Parking Eye v. The World.

kirkbyinfurnesslad_2

It has everything to do with the judge....

Orrin

Forensic wrote: »

It is obvious from my posts that I am not a legal expert but I know that when dealing with legal issues, you have to watch your p's and q's and this is an oversight that will surely make it impossible for Parking Eye to defend any form of "damages to client" standpoint - it has nothing to do with the judge.

You are mistaken if you think that because PE describe their charge as a "fine" (in whatever language) the Judge will have to conclude that it is an unenforceable penalty.

If you want an example take a look at the original Somerfield case where PE's signs called the charge a "penalty" and their internal documents referred to it as a "fine". Neither of which persuaded the Judge that the charge was an unlawful penalty.

Things may well turn out very different in your case, but this "fine" issue isn't the slam dunk you seem to think it is.

Computersaysno

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.

I would disagree [and no I'm not a PPC plant].

The point of the civil court system is to settle disputes between parties.

It is [largely] the ultimate arbiter in cases of disagreement, and so if issuing a claim results in a case being disposed off then that's hardly 'an abuse of the system'. People are perfectly free to defend their case, in the same way that people are free to issue papers in the first place.

If someone settles instead of defending an entirely sound position, then that's entirely their [erroneous] decision.

As a defendant the small claims process is relatively straightforward, with very little downside; especially given the help available on here and on pepi.

trisontana

Computersaysno wrote: »

As a defendant the small claims process is relatively straightforward, with very little downside; especially given the help available on here and on pepi.

Regarding the above. PE are now pulling another stunt. They are saying that if a motorist seeks help from parking forums then they will increase the amount of money they are claiming. This from PePipoo:-

Just to keep you all up to date and thanks for your help thus far, PE have sent a letter today saying they are proceeding and asking for a hearing date. They are keen to point out that my use of Internet forums for court defences has been noted by the wording used, and that this coupled with my non appeal or communication may open me to further costs for "unreasonable behaviour" (I didn't appreciate getting help or not talking to your adversary was unreasonable!)

Umkomaas

trisontana wrote: »

Regarding the above. PE are now pulling another stunt. They are saying that if a motorist seeks help from parking forums then they will increase the amount of money they are claiming. This from PePipoo:-

Just to keep you all up to date and thanks for your help thus far, PE have sent a letter today saying they are proceeding and asking for a hearing date. They are keen to point out that my use of Internet forums for court defences has been noted by the wording used, and that this coupled with my non appeal or communication may open me to further costs for "unreasonable behaviour" (I didn't appreciate getting help or not talking to your adversary was unreasonable!)

PE being the arbiters of 'unreasonable behaviour'. Well, well, well :rotfl:

Orrin

trisontana wrote: »

Regarding the above. PE are now pulling another stunt. They are saying that if a motorist seeks help from parking forums then they will increase the amount of money they are claiming. This from PePipoo:-

Just to keep you all up to date and thanks for your help thus far, PE have sent a letter today saying they are proceeding and asking for a hearing date. They are keen to point out that my use of Internet forums for court defences has been noted by the wording used, and that this coupled with my non appeal or communication may open me to further costs for "unreasonable behaviour" (I didn't appreciate getting help or not talking to your adversary was unreasonable!)

Here's an interesting article on small claims costs with several examples of what can be considered "unreasonable behaviour":

http://www.hardwicke.co.uk/insights/articles/commercial-law-avoiding-the-pyrrhic-victory-costs-under-the-small-claims-track

Glass houses and stones comes to mind.

Computersaysno

Cheers orrin

I would suggest that this excerpt [from reasons for awarding of costs] might prove very expensive for the PPCs....

Pursuing a claim or defence with no real prospect of success

This head potentially had the most wide ranging implications as it suggests that a party will be entitled to costs on the small claims track if he would have succeeded in a summary judgement application (applications for summary judgement are not excluded from small claims but are very rarely used). In Spearing v Jackson
19 it was held that persisting with an action which the Claimant must have know had little prospect of success amounted to unreasonable conduct.

zzzLazyDaisy

Computersaysno wrote: »

This head potentially had the most wide ranging implications as it suggests that a party will be entitled to costs on the small claims track if he would have succeeded in a summary judgement application (applications for summary judgement are not excluded from small claims but are very rarely used). In Spearing v Jackson
19 it was held that persisting with an action which the Claimant must have know had little prospect of success amounted to unreasonable conduct.

The time when summary judgment is most used in the small claims court is when a defendant ignores the court papers and fails to file a defence - I bet PE is making good use of this procedure!

Other than that, I doubt that the courts will award costs against a PPC in a straightforward claim, even if they lose, as the results of these claims vary from one court to another, depending on how well the defence is pleaded and how well the defendant presents their case at the hearing. So the PPC cannot really be said to be acting unreasonably in pursuing these cases, especially if they cherry pick the weak defences and so establish a history of winning.

However, if they do not adhere to the practice direction on pre-action conduct (and they don't - have a look at their pathetically defective LBAs) AND provided the defendant pushes that point in the proceedings and at the hearing (if it gets that far and my bet is that they won't want their cavalier attitude to court procedure being paraded before the judge) THEN there is at least a chance of getting them sanctioned under the para 4 of the practice direction - which can include having the proceedings stayed (ie put on hold) and having costs awarded against them.

I agree with the poster above about abuse of procedure. The PE is not using the court process as a means of settling disputes, but as a cheap 'debt collector' and and addition to their arsenal of intimidatory tactics. A lot of people will pay up when they get the court claim, others will ignore and get a CCJ - so that will more than cover the cost of using the court procedure as a cash-converter. But courts are busy and they will soon get fed up of having to deal with lots of PE cases that come to nothing - judges will be looking for ways to get these things off their desks and encourage ADR / settlement out of court, so an early application for a stay in proceedings to allow the parties to follow the Pre-action conduct procedure because the claimant failed to do this before starting proceedings as it is required to do may well be met with a positive response by the court.

Computersaysno

I was thinking more along the lines of ....PPC knows it doesn't have the right to pursue in court, so upon winning the defendant could get costs awarded AGAINST the PPC on the basis that "the Claimant must have know had little prospect of success" [amounting to unreasonable conduct.]

Just a notion...

zzzLazyDaisy

Computersaysno wrote: »

I was thinking more along the lines of ....PPC knows it doesn't have the right to pursue in court, so upon winning the defendant could get costs awarded AGAINST the PPC on the basis that "the Claimant must have know had little prospect of success" [amounting to unreasonable conduct.]

Just a notion...

Ah! Sorry, I misunderstood! Yes I agree totally - if the PPC cannot (or will not) produce evidence that they have legal standing to issue court proceedings if challenged by the defendant to do so, then they must know they have little prospect of success and the winning defendant should seek an order for costs against them (though the defendant will have little in the way of costs, being self represented, so I guess the PPC isn't too worried about it breaking the bank). I think there is a case about charging for time in these circumstances, I'll have a look....

EDIT there is a bit about costs here:

http://www.judiciary.gov.uk/JCO%2FDocuments%2FCJC%2FPublications%2FOther+papers%2FSmall+Claims+Guide+for+web+FINAL.pdf

Note: Where the losing party has behaved unreasonably in the small claims court, the winning party can seek an award for costs under CPR rule 27.14(2)(g) (over-riding the normal 'no costs' rule)