Parking Eye v. The World.

Umkomaas

The voice of experience and reason. Perhaps this thread should be nudged into the long grass - nice try, but likely to be counter-productive, I suspect.

Better fronts to fight on!

Kite2010

Parking Spy are just hoping that most people will pay up rather than risk it in court.

A abuse of the courts system.

Forensic

Kite2010 wrote: »

Parking Spy are just hoping that most people will pay up rather than risk it in court.

A abuse of the courts system.

Well I hope for my own sake that you're right. Luckily I have found one or two cases where a judge has ruled in favour of the victim and dismissed the operator's demand as an "unlawful penalty". I don't know why they don't all do it but that is to be my royal flush come the day. I'm neither going to negotiate with PE nor am I about to give them the satisfaction of caving in. I'm just uneasy with the fact that this thread cites two examples of a PE victory and the two I found where they lost still involved some remittance being awarded to them. I am my own enemy for having binned everything they sent me but I may be able to retrieve the odd bits and pieces.

But as I said before, read their Albanian signage, it says gjobë and that means "fine", just copy it into google and hit "translate" and you'll see.

Ka përfunduar me një gjobë prej 300 mije lekësh - resulted in a fine of 300,000 lek (Albanian currency)

Though this statement is not from PE publication, I can't imagine any judge letting them off the hook with that. Far too late and expensive for them to reverse this blemish now, they'll have to dismiss their translator who got the wrong end of the stick!

bargepole

Forensic wrote: »

... Though this statement is not from PE publication, I can't imagine any judge letting them off the hook with that. Far too late and expensive for them to reverse this blemish now, they'll have to dismiss their translator who got the wrong end of the stick!

So you're going to try to convince a Judge that PE's charges are unlawful penalties, based on a third party's translation of the Albanian version of their signage?

Good luck with that!

Forensic

bargepole wrote: »

So you're going to try to convince a Judge that PE's charges are unlawful penalties, based on a third party's translation of the Albanian version of their signage?

Good luck with that!

No. I am going to prove unequivocally that PE's charges are unlawful penalties after they themselves fail to analyse their sum to show how it reflects losses - and especially how it squares with their publication that it is a "charge for non-compliance with terms and conditions" which you know as well as me defines the word they dare not use better than the dictionary. I shall also provide evidence of their two-fee settlement structure offering one price in the guise of a "discount" should remittance be forwarded prior to a self-designated deadline, this followed by a sharp arbitrary increase once past that date. Parking companies and their sympathisers including POPLA stop short of using "fine" and "penalty" for obvious reasons, so to suck out that word in their official documentation in another language will incontrovertibly expose their denial of penal action as being false, particularly in light of what a host of judges have said at previous hearings when the issue has been raised, either by the defendant in advance or by the judge himself without the defendant having broached the subject as part of his defence.

In other words, I am not going to allow the judge to award the sum to PE without making it public knowledge that he is deeming an arbitrary penalty from a private enterprise lawful. Proving the penal side of their behaviour coupled with their denial of such conduct is not the difficult part... I fear that with so many cases popping up that courts themselves may now be party to a protection racket in which case it would probably make precious little difference how much technicality you bombard them with regarding the operator's breach of conduct. So either the judge does his job properly or he doesn't. Now you see why I feel nervous.

kirkbyinfurnesslad_2

Forensic you sound like you want to be the Perry mason of the county court.

I fear you don't know the reality

Forensic

Why do you think I am posting on here? Just to show off? I have been waiting for someone to at least explain the beginning the reality to me but so far nobody has done so. Incidentally this includes Pepipoo where my plea for advice fell on deaf ears and drowned in the quicksand of new threads.

James_N

Forensic wrote: »

Why do you think I am posting on here? Just to show off? I have been waiting for someone to at least explain the beginning the reality to me but so far nobody has done so. Incidentally this includes Pepipoo where my plea for advice fell on deaf ears and drowned in the quicksand of new threads.

Hi - I don't think you are foolish, but as the other posters said it's complex.

The reality is this:
1. Although "we" think the charges that private companies are unreasonable, unjustified, illegal (take your pick) most people don't know this: they pay.
2.If people don't pay and it passes though POPLA then many get worried and pay up at that point. They don't know that a small claims court is not going to result in huge expenses claims and CCJs, even if it goes against them.
3 If it goes to court then many people have insufficient knowledge or ability to challenge the company on grounds like incorrect letters before action, etc, or build a robust defence.
4. If it goes to court then it's not going to end up in a court of record. So any decision is "local" can be swayed by individual behaviours and details: specific points of law could be overlooked or interpreted perversely.
5. If the company loses at this stage, they won't appeal. An appeal would possibly lose and then possibly create case law in a court of record, e.g. that companies had to prove losses.
6. If a person loses at this stage, then they won't appeal. Appeals are time consuming and could be costly.

Forensic

James, many thanks for all that useful information. Your points inspire confidence and I must apologise for the sinister tone of my posts, it is all because I am working hard in preparation for an actual hearing. That means that as I am representing myself, I am looking into as many cases as possible in the hope of building the strongest case conceivable.

Apart from that, yes you are right in everything and especially the matter of cases being local and above all, extremely low profile. I mean I cited the Dunlop vs New Garage 1914 instance on the last post which you may personally know to be a famous example of a civil case and yet to mention it to the next person you meet (eg. girl working in local shop, your postman), they won't have a clue. These things aren't on the tip of Joe Public's tongue. But as I said, because I am in the process of building my own case whilst revealing as little as possible concerning the location and date, I might be a little hysterical from time to time! It is not a reflection on my real personality!

Umkomaas

Forensic - I think it best to keep cards close to your chest as PPCs do keep tabs on what's happening here and can/do single out those who openly exude confidence in their own ability to beat them at court. It's Russian (or even Albanian) Roulette at county court, as Ming Rider will testify (Pepipoo) - he promised something 'nuclear' that would see him triumph over PE.

PE produced copies of his Pepipoo postings to the judge. Unfortunately it turned against MR and now PE are (metaphorically) parading his head on a staff in their current LBCs and similar papers.

Keep it close to you, don't openly give any PPC any ammo to fire at you. Then if you win, you have a head to parade.

Good luck.