New Post Advanced Search

Parking Eye lose

edited 30 November -1 at 1:00AM in Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking
194 replies 50.3K views


  • 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 doesn't affect ur file:)
    Hi, we’ve had to remove your signature. If you’re not sure why please read the forum rules or email the forum team if you’re still unsure - MSE ForumTeam
  • bargepolebargepole Forumite
    2.9K posts
    Part of the Furniture 1,000 Posts Name Dropper Combo Breaker
    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.

    I have been providing assistance, including Lay Representation at Court hearings (current score: won 50, lost 13), to defendants in parking cases for over 5 years. I have an LLB (Hons) degree, and have a Graduate Diploma in Civil Litigation from CILEx. However, any advice given on these forums by me is NOT formal legal advice, and I accept no liability for its accuracy.
  • bondy_ladbondy_lad Forumite
    1K posts
    Eighth Anniversary Combo Breaker
    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.
  • 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.
  • kizkizkizkiz Forumite
    1.3K posts
    Ninth Anniversary Combo Breaker
    As much as i hate them, didn't they technically win the case?
    Lost the battle obviously lol
  • 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.
  • halibut2209halibut2209 Forumite
    4.2K posts
    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!!!
    One important thing to remember is that when you get to the end of this sentence, you'll realise it's just my sig.
  • Trebor16Trebor16 Forumite
    3.1K posts
    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
    "You should know not to believe everything in media & polls by now !"

    John539 2-12-14 Post 15030
  • 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:
  • Alexis27Alexis27 Forumite
    116 posts
    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.
This discussion has been closed.

Quick links

Essential Money | Who & Where are you? | Work & Benefits | Household and travel | Shopping & Freebies | About MSE | The MoneySavers Arms | Covid-19 & Coronavirus Support