Parking Eye v Somerfield Judgment

taffy056

BASFORDLAD wrote: »

Have you got the email address for Steve hopkins/mike butler at the dvla. ?

Here they are

Mike.Butler @ dvla.gsi.gov.uk
Steve.hopkins @ dvla.gsi.gov.uk

bargepole

I've also emailed Peter Marks, CEO of the Co-op Group (who own Somerfields) to point out that this is the sort of mess you land in when you get into bed with PPCs.

I've suggested that, in view of this painful and expensive experience, they review all current PPC contracts with a view to termination at the earliest possible opportunity.

bargepole

BASFORDLAD wrote: »

So would this judgement apply to other firms. Say excel doing parking for Asda say? So only Asda could sue?

Of course - this is in line with VCS v HMRC, where they ruled that only the landowner, or someone with a propietary interest such as a lease, can sue.

Coupon-mad

bargepole wrote: »

I've also emailed Peter Marks, CEO of the Co-op Group (who own Somerfields) to point out that this is the sort of mess you land in when you get into bed with PPCs.

I've suggested that, in view of this painful and expensive experience, they review all current PPC contracts with a view to termination at the earliest possible opportunity.

That's one expensive lesson learnt by Somerfield - one that the other PPC-using big retailers need to learn too...in addition to the growing painful expense of losing customers due to their parking scammers' actions.

Some very, very useful points made in that High Court appeal though...it's a binding decision. Shame PE made money out of it in the short term but it could come back to bite them in the long term!

esmerobbo

An interesting point made in the contract initially was that it was written that no court action would ever be taken. That the only action would be the recording of serial offenders.
I wonder how many more contracts given by supermarkets to PPC's contain such clauses? At a guess I would say they all do!

Expensive mistake by Somerfields, lets hope it leads to other supermarkets considering their relationship with PPC's

cgk1

"This semi-literate letter was false in a number of respects"

:rotfl:


Excellent work by all concerned.

The_Slithy_Tove

bargepole wrote: »

In a nutshell, yes.

The Judges ruled that Somerfields couldn't escape its contractual obligations to PE on the grounds of PE's illegal letters, because Somerfields were equally complicit in the scam.

They also noted that only Somerfields, not PE, could issue court claims for recovery of parking charges.

Is that the basic gist of it, then? I found trying to fathom it out a bit like joining a conversation half way through. Without knowing what the original case was being appealed, it was pretty hard to get any context around what was being discussed.

bargepole

The_Slithy_Tove wrote: »

Is that the basic gist of it, then? I found trying to fathom it out a bit like joining a conversation half way through. Without knowing what the original case was being appealed, it was pretty hard to get any context around what was being discussed.

It was a bit of a slog. Somerfields terminated the contract early, after PE had installed ANPR and other stuff at no charge.

The original case ruled that Somerfield had to pay PE £335,000 compensation for estimated lost revenue during the remaining contract period.

This appeal was on the basis that, due to PE's illegal acts in sending letters threatening court, bailiffs, etc., that voided the contract. The appeal Judges ruled that, since Somerfield had seen PE's letters, and could have insisted on changing them should they wished, Somerfield were equally to blame, therefore the contract stands.

peter_the_piper

So, the gist being that the contract between somerfield and ppc stands but the ppc cannot sue via county court except on behalf of somerfields to whom they have to pay any winnings. Is that right?

taffy056

But if that is their loss of revenue , how is it that they have such a sum to lose when they are supposed to be there to recover the per estimated losses of the landowner. If the contract is terminated so thereby their equipment can be removed and used elsewhere, how come they have made a loss ? Could it be that the revenue is solely made of contractual penalties ?