Parking Eye lose

Julia12_2

Not sure I fully understand. So to clarify. If the worse case scenario happened, but you paid within the 28 days, if asked the question 'have you ever had a judgement of any kind found against you?', would you have to answer 'yes', as you did, even though you paid and no CCJ was on your record - so you could answer 'no' to 'do you have any CCJ?', but would you have to answer 'yes' to the judgement question?

Many thanks

AlexisV

If you lose a claim in county court you have 28 days to pay the amount in full. Your credit file will be completely clean and make no mention of any judgement until the 29th day if you haven't paid.

The answer to the question "have you ever had a county court judgement against you?" would be yes.
The answer to the question "have you ever had a county court judgement registered against you?" would be no.

If you are talking about answering a credit or loan application, they'll only ask you the second one. If they did ask you the first one and you said yes they'd probably get confused and ask why you said yes because your credit file would come up clean.

All very theoretical though. You've more chance of winning the lottery than having any of this happen.

Julia12_2

Thanks for the clarification. In the case of private parking companies, is it a small claims court they have to go to rather than county court though, so does that make any difference?

Trebor16

Julia12 wrote: »

Thanks for the clarification. In the case of private parking companies, is it a small claims court they have to go to rather than county court though, so does that make any difference?

Julia,

Small claims and county court are one and the same. Small claims is a term used to describe a claim under £5000.

Julia12_2

Thanks Trebor16 for explaining, I didn't know that.

Oopsadaisy

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=what+is+small+claims+court

bluelight

Well done for getting Parking Eye the hammering they richly deserved! Their solicitors should have known that case law forbids a plaintiff from claiming more than their actual loss, a legal precedence that has been in force since 1915! A first-year law student knows that!

Looking through the threads above, the way you deal with PPCs will depend on the circumstances of each case. If they are running a "Pay & Display" car park and you overstay, they are only entitled to the fee you should have paid for parking and no more. The purpose of civil litigation is to put the plaintiff back in the position they were in before any loss occurred, not enrich them. A court will strike out any claim or part thereof which is unjustifiable enrichment.

With regard to the activities of PPCs on private land, under Land Law, it is illegal for the owner or occupier of land to impose or attempt to impose any form of penalty on anyone who may trespass on their land. As PPCs are agents of the landowner, the landowner can be held liable for the actions of the PPCs they use, as well as the PPC. As long as the landowner/PPC do not make any demands for payment, it is a purely civil matter and can be dealt with under civil law. If money is demanded, then it becomes a criminal matter. The statutes I use to deal with PPCs are the Criminal Law Act 1977, Fraud Act 2006 and, if they make any threats, the Theft Act 1968, too. Also, be aware that the Data Protection Act 1998 can be used to deal with landowners/PPCs who obtain owner/keeper details from DVLA. As of 6 April 2010, the Information Commissioner can imposed a Financial Penalty Notice (FPN) of up to £500,000 on any organisation breaching the Act. Using and Allowing Personal Data to be used for an illegal or unlawful purpose is an offence under the Act.

Please aware that PPC employees have been caught using scams such as "What's on the notice is the law" and "This car park is owned by the local council". I had the latter one used on me. What they didn't know is that I had previously checked with the local council about ownership of the car park and they had confirmed, by email, that they did not own the land. The look on the PPC employee's face when I told them this was a picture and my invitation to arrange for them to go for a ride in a police vehicle had them retreating at a rate of knots.

Once again, well done for giving Parking Eye a smack in the mouth it's going to take them sometime to recover from!

Oopsadaisy

bluelight wrote: »

Once again, well done for giving Parking Eye a smack in the mouth it's going to take them sometime to recover from!

What planet are you on??? PE are still raking in the dosh, nothing has changed in their business model.

They are still busy sending out letters.

taffy056

Oopsadaisy wrote: »

What planet are you on??? PE are still raking in the dosh, nothing has changed in their business model.

They are still busy sending out letters.

Yes busy sending out letters, I should imagine they will be giving the small claims a very wide berth for quite some time. So the smack in the mouth refers to that I should think!

Oopsadaisy

taffy056 wrote: »

Yes busy sending out letters, I should imagine they will be giving the small claims a very wide berth for quite some time. So the smack in the mouth refers to that I should think!

Yeah, but if pannone was no a no win no fee arrangement PE are hardly down and out.

They get most of their money from people paying up immediately or after a letter or two, so I doubt they are crying in their beer too much.