Oh dear, oh dear... Parking Eye : Lost in Court yet again !!!

[Crocdoc]

For all Parking Eye claims or any other PPC Court Claim

 

it is worthwhile looking at the Parking Pranksters website

 

where you will find a link relating to a VERY RECENT court case where PE received a very severe slap.

 

SORRY I DON'T HAVE THE TECHNICAL KNOW HOW TO CREATE A LINK.

[citizenB]

Here you go

 

ParkingEye spanked in court

 

 

 

Claim no 3QT62646 in the Brentford County Court was heard today, 23 October 2013.

 

ParkingEye paid a contract lawyer, Mr Larda, around £300 to turn up on their behalf. Apparently that was not enough money for him to bother to read the brief correctly; he thought he was representing Private Eye.

 

Possibly he wanted to quote the Private Eye Arkell v Pressdram case.

 

He was also a little behind on his paperwork, attempting to serve papers on the defendant 14 days after the time limit expired.

 

 

 

For the full story.... http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/

[citizenB]

You have to love PE's representative bottle for daring to tell the Judge he was wrong

 

 

 

District Judge Jenkins explained he was throwing the claim out because it was not brought in the name of the landowner. He said the landowner could bring the case in their own name if they wished.

 

Mr Larda explained to the judge that he was incorrect, and that a case held in 1870 showed otherwise. The Judge was having none of it. Mr Larda tried again, explaining that ParkingEye had won cases 'all over the land'. The judge asked for transcripts, which were not forthcoming.

 

The Judge then announced that, in his opinion, a contractual arrangement to manage parking does not give rise to a cause of action to claim for damages, and the lack of ownership of the land meant that the claimant had no standing to bring such an action in their own name.

 

 

For the full story.. .http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/

[esmerobbo]

It just shows how different Judges view these things, it seems this judge read the bundle and decided on the first hurdle that PE had to jump that he wasn't going to allow them to pursue their claim.

 

They have been producing a redacted contract or a letter from the landowner which they claimed gave them authority to pursue, fortunately this Judge did not except that this gave them the relevant authority.

 

However in other cases the Judges are finding in the exact opposite! What we really need is a decision made like this in a higher precedent setting court.

[citizenB]

Unless they appeal the decision, then I doubt it will get moved up the court hierarchy.. I suspect they might not take that risk !!

 

I think this particular judgment and any similar ones could actually be used in other claims so judges can see what is going on in other decisions.

[tomtubby]

PARKING EYE: LOST IN COURT

 

The following was posted on MSE yesterday. For ease of reference, I have copied it in "word".

 

Happy reading !!!

 

Claim No. 3QT62646

 

In the: Brentford County Court 23/10/2013

 

Before: District Judge Jenkins

 

Claimant: ParkingEye Ltd – represented by Mr. Larda (sp?) of LPC Law

 

Defendant: Ms Anita Sharma – represented by myself

 

Amount Claimed: £100 Parking Charge + £50 Solicitor Costs + £25 Court Fee = £175.

 

 

 

 

The Defendant had parked at Starbucks, on the EuroGarages Heathrow site, allegedly for 1h 45mins, where the PE signage states the max stay time is 1h 30m.

 

We had prepared a defence, which essentially relied on three key points:

 

The planning consent for the site (redeveloped in 2012) included a statement from the building consultants that parking would be restricted to 2 hours. The landowner, and/or PE, were therefore breaching those conditions by reducing it to 1.5 hours, and the court had a duty not to allow them to benefit from such illegality under the ex turpi causa rule.

 

The camera pictures only showed the vehicle at the very edge of the give way line on to the main road, and the defendant had given a statement that she had to queue for a long time to leave the premises. There was, therefore, no actual evidence that she had parked for longer than 1.5 hours.

 

The claim was for damages arising from breach of contract, but the claimant had not shown how the actions of the defendant had caused a loss, or genuine pre-estimate of loss, to PE.

 

We assembled at Brentford court shortly before 10am, and then Mr Larda turned up at 10:05. He asked if I was involved in the “Private Eye” case. I said do you mean the satirical magazine, and he eventually got his names right.

 

He then wanted to hand me two documents, one of which was a further Reply to Defence, attempting to rebut our reply to PE’s original Reply to Defence. This document was dated 16/10, which is 7 days before the hearing, and was never received by the defendant. He also produced a copy of a paid parking charge, from one of PE’s other car parks, which had been issued to the same vehicle at a later date. He said that this proved that the Defendant accepted liability for PE’s contractual charges.

 

I said that I was sure he was aware of the CPR rules which state that any documents to be relied on in a hearing, must be served on the court and the other side not later than 14 days before the hearing, and I would object to the inclusion of both those documents.

 

After waiting around for an hour, we were called into Court 2, a proper courtroom and not a side conference room. Judge Jenkins got us all to sit down, established who was who, and we got started.

 

My kids often call me Mr Grumpy, but this Judge completely redefined that description. Without any preamble, he tore into Mr Larda, asking him whether his client owned the land in question. Once it was established they didn’t, he said that he was going to strike out the claim, but if the landowner wanted to resubmit a new claim in his own name, they could.

 

At this point, it might have been prudent for the other side to accept that decision, and go away to resubmit a new claim jointly between the landowner and PE. But Mr Larda decided to argue the toss, and waved in front of the Judge a copy of the contract between EuroGarages and PE.

 

The judge said that contract was a commercial matter between PE and the landowner, and didn’t create any contractual relationship with motorists who used the car park. Mr Larda then started citing Fairlie v Fenton, claiming that it was a case which established that an agent had the right to take legal action in their own name. The Judge asked if he had a transcript of the case – Errr No, was the reply, and the Judge said he wasn’t interested in hearsay about cases which happened in other courts, he was only concerned with this claim in this court.

 

Undeterred, Mr Larda ploughed on, saying that he disagreed with the Judge’s view of the legal position, and that PE’s claims had been accepted as valid, and cases won, in courts “all over the land”. Again, the Judge asked if he had any transcripts, and again there were none. By this time, the Judge was looking at Mr Larda as if he was wishing we still had capital punishment in this country, and he could reach for his black cap.

 

At one point, I thought Mr Larda had finished speaking, and was going to jump in and say that, in any case, there were serious contradictory terms in that landowner contract which would render it invalid, but when the Judge barked “Don’t interrupt!”, I kept quiet.

 

The Judge then announced that, in his opinion, a contractual arrangement to manage parking does not give rise to a cause of action to claim for damages, and the lack of ownership of the land meant that the claimant had no standing to bring such an action in their own name. He was therefore going to dismiss the claim, and wrote copious notes which he said would appear in the written Judgment.

 

Mr Larda immediately stated that they wished to appeal. The Judge, now looking even more thunderous, said that he would refuse permission to appeal, on the basis that such an appeal would have little realistic prospect of success.

 

I then asked if the Defendant could be awarded her costs, which we had already submitted in our court bundle. He asked the Defendant whether she had taken the day off work, and what her lost earnings were, but unfortunately she gave a completely different figure from the one I’d put down. So the Judge said that if he had two different amounts, one on paper and one given by the defendant, he wasn’t going to make any costs award at all. Disappointing, but lesson learned.

 

So in effect, the Judge actually followed the ruling in VCS v Ibbotson quite closely (the transcript of this was in our bundle), but he didn’t actually refer to it during his summary.

 

Anyway, the bullies didn’t win, so quite a good day!

[citizenB]

Thanks for this TT, absolutely brilliant

[tomtubby]

A copy of above at Brentford County Court really must go to DVLA and the BPA and I would also make sure that Starbucks were made aware as well as they would almost certainly be at the receiving end of lots of complaints from people getting their daily caffeine shot !!!

[Ell-enn]

A transcript of the judgement would be helpful too - it could be used in any other defences, bearing in mind this particular judge wanted to see transcripts of cases quoted.

[kirkbyinfurnesslad]

Ell-enn that is being sorted off forum

[Ell-enn]

Ell-enn that is being sorted off forum

 

[tomtubby]

Ell-enn that is being sorted off forum

 

As I said above, a copy should be sent to DVLA, DfT and almost certainly.....POPLA.

[paulwlton]

Great result. The transcript will be good to read,

[esmerobbo]

They lost another in Barrow in Furness a couple of days ago, just waiting for the details, looks like another problem with their authority to issue a claim

[themagician]

They lost another in Barrow in Furness a couple of days ago, just waiting for the details, looks like another problem with their authority to issue a claim

watching with interest,cheers

[esmerobbo]

£104 awarded to the defendant, seems PE turned up with a contract dated February 2013 to manage the car park. However the alleged contravention took place in October 2012. Then they produce a witness statement supposedly giving them authority to enforce parking charges signed but not dated!

 

Judge was not best pleased with PE's solicitors presentation.

 

If there is a plus side to all these PE claims is these cockups will no doubt be noted!

 

So!

 

£104 to defendant

Plus £15 court fee

£25 hearing fee

£300 LPC law fee

At least!

[RayGuselli]

Hi Esmerobbo....do you have details of the Barrow in Furness case please or how may I obtain them?

 

Thanks

 

Ray

[esmerobbo]

Hi Esmerobbo....do you have details of the Barrow in Furness case please or how may I obtain them?

 

Thanks

 

Ray

 

No only what I have posted hopefully we will hear more when the defendant posts.

 

Case details. Parking Eye v Walkden 29/10/2013 case no. 3QT52338.

[RayGuselli]

Many thanks...hope they do post here...would be most helpful.

 

Thanks

 

Ray