to go to court because they lose money and have settled for as low as £27. If you would be prepared to pay a lower figure rather than go to court, then start negotiations. PE are known not to be able to justify their solicitor fee of £50, so they will knock that off for a start. Ask them to knock off the £15 filing fee because their LBA was not compliant. Then see how much lower they will go. Remember, they will go as low as £27.

 

Good luck

 

Nonsense........

 

As someone who hs been inside of a court room it works like this.....

If A claim is issued in the courts, the defendant can either pay, defend or request more time (28 days)

 

When the matter is defended, the defendant is sent an allocation questionaire by the court asking if ADR (Alternative despute resoloution) would be helpful in order to keep the matter out of court......

 

It is NOT PE's appeals service

[Scouse Magic]

Friday night, all round PE's house for some beers & a take away....

& hit the forums!

 

As per job description!!!!!!!!

[hoohoo]

Nonsense........

 

As someone who hs been inside of a court room it works like this.....

If A claim is issued in the courts, the defendant can either pay, defend or request more time (28 days)

 

When the matter is defended, the defendant is sent an allocation questionaire by the court asking if ADR (Alternative despute resoloution) would be helpful in order to keep the matter out of court......

 

It is NOT PE's appeals service

 

I'm going to agree with most of that, apart from 'Nonsense' and 'it's not PE's appeal service'.

 

As someone who has also been inside of a court room I can confirm that the court will consider the industry standard dispute process an appropriate ADR. This consists of an appeal to the operator, followed by POPLA.

 

I'm surprised you don't think this is a good strategy.Operators always lose at POPLA when the question of pre-estimate of loss is brought up, while at the courts we see it is a bit of a lottery depending on the judge and the quality of the litigation team employed by the claimant.

 

Therefore a viable strategy is to try and resolve before the hearing and give the court as many reasons as possible to get the case in front of POPLA.

[themagician]

Both. they are not mutually exclusive. If you don't offer to settle they will always go all the way, and will fork out more money than they make for an LPC Law litigant. They lose money, but get bragging rights on their web site. They don't drop cases, as far as I can tell.

 

But, so far I have never known them not settle if you attempt to negotiate.

If you don't offer to settle they will always go all the way, rubbish!

they have been going all the way now with me for the last 12 mths!.

[hoohoo]

If you don't offer to settle they will always go all the way, rubbish!

they have been going all the way now with me for the last 12 mths!.

 

I was referring to cases where they issue a court claim. They only take about 500 cases to court a week so if you are not one of those then I agree with you that they will not currently always go all the way because they do not have enough resources to chase every case. A back of envelope calculate gives me an estimate that this is 5-10% of ignorers, but I would be happy to accept a more reasoned estimate.

[themagician]

I was referring to cases where they issue a court claim. They only take about 500 cases to court a week so if you are not one of those then I agree with you that they will not currently always go all the way because they do not have enough resources to chase every case. A back of envelope calculate gives me an estimate that this is 5-10% of ignorers, but I would be happy to accept a more reasoned estimate.

but remember if all of their claims were legitimate / legal they would defo employ more than enough resources to chase every case, with all the money they would be making from the public.

Edited October 12, 2013 by ims21

[esmerobbo]

but remember if all of their claims were legitimate / legal they would defo employ more than enough resources to chase every case, with all the money they would be making from the public.

 

They are making plenty hence why their not to bothered about losing money on each claim, but the propaganda seems to be working.

 

Accounts for 2012

 

TURNOVER £13,916.437

OPERATING PROFIT £4.477.095

PROFIT BEFORE TAX £4,436,569

PROFIT FOR YEAR £3,287,064

[ericsbrother]

One problem you can get is a judge saying that he/she "prefers the evidence of x over y". This generally means that it is one persons word against another and rather than settling on matters of law will go along with balance of probability or plain belief.

I cannot give an exaple of it being used in a case involving PE but have heard it when manual systems used to claim overstay at car park. So, whoes watch is telling the right time? Can you prove it? no, nor can anyone else but they claim that it took place so that will generally be believed, whether provable or not.

[themagician]

One problem you can get is a judge saying that he/she "prefers the evidence of x over y". This generally means that it is one persons word against another and rather than settling on matters of law will go along with balance of probability or plain belief.

I cannot give an exaple of it being used in a case involving PE but have heard it when manual systems used to claim overstay at car park. So, whoes watch is telling the right time? Can you prove it? no, nor can anyone else but they claim that it took place so that will generally be believed, whether provable or not.

chicken & egg comes to mind.

[themagician]

They are making plenty hence why their not to bothered about losing money on each claim, but the propaganda seems to be working.

 

Accounts for 2012

 

TURNOVER £13,916.437

OPERATING PROFIT £4.477.095

PROFIT BEFORE TAX £4,436,569

PROFIT FOR YEAR £3,287,064

this may be so ,but like all ppc's greed would always be the better policy,they couldn't resist it.

which makes my previous question unanswered.

[themagician]

They are making plenty hence why their not to bothered about losing money on each claim, but the propaganda seems to be working.

 

Accounts for 2012

 

TURNOVER £13,916.437

OPERATING PROFIT £4.477.095

PROFIT BEFORE TAX £4,436,569

PROFIT FOR YEAR £3,287,064

propaganda only works if you Read it and Believe it! ,well most caggers don't,but trolls are like lemmings & buses

,heres one heres another one.

[esmerobbo]

So who's the troll?

 

I see a different point of view equals troll?

 

Since March over 1400 claims have been issued by PE alone, I would say the bulk of these claims were ignorers who thought they would go away.

 

At a court hearing if you could show that you had tried to resolve this matter using every other form then that would work in your favour.

 

As a for instance a 73 year old woman gets woken up by a bailiff knocking at her door with a distress warrant for £374 for a CCJ in parking eyes name! Why because her daughter said to her don't worry mum these are unenforceable invoices just ignore them!

Unfortunately she took the ignore everything too literally and ignored a court claim and a judgement. The next day her daughter paid the bailiff £374.

 

I would add that with a turnover of nearly £14M then their propaganda seems to be working, unfortunately.

[kirkbyinfurnesslad]

The problem seems to be you try and put a balanced view and people shoot you down

 

Parking eye have beaten people with solid defences dispite people saying on here it's not possible!.

[renegadeimp]

Beaten with a valid claim and won due to a poor judge are two different things.

[kirkbyinfurnesslad]

True.

 

But you hear to many people on here( and other sites) say appeal, it must have been a stooge or a rubbish judge.

[themagician]

As a for instance a 73 year old woman gets woken up by a bailiff knocking at her door with a distress warrant for £374 for a CCJ in parking eyes name! Why because her daughter said to her don't worry mum these are unenforceable invoices just ignore them!

Unfortunately she took the ignore everything too literally and ignored a court claim and a judgement. The next day her daughter paid the bailiff £374

purely speculative!

 

.

but had she of come on hear the advice may or may not have been the same,but she would have been told that when/if you receive court papers to return to caggers for more information!and help.

obviously trying to be clever without the knowledge cost her dearly. manure happens they are only human.

Edited October 13, 2013 by themagician
so trolls understand

[ericsbrother]

The real problem,as I have oft repeated is with a unilateral contract. No-one can prove or disprove them and they are the favourite topics for law exams in the countries that use our legal system. The commonest and clearest case law is with Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball co but that shows that an advertisement placed by a company is binding on them not on the reader. Parking companies rely on adverts being binding on those that read them which is rather different so there must be some bilateral condition to enforce them. Their argument is parking creates the condition but that relies on people actually seeing the sign before entering car park, reading them and accepting them. All of this has many examples of case law where for example, the failure to read a notice revokes the contract (Felthouse v Bindley) or it can be that assent is not given by silence (or just plain ignoring signs) or disagreeing with the terms and parking anyway (possible trespass) or because people have parked there before the new agents invented restrictions or terms and acted the same way as they always have. This can negate a new condition imposed unilaterally but how do you prove you have always parked in Tescburysons supermarket car park without bother until now? You dont need to but would a judge consider that enough to revoke a contract by considering the use continuous and thus an existing implied contract rather than occasional and thus giving some merit to the new scheme.

I think there is a way of defeating the agents of the supermarkets and other single entity car park owners and that is to creaqte a unilateral contract of your own. Write to the company concerned and tell them that from this day forward that by accepting payment for goods at their till they indemnify you for any claim by their agents for the use of their car park. The only consideration they would have is whether to accept your money at the checkout as they cannot revoke or alter this contract as the performance is for you to do, namely pay for your chosen goods. I suppose they could tell you that you are barred from shopping there but that can only be enforced by making sure you dont pay for anything and chucking you out on each occasion.

[Carmor]

Sorted, parking eye have dropped the charges, they said registration was incorrect.......looks fine on ticket...oh well I'm not going to argue!

Thanks for all advice.

[Scouse Magic]

Sorted, parking eye have dropped the charges, they said registration was incorrect.......looks fine on ticket...oh well I'm not going to argue!

Thanks for all advice.

 

Congratulations I am pleased your situation is resolved.....Do they really say "drop the charges" lol....What offence ?

[Carmor]

Reference: Parking Charge Notice - 140957/453068

 

Dear Sir / Madam,

 

We refer to the Parking Charge incurred on 15 August 2013 at 17:02:14, at Watergate Bay Beach car park.

 

After investigating your appeal it appears that the incorrect vehicle registration was input and this has therefore resulted in the issue of the Parking Charge.

 

On this occasion as a gesture of goodwill we will be cancelling this Parking Charge. To prevent this situation arising in the future, please ensure the correct vehicle registration details are input.

 

Kind Regards,

 

ParkingEye Team

[Carmor]

Registration is correct, think they may be "trying it on" ?

[Scouse Magic]

Registration is correct, think they may be "trying it on" ?

 

Most PPCs try it on, at least you have a letter to confirm what they say.....keep hold of it, and well done again