Jump to content


Parking Eye Summons **Won in Court**


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 3635 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

Well, done, that is 2-0 today.Let us know why the judge decided PE's claim failed as it will help a lot more people. Also let us know what else PE wanted to raise as oral evidence as you can bet that if it wasnt slapped down it will appear in writing in the near future.

They have massively changed their claims since they started getting hammered from claimed of trespass to breach of contract to contractual sum agreed to commercial justification to god knows what now.

 

Thank you.

 

Breach of contract isn't applicable, the judge didn't accept this argument, it was all about whether the £100 was a fine or not, and he decided it was and therefore, illegal.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just out of curiosity, how do they award you costs? Do you have to go in prepared with a breakdown of your costs? Or do you have to make a separate claim?

 

Always be prepared. Go in with a full breakdown.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well done glad you saw it through! Glad to see their attempt to intimidate you by issuing reams of their success stories didn't work.

 

After your celebrations can you give us the case number and at what court this was held at, so it can be added to the other cases on this and forums listing PE's lost cases..

Link to post
Share on other sites

After your celebrations can you give us the case number and at what court this was held at, so it can be added to the other cases on this and forums listing PE's lost cases..

 

Is there a list of court cases vs Parking Eye? Would be interested in reading some transcripts.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well done glad you saw it through! Glad to see their attempt to intimidate you by issuing reams of their success stories didn't work.

 

After your celebrations can you give us the case number and at what court this was held at, so it can be added to the other cases on this and forums listing PE's lost cases..

 

No, well done YOU. I only really looked at their submissions last night and when I saw their case law quotations, I thought 'bugger it, I've got better things to do with my time', I could easily afford the cost so I figured I wouldn't bother attending and see what happens. However, after getting your reply I thought I would go and defend myself, after all I had underpaid by £3 and could end up paying £165. Total disproportion.

 

However, to my shock horror, when I arrived I was greeted by a lawyer who told me that if they won (which they expected to do) they would ask for costs of £320, so what was a £3 underpayment could have costed me £500!

 

So thanks again and I will give a fuller description in due course.

 

Where can I find a list of the successful defences you mention ?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, done, that is 2-0 today.Let us know why the judge decided PE's claim failed as it will help a lot more people. Also let us know what else PE wanted to raise as oral evidence as you can bet that if it wasnt slapped down it will appear in writing in the near future.

They have massively changed their claims since they started getting hammered from claimed of trespass to breach of contract to contractual sum agreed to commercial justification to god knows what now.

 

Any idea what the other win was?

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Read through some of these.

 

Interesting that no one ever brings up that Parking Eye are purely surviving on the profit from the charges. Since this is their only stream of revenue, it's immediately obvious that any charge is not a valid "loss", and thus every case where the land owner does not pay money for the service (pay & display etc.), (where Parking Eye are only there to profit on charges), these cases should be thrown out on that bass.

 

Why isn't that the case?

Link to post
Share on other sites

To back up the above, Parking Prankster is reporting that PE's credit rating has dropped from 95/100 in November last year to 38/100 at the end of last month, with hints it might be down to 25/100 now. One reason speculates PP is this:-

 

It is not known why ParkingEye's credit has dropped so spectacularly. It may be that the agencies have realised that the company has essentially zero value. If every single motorist was to appeal their charge to POPLA on the grounds that the charge is not a genuine pre-estimate of loss then based on previous results POPLA would cancel every charge, leaving ParkingEye with zero income and POPLA costs of nearly £19 million.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Let's not get too steamed up on this guys, I believe today was a narrow victory. I think the Judge was ante-parkingeye/and the likes. The contract IS between the parking company and the motorist, the landowner has nothing to do with it. PE just need to be better organised on their charges and in time to come, they may well win, even if they have to reduce their 'penalties'

Link to post
Share on other sites

Let's not get too steamed up on this guys, I believe today was a narrow victory. I think the Judge was ante-parkingeye/and the likes. The contract IS between the parking company and the motorist, the landowner has nothing to do with it. PE just need to be better organised on their charges and in time to come, they may well win, even if they have to reduce their 'penalties'

A fair point and to put it all into perspective this is just one judge's opinion. Amongst many other judges who would agree. There is ample legal argument to support the contention that PE are not able to offer a contract to the motorist and that in many cases the best that is offered is a licence to park and nothing else. But those are for another day. Any victory at a small claims court by a motoroist will have been hard fought so well done. A win is a win.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Let's not get too steamed up on this guys, I believe today was a narrow victory. I think the Judge was ante-parkingeye/and the likes. The contract IS between the parking company and the motorist, the landowner has nothing to do with it. PE just need to be better organised on their charges and in time to come, they may well win, even if they have to reduce their 'penalties'

 

 

You mention they might have to reduce their penalties. The law of contract does not allow penalties. When a contract is broken, the aggrieved can claim 'Damages'. The amount of damages claimed must be a fair assessment of the losses made because of the breach of that contract, you can't add on penalties.

 

 

This is why the claim not so long ago which included the cost of the girl in the office and teabags and anything else they could think up was thrown out.

 

 

Also the damages claim is for a fixed sum, so the £50 this week or £100 if not paid in 28 days cannot be a fair assessment of costs. The losses are either £50 or £100, they can't be both and those losses have to be broken down and shown how they came about if challenged.

Link to post
Share on other sites

County court is certainly a lottery, in Chuck1es case it seems the judge thought PE were able to form a contract with the motorist, other judges have disagreed. Chuck1es judge decided it was a penalty not a recovery of losses, some judges have disagreed. Hence why it's so important to go armed with as many defence points as possible.

 

However its simple maths to work out that any loss before an incident is nil, any cost or loss is arrived at after an incident. The law of the land says the person should be returned to the position they were in before the incident, and any costs involved in achieving that. This judge has decided that the initial £100 was arrived at by what means?

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...