Why do we not see any threads about peoples actual court appearances?

Coupon-mad

If that is true and it was my daughter, I would be suing the retailer (if it was a retail park) for allowing an agent to rip customers off like this and actually put them through a court case, just for shopping! Pretty sure Aldi wouldn't welcome a publicised small claim case over it!

IMHO the principal could be argued as liable for the loss in a retail situation where the good old hidden term 'genuine customer exemption' would have got it cancelled:

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=80716&st=0 post #16

I really think we need to encourage anyone who is harassed by PE in a retail park or Supermarket car park in particular, to complain if it's pre-court or court case pending, and if they are dragged to court and lose, consider actually suing for damages for distress and losses caused by the misleading omission that was the get-out-of-jail-free card, but which was effectively withheld from the shopper, by the store & agent.

The genuine customer exemption should be on the signage, in store, at the CS desk and on the fake PCNs as well.

Fergie76

Umkomaas wrote: »

Is ths believable. I know Daisy is off for the weekend, but if she sees this on return, I wonder what her take on it might be?

I would appeal that, the judge can't just go ignoring existing contract law, just because it's a PPC.

alloha

Re: PE website claims

Is it safe to assume this is rather selective with the truth? I've picked up from threads that PE often don't show up, offer £50 to drop the case etc etc but do we know of any cases where they have actually turned up themselves and lost? For that matter, are any of these cases actually what PE claim them to be?

There is a PE vs. Smith case mentioned on some sites where they technically won but £15 plus travel costs I believe, I notice that one isn't on this list.

On the plus side, the fact that they feel the need to publish a list like that, call it 'fighting back against the forums' and in one case specifically mention a poster called Lynzer strongly suggests that behind the scenes they are getting stick for all these cases, are worried about the forums, and are particularly worried about Lynzer. Increasing desperation, or am I guilty of wishful thinking?

Umkomaas

alloha wrote: »

Re: PE website claims

Is it safe to assume this is rather selective with the truth? I've picked up from threads that PE often don't show up, offer £50 to drop the case etc etc but do we know of any cases where they have actually turned up themselves and lost? For that matter, are any of these cases actually what PE claim them to be?

I'm only aware of one reported instance of this - and I read all of the threads here and most on Pepipoo - do you have other examples?

alloha

Sorry that was perhaps misleading, I meant there have been threads (on pepipoo if I remember right) where there was talk about how they sent agency lawyers rather than turn up themselves. I'm pretty sure I remember some earlier cases from a previous time I had a PCH (pre-PoFA, a while ago - back when ignoring them worked) where the PPC didn't show up and it was reported at the time - but that might not have been PE anyway. Sorry to be misleading, but no I don't have any specific examples. The main point of my post was to ask how much truthfulness we should think there is in their webpage.

Umkomaas

alloha wrote: »

Sorry that was perhaps misleading, I meant there have been threads (on pepipoo if I remember right) where there was talk about how they sent agency lawyers rather than turn up themselves. I'm pretty sure I remember some earlier cases from a previous time I had a PCH (pre-PoFA, a while ago - back when ignoring them worked) where the PPC didn't show up and it was reported at the time - but that might not have been PE anyway. Sorry to be misleading, but no I don't have any specific examples. The main point of my post was to ask how much truthfulness we should think there is in their webpage.

Hard to know; the only one I recognise is the Kevin Shelley case (MingRider from Pepipoo).

The one that did raise specific doubts in my mind was that of the under 18-year old and contract law (see my earlier post above).

In the cases they quote they almost seem to have selected a case per point we raise in appeals, with various judges knocking each one of them back.

What a shabby industry!

alloha

Shabby indeed.

Are they breaking any rules by using court wins as a publicity tool like this? I can't think of any other situation or industry where a webpage like that would be allowed.

Umkomaas

alloha wrote: »

Shabby indeed.

Are they breaking any rules by using court wins as a publicity tool like this? I can't think of any other situation or industry where a webpage like that would be allowed.

Pass, I'm afraid.

But what it does highlight is the extortive, coercive and threat-based nature of the entire industry.

WiSC

bargepole wrote: »

One of my Parking Eye cases was in court today.

Defendant showed up at the appointed time, no appearance from PE or their solicitors.

Claim struck out by the Judge, defendant now applying for wasted costs order.

That's great news and thanks for sharing. It might also be useful to keep note of the locations of the "no-shows". Parking Eye might be selective in where they do and do not attend?

zzzLazyDaisy

Umkomaas wrote: »

Is ths believable. I know Daisy is off for the weekend, but if she sees this on return, I wonder what her take on it might be?

16/08/2013 3QT58403 Miss Haylor
Defendant ordered to pay £175 to ParkingEye Ltd
The defendant's defence contained arguments that the parking charge was unreasonable, that she could not see the signage because it was dark and that as she was under 18 years of age she could not be held to the contract. The Judge found firmly against the defendant on all grounds and in particular adjudged that the contract remained enforceable even with a minor.


Hi Umkomaas - I think I must be a jaded old cynic, because my first reaction is to say 'what do we know about this case'?

First I think PE are quite capable of charging people with the 'right' (for them) characteristics and then ensuring their fall guy/girl loses in court.

Other questions come to mind - did the defendant file a full defence/attend court/argue their case effectively? Bearing in mind that if a point is not argued, the court cannot take it into consideration when considering its decision and if a defendant simply fails to attend, then the Claimant will win by default. Has anyone actually seen a copy of the court judgement in this case?

Even if it was a properly argued case with a rogue decision (it does happen sometimes) what can be done about it?

The defendant can appeal on a point of law but must do so within 21 days (so probably out of time). There is a fee for lodging an appeal unless the defendant meets the criteria for fee exemption (I don't know the current fee but in 2011 it was £100). Unless things have changed since my day, an appeal from the SCC will be heard by a Circuit Judge in the same court - and there is another fee for progressing the case which I think is £400 (unless the defendant qualifies for exemption). But in any case, there is little point in going down that route unless the defendant can afford the costs of a solicitor to argue the points of law on which the appeal turns (or has representation that is funding externally). Also if the defendant loses at that stage, it is highly likely that s/he will be ordered to pay the PPC's costs of defending the appeal, which would likely run into £1000's. But what is more likely to happen is that the PPC would agree an out of court settlement with the defendant along the lines of 'I'll cancel the charge if you withdraw the appeal'. Which means that the original court decision stands. (Apologies for the vagueness about fees/procedure it is some time since I checked out these points, but I doubt costs have reduced or the procedure has changed much since then)

Just to answer a couple of other points - with some minor exceptions SCC cases are held in open court (it is unusual to have spectators but it can happen) and the decision in in the public domain - so yes a PPC can use decisions on their website, do a press release etc. Also it is worth stressing that they do NOT create precedents so the decision of one SCC cannot bind another, which means that no-one in the legal profession - except the parties concerned - are likely to get particularly worked up about these odd cases.

And just for the record, personally I am not comfortable with the 'under 18 contract point'. Minors CAN be held to have capacity to enter into contracts where the contract was for their benefit and is not harsh or detrimental and does not place undue responsibility on the minor which is likely to be why the judge made the express finding that the charge was not unreasonable (I can point to case law on the legal capacity point if anyone is interested).

My own view is that few judges are going to be falling over themselves to rule in the defendant's favour on that point (on the basis that if they are old enough to own/drive a car, they have already entered into some or all of the following contracts - purchase of the vehicle / insurance / fuel / loan agreement / servicing maintenance of the vehicle etc... so they are are old enough to enter into a contract to park it. In fact just running that that argument could turn the sympathy of the court against the defendant (SCC judges sit alone, and they are human). Personally I would rather see a motorist run a properly argued case on the issues of law that matter, than depending on their age giving them a 'get out of jail free' card. This of course is just my view, and others may hold different views. (Also please be aware that laws in Scotland about minors are different from the laws in England/Wales).

D