Parking Eye lose

Trebor16

sarahg1969 wrote: »

I don't envy them that client!

Michael is very determined:D

HO87

The argument, from the solicitor's perspective, whether they be of the scum-sucking bottom feeder variety or the likes of Trethowans or Pannone's (who would undoubtedly put themselves at the opposite end of the scale) is that their duty is not to judge but to ensure that their client receives their best advice and representation. And promptly pays their invoice - of course.

Though, personally, I would never wish to see any solicitor unduly enriched that it is at the immediate expense of PPC's, their directors and their fellow travellers is satisfying to a degree. That, ultimately, the money has been taken from the pockets of victims of PPC invoices and is spent on what has the appearance of exercises designed pour encourager les autres does nothing to alleviate an entirely cynical view of the profession.

Alexis27

The overkill is puzzling.

Four solicitors for a £100 case is startling.

esmerobbo

Alexis27 wrote: »

The overkill is puzzling.

Four solicitors for a £100 case is startling.

It does make you wonder what the agenda was?
Seeing Parking Spy are one of the highest requesters of DVLA RK details I wonder if they wanted their own case to quote on their demands? (seeing the Thomas case is getting rather tired now)

Whatever the reason they did it, it blew up in their face, they just confirmed what we all knew they were entitled to their loses!

The £95 they were awarded as costs wont make much of a dent in £4.4K:D

esmerobbo

Trebor16 wrote: »

Do a Google search on Oppose Predatory Guardians and it will take you to a site where you can see how Pannones operate.

sarahg1969 wrote: »

I don't envy them that client!

Trebor16 wrote: »

Michael is very determined:D

Interesting read, however someone's figures don't add up?:cool:

Trebor16

esmerobbo wrote: »

Interesting read, however someone's figures don't add up?:cool:

I think he is being rather optimistic with his latest claim. But the expenses taken by Pannones for the first year are breathtaking, especially as the Court of Protection said they shouldn't amount to more than £2500.

CRblogger

Oopsadaisy wrote: »

Pure speculation on my part, but.....

technically correct but don't sweat it;)

Oopsadaisy wrote: »

Pannone would have known that they were on a 'loser' from the get go [or else they are sh17 solicitors]....and should have told PE as such.

As you don't actually know the details unless you were there, I respectfully recommend you be slow to condemn a firm that no doubt is acting entirely properly. Everyone is entitled to legal representation.

Oopsadaisy wrote: »

So either PE ignored their advice and decided to waste £4k [why would they do that since it doesn't need £4k worth of solicitor time to take a case to small claims]...

Not true. My firm got a small claims costs award of nearly 5k today for a two-hour interim hearing of a small claim. Probably 20k spent so far by both sides collectively and we haven't even got to trial. If one side wants to drive up costs to !!!!!!!ise the other side, even in a small claim, they can and they will.
(edited)

Oopsadaisy

CRblogger wrote: »

As you don't actually know the details unless you were there, I respectfully recommend you be slow to condemn a firm that no doubt is acting entirely properly. Everyone is entitled to legal representation.

Of course you are correct. My apologies for any implication that Pannone were/are anything other than an excellent firm of legal advisors.

Doubtless like all excellent legal firms they fully appraised PE of all the issues to do with PPC 'invoices' and their 'enforcement', valid contracts, penalties/fines, civil vs criminal, likelihood of success, previous cases, etc.

PE were the claimant and obviously took the decision to forge ahead; Pannone were just along for the ride [and fees] to represent them.

Of course, again I could be completely wrong....

peter_the_piper

CRblogger wrote: »

Here's the thing. The applicant we butchered today was a local authority that has lost the plot and uses a wheel-clamper firm as agent to remove cars on aupposedly statutory grounds, hold onto them for weeks without telling anyone in order to run up "storage" charges, and then demand large sums of money (£500+) with menaces for return.

More info please and links would be very nice as I'm quite sure this would not have been missed by the press.

Optimist

CRblogger wrote: »

Not true. My firm got a small claims costs award of nearly 5k today for a two-hour interim hearing of a small claim. Probably 20k spent so far by both sides collectively and we haven't even got to trial. If one side wants to drive up costs to !!!!!!!ise the other side, even in a small claim, they can and they will.

Here's the thing. The applicant we butchered today was a local authority that has lost the plot and uses a wheel-clamper firm as agent to remove cars on aupposedly statutory grounds, hold onto them for weeks without telling anyone in order to run up "storage" charges, and then demand large sums of money (£500+) with menaces for return.

Would you clarify that. Are you talking small claims or fast-track.