Parking Eye v Somerfield Judgment

bargepole

BASFORDLAD wrote: »

Have VCs got permission to go to the court of appeal then?

They have made an application. We haven't heard yet whether permission has been granted.

JagDriver

Hmmm,

PE say that 3000 of 6000 'tickets' get paid. How many of these went to the 'illegal letter' stage (not mentioned in court I'd bet)?
And is the £350,00 made up of £150 'tickets'.

Wonder if Somerfield could prove a loss of business during PE's Residence and how much that would be.

bargepole

JagDriver wrote: »

Hmmm,

PE say that 3000 of 6000 'tickets' get paid. How many of these went to the 'illegal letter' stage (not mentioned in court I'd bet)?
.

It was:

ParkingEye duly installed its system at 17 Somerfield stores, though not all went live at once. During the period of its operation, 5,928 charges were made and first letters were issued. There were 2593 second, 1024 third and 299 fourth letters. Only 2994 charges were actually paid. Only 127 people paid either £75 or £135, i.e. 4% of those who received a first letter. Most (87.6%) of those who received the false third letter did not pay. But although the proportion of third letter or fourth letter payers was only 4%, ParkingEye obtained £11,145, 9% of its revenue, from them because of the enhanced rates involved.

AlexisV

Yes, Somerfield have been caught with their pants down here. By colluding with a company that exists to penalise Somerfield's own customers, they themselves have been shafted.

Whether they actively colluded with PE with their threatograms and falsehoods, or were simply naive and fell for the parking management scam spiel is not clear. Probably a bit of both.

There is a big opportunity for the victims to claim their money back here though.

devonlad

I salute you guys you are all awesome . You are doing what trading standards are not doing.. massive praise to you.

bazster

devonlad wrote: »

I salute you guys you are all awesome . You are doing what trading standards are doing.. massive praise to you.

You mean doing what trading standards should be doing.

Trading Standards, the ICO, the DVLA and so on are all letting the public down big-time on this scam.

ManxRed

Wonder if Andy Clarke at ASDA could be bothered reading about this? We know he doesn't pay much attention to the other emails he gets sent, but theres a salient message in here for other major stores who employ these scammers, one that they've ignored completely up to now.

devonlad

bazster wrote: »

You mean doing what trading standards should be doing.

Trading Standards, the ICO, the DVLA and so on are all letting the public down big-time on this scam.

As a learner what is ico .

Yes meant you are doing the work that the other agencies should be doing. Not allowing honest folk to be ripped of.

esmerobbo

mikey72 wrote: »

Does it still set a precedent on the actual allowable penalty being more than the losses?

Only if they could prove a contract was made, (which is what they all hope) I assume that is what the judge was referring too!
The argument was not about the actual charge, if they ruled that parking charges were unenforceable then the likes of NCP would be flubbered.

devonlad

Do you know if there are any excel in the south west I had a quick Google look couldn't see any. I also apologies as only smart phone no computer so it's all predictive tectonic