Parking Eye v. The World.

Forensic

kirkbyinfurnesslad wrote: »

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

This quote contradicts mine so I'll take it you disagree with my point. I'll explain what I meant by "nothing to do with the judge". If a defendant uncovers evidence that the claimant is acting unlawfully, I meant to say it us up to the claimant to defend himself, it is not the job of the judge to defend that party.

Guys_Dad

Forensic wrote: »

This quote contradicts mine so I'll take it you disagree with my point. I'll explain what I meant by "nothing to do with the judge". If a defendant uncovers evidence that the claimant is acting unlawfully, I meant to say it us up to the claimant to defend himself, it is not the job of the judge to defend that party.

As this was a repeat of the previous post, maybe you meant it to be in Albanian, so, courtesy of Google Translate

Ky citat kundërshton mitë kështu që unë do të marrë atë që ju nuk pajtoheni me pikën time. Unë do të shpjegojë atë që unë nënkuptohet me "asgjë të bëjë me të gjyqtarit". Nëse një i pandehur zbulon prova se kërkuesi është duke vepruar në mënyrë të paligjshme, kam për qëllim të them se na paraqitësit të kërkesës për të mbrojtur veten e tij, kjo nuk është puna e gjykatësit për të mbrojtur atë parti.


Hope that helps. ;)

Forensic

Orrin wrote: »

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.

Much has come on since 2005. More recent cases where issue of penalty has been raised and question marks over the famous 'reduced sum if paid within two weeks' malarkey have stood have seen the judges rule the cases more realistically. In the end of the day, a claimant can argue until he is blue in the face, the only way he can possibly satisfy the DJ that the figure is for damages is to produce an analysis of his demand to explain what pays for what. By claiming it is for "breach of contract" and was "agreed by the motorist", this rules out any "damages" testimony and subsequently calls for a closer inspection of Contract Law: whether the demand is a fee to allow the person to do what he did or whether it is a threat to deter (ie. penal); whether the demand places the claimant in the financial situation he would have been in had the breach not occurred, or whether it makes him richer (ie. has he penalised). So I accept there is a lot to it.

However, regardless of whether PE are reading this or have managed to pinpoint which of their targets I am, it hardly matters because it is much too late for them regarding what I am saying. They have already given indications that their demand is in relation to "damages flowing from the contravention" and the little evidence I have left which I didn't destroy proves precisely that. So, over the them...!!

Forensic

nigelbb wrote: »

I agree the Albanian defence is ludicrous. It would carry more weight if it were Welsh but a bad translation in some random non-EU foreign language is no defence at all.

Nigel, you make a very good point - I don't argue with it at all.

But just one thing, what for one minute makes you think it was a "bad translation" and not a deliberate attempt to mislead? You know very well that their purpose is exactly to have people probably unlikely to query British Contract Law believe it to be a mandatory "fine". You and all posers here know the truth which is that PPCs do nothing but penalise.

Here is what we don't know:
we don't know if the translator works for Parking Eye or was he hired. We don't know if he is responsible for choosing his words or whether he simply translated what was written for him.

Now what you and everyone else posting here is doing is thinking along very short term lines:
All right. Give them the benefit of the doubt, let's call it a bad translation. What you need to realise is that what is mentioned in court is transcribed and then made public knowledge. Now, during the Somerfield scandal and right up to around 2009, they were all using "penalty" and "fine" but today, hardly anybody does. Look at the signage in so many private car parks and you see "agrees to pay a parking charge notice of" with the word 'parking' cut from a separate panel and then welded onto the board precisely to cover up the original word 'penalty'. There is a reason for this.

Now provided they get away with it this time but do not invest in a clean-up operation and someone else is taken to court in say, two years from now - how then will they be able to cover up what is on record to have been known to them for two whole years? And if they can get away with it, they might just as well use the word "fine" on every publication.

kirkbyinfurnesslad_2

I think the words wild goose chase come to mind

dggar

zzzLazyDaisy wrote: »

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)

Am I correct in believing that the definition of "behaved unreasonably" is a notoroiusly grey area?

Here is another link that may help:-
http://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/procedure-rules/civil/rules/part27

zzzLazyDaisy

dggar wrote: »

Am I correct in believing that the definition of "behaved unreasonably" is a notoroiusly grey area?

Yes. But it's that sort of thing that make the law profitable for lawyers

Forensic

Guys_Dad wrote: »

As this was a repeat of the previous post, maybe you meant it to be in Albanian, so, courtesy of Google Translate

Ky citat kundërshton mitë kështu që unë do të marrë atë që ju nuk pajtoheni me pikën time. Unë do të shpjegojë atë që unë nënkuptohet me "asgjë të bëjë me të gjyqtarit". Nëse një i pandehur zbulon prova se kërkuesi është duke vepruar në mënyrë të paligjshme, kam për qëllim të them se na paraqitësit të kërkesës për të mbrojtur veten e tij, kjo nuk është puna e gjykatësit për të mbrojtur atë parti.


Hope that helps. ;)

My computer was playing up - not helped by the blemishes caused by the third rate mechanical aspects of the site!