Parking Eye lose

HO87

I now publicly abase myself for having initially doubted Smithy's bona fides - along with a few others too (you know who you are!). As befits, I have privately apologised to him.

Moving on, once again a judge has come up to snuff in properly discerning both that PE were attempting to impose a penalty and were only entitled to their genuine loses. I find it reassuring that DJ's are seeing the light on this and other relevant issues. If we look back at some of the notable cases in the last 12 months something of a trend could just be emerging.

Finally, I would love to be privy to the discussions between Pannone's and PE over the settlement of their account. Methinks Pannone's will just have to take the loss on the chin as trying for that level of costs is something of a rookie error. And packing the bench? What was that all about? 4 shiney-ar*es versus Smithy. I presume it was a case of one to speak, one to read, one to write and the fourth to keep an eye on the intellectuals. Perhaps PE will try Trethowans now? They lose their cases as well but at least they are cheap - by comparison.

scabbyfiver

Excellent stuff people and so happy for all concerned. I hope people in doubt read this and it gives them the confidence to simply ignore the threats.
Big guns and scare tactics "defeated" by the little guy with a sound defence.

£4500 costs? I really hope this is a genuine bill that Parking Eye will have to pay.

Well done Smithy and Alexis. :T

Oopsadaisy

I would think this is a sign of how desperate some law firms are getting now that the gravy train og legal aid has been kiboshed [sic?].

IMO.....
they took this case on a no win, no fee basis.
they knew they were taking 'a punt'
PE probably promised them all of their 'enforcement' action on a similar basis
they knew if they did win they might be able to repeat a few times more, or use to frighten a lot of non-payers into paying [and they get their 60%[?] cut]

BTW the 4 suits were probably 'free' [as in if they had no proper paying client work to do they may as well be sent along to the court]

So, a sign of desperation/worth a punt as opposed to any great legal strategy, imo.

trisontana

Here is an excellent article about this case and the wider question of "Civil Recovery" from CAG:-

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/content.php?814-Parking-Eye-penalties-are-...-Penalties

In another blow for the Private Parking civil recovery industry, a Manchester county court judge refused to award £240 claimed by Parking Eye car park management company in respect of two alleged private parking contraventions.

Awarding a mere £15 the judge apparently found that the rest of Parking Eye's claim amounted to an unenforceable penalty as it exceeded any actual losses suffered by the car park owners as a result of the parking infraction.

bromsgrovebarry

ParkingEye and their debt hounds have used some disgraceful bully boy tactics. Surely small claims courts are designed to be low cost affairs in which cases are argued on merit rather than who has the biggest, best and usually most expensive representation. There are questions to be asked after the Clerkenwell fiasco and surely somebody should take ParkingEye and Pannones to task. I am glad that the judge at Manchester was in no mood to be influenced by the Pannone rentamob. Smithy and Alexis, there is a pint for both of you in the Moneysaver's arms, thank you for giving the scum a very bloody nose!

RobinHood2011

WOW,

Got 2 letters from Parking Eye and have been ignoring them. I am totally not paying the ticket now. If they want to take me to court and waste £5000 than they can hahaha :rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:

I didnt buy a ticket and it should have cost £4. I might offer them £4 for actual loss of earnings or I may not and let them take me to court and let them waste 5 grand!. Or better still, like somebody else has pointed out on this forum, I may write them a letter and ask them for all of my data protection information and then will hound Morrisons for all of the information as well.

Been so stressed over these letters, not anymore, time to fight back.:j:beer:

petal1

smithy2121 wrote: »

Haha most of you on here thought I was Parking Eye 6 months ago! So glad I went with it.......

Yep, sometimes you just have to ignore the party line and stand up and be counted.

The real winner in this case was common sense, a rare enough event in itself.

Coupon-mad

HO87 wrote: »

I now publicly abase myself for having initially doubted Smithy's bona fides - along with a few others too (you know who you are!). As befits, I have privately apologised to him.

I publicly apologise for doubting Smithy as well. He and that Hussain chap were the first/only attempts known at Court by Parking Eye - I hope the other guy appeals. It sounds like he may have either left the Court in disgust or protested too much (maybe he was faced with 4 solicitors like Smithy and went a bit mad if the judge was being swayed by them!).

The difference being that Smithy coped brilliantly and this judge was not an idiot.

Trebor16

In light of this case, and knowing that county court does not set a legal precedent, should we now be considering whether or not to advise people who have received invoices from PPC's where they have not paid a charge to park to make an offer to the PPC to pay the cost of the parking?

RobinHood2011

That is what I am going to do, I am offering £4 and if they dont accept it, they can take me to court and they can lose.