Parking Eye lose

CRblogger

peter_the_piper wrote: »

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

As to info, what I can say is that our bill was high and that it's very rare to get 100% costs, particularly given that every single element of my costs bill was challenged in detail, something which has never happened to me before at summary assessment. I think we got our biggest boost from the judge when I personally came under attack regarding alleged defects in my "more in sorrow than anger" witness evidence, which exhibited documents that utterly eviscerated the Defence.

Having had a few too many last night I originally gave far too much background info, albeit nothing enabling case identification, but quickly deleted it because it's both distasteful and bad karma, even inadvertently, to
(a) appear gloating;
(b) appear boastful;
(c) appear even by implication to criticise Counsel tactics;
(d) signal own tactics and psych intel to opposition, or to potential future opposition.

As to links, this wasn't trial, just the second interim hearing, this time before a County Court DJ. Nobody is talking to the press, again that's distasteful and bad karma. However as it's public hearing by default and it somehow became known to politicians (who contacted us and who we begged not to talk about it) six months ago via the grapevine at the time of the first interim hearing in the matter, heard in the Queen's Bench Division of the High Court, it'll all come out in the end anyway. So you'll get your wish later!

And 100% costs says it all, really. Sometime I'll publish an appropriately anonymised version of the costs bill by way of advertisement for my post-Jackson costs recovery service under the banner of "100% recovery after Counsel challenge to every element". As every lawyer will know it's at least as much down to judicial disapproval as it is to costs drafting quality, but I'd be crazy to waste such a God-sent promotional opportunity!

CRblogger

Optimist wrote: »

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

Complicated. Briefly: it's allocated to the small claims track and both sides had always agreed that. Technically it had been unallocated, the Court tried to allocate it to the fast track but was persuaded by both sides not to. But there are ways you can claim costs on small claims track, and in any case both sides had agreed/submitted that costs were recoverable from the second hearing. The other side must have honestly believed they were going to win, even though we'd told them in open correspondence why they couldn't. Their attitude was probably assisted by us not bothering to retain Counsel at the High Court hearing and a relatively junior Counsel in the County Court. We won both handily because (I say!) we happened to know the law governing their business far better than they or their lawyers did.

Maybe they'll start playing nice now. Or not. We don't care, we play nice all the time, all the better to beat up people who don't. It's all tactics, really. Costly, but in the end they may have far more to lose than us, because we're not at risk on costs. I don't think they quite realise the value of the claim no longer really matters. If it goes to trial, who wins how much may become almost academic.

peter_the_piper

I am sure I speak for a lot on here when I say that I look forward to the details in future.

trisontana

I have just come across this article from The Mirror website:-
http://blogs.mirror.co.uk/investigations/2012/01/battle-over-roko-gym-cancellat.html

Although not PPC related it does striking similarities to the above Parking Eye case.

To quote a few sections:-

He argued that demanding three months worth of fees amounted to a penalty, which cannot be enforced in law, rather than a fair assessment of the loss that Roko would suffer.

"They said they'd instructed bailiffs to come to my house and that would cost me another £127.

"But they did not have a court judgment against me and !bailiffs would have no right of entry.

The case was heard at York County Court, which ruled that Carly should pay just one month's fees after cancelling membership, plus the train fare of Roko's legal rep.

The judge also chucked out a claim by debt collectors Credit Resolution !Services for £80.

Coupon-mad

CRblogger wrote: »

Complicated. Briefly: it's allocated to the small claims track and both sides had always agreed that. Technically it had been unallocated, the Court tried to allocate it to the fast track but was persuaded by both sides not to. But there are ways you can claim costs on small claims track, and in any case both sides had agreed/submitted that costs were recoverable from the second hearing. The other side must have honestly believed they were going to win, even though we'd told them in open correspondence why they couldn't. Their attitude was probably assisted by us not bothering to retain Counsel at the High Court hearing and a relatively junior Counsel in the County Court. We won both handily because (I say!) we happened to know the law governing their business far better than they or their lawyers did.

Maybe they'll start playing nice now. Or not. We don't care, we play nice all the time, all the better to beat up people who don't. It's all tactics, really. Costly, but in the end they may have far more to lose than us, because we're not at risk on costs. I don't think they quite realise the value of the claim no longer really matters. If it goes to trial, who wins how much may become almost academic.

Very interesting reading, thanks for posting a bit about it.

I think you posted on this board last year and it was another informative post last time too. Do stick around!

give_them_FA

A very interesting discussion for me as PPCs are a bunch of crooks I enjoy seeing getting stuffed.. hell, local councils are bad enough.

Just thought I would share an interesting experience I had a few years back. A friend parked my car in a private car park without paying and got a ticket, I duly got the demand for a sum (think it was about £60) delivered to me. I refused to pay as it wasn't me who had parked.

The parking firm then passed the matter to a DCA, and I started getting correspondence from them, with the usual threats. They demanded that I named the driver, and even said that "action would be taken against me" if I refused.

I wrote back and asked them to desist from sending me further correspondence as it was harassing me. They took no notice but continued to send more threatening letters, including a couple from a tame "in-house" solicitor.

After they got to six, I issued a claim against them in the local County Court claiming damages under Section 3 of the Protection from Harassment Act. This was against both the parking company and the DCA as co-defendants.

They initially tried to defend the case, but it was plain that their defence was just rubbish as my case was all in the black and white of correspondence. Hence, after attending a preliminary hearing (their solicitor came from London to devon to attend at God knows what expense) they presumably realised I wasn't joking, and settled the claim.

They gave me £750 in damages, plus my Court costs. That was on the condition that I did not publicise the matter.

I think I can share it now because it was some years ago (pre-dates Ferguson v British Gas by years!) and also both of the firms involved have gone out of business- surprise surprise.

So- if anyone takes it to Court over a PPC demand- let it be you!

puddy

interesting thread, i tell as many people as i can about these private parking charges and demands, however...

in this manchester case how did it come to court if they were not clear who the actual driver was?

what is the clerkenwell case?

who is stephen thomas?

esmerobbo

puddy wrote: »

interesting thread, i tell as many people as i can about these private parking charges and demands, however...

in this manchester case how did it come to court if they were not clear who the actual driver was? Not sure think they may have twigged his first post were he admitted it.

what is the clerkenwell case? A week before Parking Eye claimed they won and were awarded £2.5K costs, The trolls posted it on here but it was taken down

who is stephen thomas? http://www.oldham-chronicle.co.uk/news-features/8/news/15246/parking-penalty-just-judge-rules

qqqqqqooooonnnn

puddy

thanks for that, theres another linnk on that thomas story comment section to a daily mail story of excell parking solutions losing a court case too

smudge_1

hi there.i received a letter from parking eye stating that i owe £177. this was sent to me by roxburghe debt collectors.the letter that parking eye sent previous to this has a picture of my car reg number at night.so i ignored it.in anger i called the debt collector and the first thing he said was how would you like to pay.my response was that i was not going to.he confirmed where my vehicle was for the offence.and my name and address.to cut a long story short i told him i was willing to go to court if need be.he told me that i would then here from their solicitors.which in respect i said and you will hear from mine.i know i shouldnt of contacted them after reading this site.should i ignore them from now on.and where do i stand because i contacted them.