Parking Eye lose

notts_phil · 1 December 2011 at 9:39PM

smithy2121 wrote: »

Haha most of you on here thought I was Parking Eye 6 months ago! So glad I went with it and trusted Alexis, can't speak highly enough of what he has done for me, giving me the confidence to fight this and I am so glad that we did it.

I have learnt so much during this process and I am so glad to get a result out of it.

Am pleased for you. Make sure you pay it ASAP so.it doesn't affect ur file:)

bargepole · 1 December 2011 at 9:44PM

Here's a quote from the home page of the Pannone website:

Our clients tell us we are different. With a passion for winning, you will find our lawyers confident, friendly and easy to work with. We expect to be measured on quality, integrity, and above all, results.

By all of the above measures, today's result would suggest they are a bunch of incompetent muppets. Any first-year law student would know that they were unlikely to succeed with a claim for a penalty charge, and never ever stood a snowball in hell's chance of claiming those ridiculous costs.

Quite why a formerly respectable firm like Pannone would want to dirty their hands with a grubby little PPC claim is anyone's guess.

bondy_lad · 1 December 2011 at 11:15PM

luv it, just luv it,,cant stop laughing,,parking spy given a good hiding in court,DO NOT IGNORE THIS AS SUGGESTED ON SOME INTERNET FORUMS,,if you do, we will then get spanked in court,,day suitably made.

ripped_off_driver · 2 December 2011 at 12:11AM

This is a disastrous result for Parking Eye.Make no mistake, they would have been prepared to shoulder the £5k legal fees if they had won the issue on penalties. The Judge limiting their claim to the unpaid P&D fee and rejecting the £120 invoice is a massive loss. The judge has in effect said that they are entitled to no more than their losses and anything else is a penalty. Exactly what the good people on here have been saying for years.4 lawyers show up at court. Jeez, talk about desperation.Very well done Smithy and Alexis.Oh and Parking Eye and other PPC misfit trolls who hang around here fuming at the correct advice which is given don't think that keeper liability will change one iota. It is far from a panacea. Smithy did not deny being the driver. Yet he won because the charge was a penalty.Just as other vehicle keepers will win if the craven BPA membership have the guts to take them on.

kizkiz · 2 December 2011 at 12:31AM

As much as i hate them, didn't they technically win the case?
Lost the battle obviously lol

ripped_off_driver · 2 December 2011 at 12:40AM

No it is a total loss for Parking Eye. They chose the case carefully and were always likely to win the £10 P&D fee - I would have made that ruling myself. But they needed to prove that the two £60 fees were enforcable and not penalties. This is the basis of 95%+ of their invoices in free car parks. They lost on this fundamental element. It's a bit like a libel claimant winning a case and being awarded £1 damages and being saddled with massive unrecoverable fees. Technicaly a victory but practically a dead loss. Somehow I don't think Parking Eye will be breaking out the champagne tonight.

halibut2209 · 2 December 2011 at 12:41AM

Yes, they technically won the case as they should have in all honesty. You make a mistake, you pay the losses. That's what the judge ruled.

But we all know they lost big time!!!

Trebor16 · 2 December 2011 at 12:59AM

Given their attempt to claim £4500 in costs for Pannones was kicked into touch I would describe that as a major defeat. They are probably like the man who lost a £50 note in the street and went round the corner and found £5 right now!:D

dataprotector · 2 December 2011 at 1:14AM

Firstly to Smithy, well done for taking this the whole way, that was particularly brave, secondly and i say this for debate and am standing by to be berated, unfortunalty people reading this thread may think twice about ignoring the letters, imagine how smithy felt being up against 4 lawyers, albeit some very misguided ones!! Would i have the guts to do it, i dont know!
Im going to amke a wee suggestion that tactics in dealing with these matters are altered... those reading some other threads on this may have read my suggestions re data protection requests however why not have a list if contact details of who owns the land that ppc's are operating on and try making complaints directly to them regarding receiving PCN's, that way you still ignore the letters and hopefully the companies will deal with the notice for you, i did this only last week and had a nice wee letter from a supermarket advising they would deal with the matter. in my case i made a DPA SAR for 2 hours and 20 minutes of cctv from "within" the supermarket which they did not want to have to deal with. I obviously took care not to divulge the drivers details...... so my point is, if you know you are in the wrong make complaints, complain some more and the land owners may make these go away?

I shall now hide under my desk and await some negative comments :rotfl:

Alexis27 · 2 December 2011 at 1:22AM

kizkiz wrote: »

As much as i hate them, didn't they technically win the case?
Lost the battle obviously lol

Depends how you look at it. I would say that if Smithy had lost the case, he would have an order to pay £360 - £4000+ dropping through his letterbox next week, which he doesn't.

He was never in the position that he owed them zero. He failed to pay to park for 48 hours for whatever reason, and so owed them the actual losses inflicted from doing so.

Parking Eye lose

Comments

Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply

🚀 Getting Started

Categories

Is this how you want to be seen?

Get our FREE Weekly email full of deals & guides - and it’s spam-free