Parking Eye v Somerfield Judgment

bazster

devonlad wrote: »

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.

Information Commissioner's Office. These are the people who should be prosecuting DVLA and the PPCs for breaching the Data Protection Act.

sarahg1969

Chorley's had its fair share of excitement over the last few days, hasn't it?

http://www.lep.co.uk/news/business/firm-wins-big-payout-in-court-fight-with-store-1-5037957

HardWorker2010_2

sarahg1969 wrote: »

Chorley's had its fair share of excitement over the last few days, hasn't it?

http://www.lep.co.uk/news/business/firm-wins-big-payout-in-court-fight-with-store-1-5037957

I see there are a few comments already.

trisontana

This has just appeared on the CAG forum:-

In 2009 we received a letter from parking eye's solicitors complaining of defamatory posts and required us to remove them.

In view of this judgement we will be restoring those posts in the next few days.

parking eye complained about being accused of being dishonest and of using correspondence which falsely represented them selves as official in some way.

We now see that Parking Eye was abusing the laws of defamation to suppress legitimate comment about their activities.

I should say that quite a few websites and blogs received similar letters - including, for example, MSE.
We all removed content.

What goes around, comes around.

BASFORDLAD

I shall look forward to reading those

scousedicko

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.

Don't suppose you could put his email on here could you, please? The "lady" who handles car park queries at Co-op doesn't seem to reply in writing and seems not to pass emails on.

bargepole

scousedicko wrote: »

Don't suppose you could put his email on here could you, please? The "lady" who handles car park queries at Co-op doesn't seem to reply in writing and seems not to pass emails on.

Sure - he's on peter<dot>marks<at>co-operative<dot>coop

esmerobbo

trisontana wrote: »

This has just appeared on the CAG forum:-

In 2009 we received a letter from parking eye's solicitors complaining of defamatory posts and required us to remove them.

In view of this judgement we will be restoring those posts in the next few days.

parking eye complained about being accused of being dishonest and of using correspondence which falsely represented them selves as official in some way.

We now see that Parking Eye was abusing the laws of defamation to suppress legitimate comment about their activities.

I should say that quite a few websites and blogs received similar letters - including, for example, MSE.
We all removed content.

What goes around, comes around.

I remember it well they threatened a geezers blog provider that they would sue if they did not remove his blog entries.
He simply moved his blog to an American site and put pointers to it everywhere he could.
I remember at the time we were saying, talk about shooting yourself in the foot, it did PE more harm then good!

trisontana

esmerobbo wrote: »

I remember it well they threatened a geezers blog provider that they would sue if they did not remove his blog entries.
He simply moved his blog to an American site and put pointers to it everywhere he could.
I remember at the time we were saying, talk about shooting yourself in the foot, it did PE more harm then good!

This is it:-

Don’t pay “Parking Charges”

http://www.moshblog.me.uk/2010/10/03/dont-pay-parking-charges/


And:-
http://shellithinks.blogspot.co.uk/2010/10/dont-pay-parking-charges.html

mo786uk

mikey72 wrote: »

If it was a court of appeal, and the judge has stated

"The basic charge was £75, reduced to £37.50 if paid within 14 days of the "Penalty Ticket," i.e. the first letter. This amount the Judge held not to be a penalty and thus enforceable as against the motorist. If payment was not made within a specified time the charge increased to £135 which the Judge held was probably a penalty and thus unenforceable."

hasn't he set the "estimated loss" for future cases as not just the £1 in the pay and display machine?

It will no doubt be used by parking companies as there is a big difference between a few quid for overstaying in a car park and paying £37.50

It really needs to be regulated and limited.