rachel has been very busy at parking eye

trisontana

Especially if some of those clients have a "don't take any of our customers to court clause" in the contract as per the Somerfield case. That's probably why PE are reluctant to disclose the contracts.

kirkbyinfurnesslad_2

trisontana wrote: »

Especially if some of those clients have a "don't take any of our customers to court clause" in the contract as per the Somerfield case. That's probably why PE are reluctant to disclose the contracts.

It might be worth trying to find something like this out if at all possible

trisontana

But without that disclosure of the contract, how are you going to find out?

Kite2010

If you ask to see the contract as part of your defence.

Kite2010

Umkomaas wrote: »

It would be great to see the likes of Aldi or Morrisons being required by the defendant to appear alongside PE in a court case. After all PE is acting as their agent, and therefore the landowner must be fully acquainted with the case and in full and total agreement with their agent in taking one of their customers through the court system.

Would make wonderful press

Judge - Sorry I'm not dealing with you, I need to deal this with the landowner not a 3rd party, bring me someone from Morrisons, failure to do so will result in quite large damages being paid out.

Dave_TH

I am helping several people on Pepipoo with PE, going off the court paperwork codes I suspect they issued in excess of 700 claims at Northampton on the 28th May, I suspect a % will fold a % will ignore and the wise ones will ask for help, after all it wont cost them a penny more.

nigelbb

trisontana wrote: »

Especially if some of those clients have a "don't take any of our customers to court clause" in the contract as per the Somerfield case. That's probably why PE are reluctant to disclose the contracts.

Is it likely that PE are taking people to court where there is a "don't take any of our customers to court" clause in their contract with the landowner? Such action would mean PE breaching that contract. The assumption must be that PE are empowered to take to court all those that they are taking to court. I haven't seen any pattern to those people that PE is currently threatening with court other than that they are all 'ignorers' e.g. they aren't all customers of one retailer. The alternative is that they are not going to actually take these people to court but are just issuing court papers as the final threatogram. I imagine that the courts would take a pretty poor view of such abuse of the process by instigating a court case that they have no intention of ever proceeding with.

taxiphil

nigelbb wrote: »

I haven't seen any pattern to those people that PE is currently threatening with court other than that they are all 'ignorers'

Is there definitely no geographic pattern to where the defendants live, thus minimising PE's travelling distances for future court attendances?

Or is there even a pattern where the defendants live in the catchment area of a particular judge who is known to take a particular stance that PE find favourable?

(I know the above sounds like a conspiracy theory but my opinion of the county court system is very low; judges have enormous scope for arbitrary and biased reasoning. There is one "rotten apple" well known to the legal profession where I live who has a leaning towards the large corporation and against the "little man", and even asserts his right wing political views in his judgments).

If there isn't any pattern and the defendants are scattered randomly across the UK, then it lends more weight to the theory that PE can't be intent on fighting every contested case in court.

Kite2010

They must have come into some money in trying to make the small claims court collapse under the pressure of so many dodgy claims.

dacouch

There's me thinking keeper liability was brought in to relieve stress on the court system. PE have increased their actual court cases by many many thousand percent or if you asked the BPA to calculate the increase would be many billion percent