wrong registration

kirkbyinfurnesslad_2

spacey2012 wrote: »

I really do think some of the members here have really lost it now.

Not at all . Just being realistic and honest.

paul.d_4

It went to the small claims court-their solicitor was poor-judge asked what loss they had suffered as they accepted I'd paid-she waffled about costs of maintaining car park but judge ruled in my favour Result !:j

trisontana

That's very good news and good to get a judges opinion about their so-called "losses". You say PE's solicitor was poor. They always are, because they hire them on the day, they are newly qualified and poorly briefed. In fact one guy though he was representing Private Eye.

Parking-Prankster

Hi Paul,


Congratulations and this is a huge result because this is the first time a judge has bothered to look closely at the question of costs.


ParkingEye have been quoting that even though they have lost cases, they have never lost on the issue of costs.


Your case is therefore game changing, so double congratulations.


If you feel like writing a report, I'd love to blog about it.


Please email me at [EMAIL="prankster@parking-prankster.com"]prankster@parking-prankster.com[/EMAIL]

bargepole

trisontana wrote: »

That's very good news and good to get a judges opinion about their so-called "losses". You say PE's solicitor was poor. They always are, because they hire them on the day, they are newly qualified and poorly briefed. In fact one guy though he was representing Private Eye.

In many cases, they are not solicitors at all, they are Advocates with rights of audience in small claims.

Paul D - can you give us more details, such as which Court, claim number and Judge's name?

kirkbyinfurnesslad_2

Really well done on your win, am glad I was proved wrong:)

Guys_Dad

I look back at my post #4 and unreservedly hold my hands up and say my guess as to what the court would say was 100% wrong - and I am so glad that it was.

Well done and I am equally glad that you got that judge.

Which court was it heard in and which Judge so that other members can go there !!!!!!!!!!!!

nigelbb

This was a little different to the normal PE overstay in a free car park case as the OP had very clearly paid for the parking.

There are P&D car parks where the ticket machines work with the ANPR system so that it is not possible for the motorist to enter the wrong registration. If PE had implemented such a system at this car park then there could never have been a claim. However not having such a system allows them to maximise their profits by tricking & catching out unwary motorists.

Coupon-mad

paul.d wrote: »

It went to the small claims court-their solicitor was poor-judge asked what loss they had suffered as they accepted I'd paid-she waffled about costs of maintaining car park but judge ruled in my favour Result !:j

Very well done - and a great example to show others who wish to call PE's bluff over that £50 offer! Your court case is in the public domain already of course so I will add it soon to the PPC court cases link here which is overflowing with cases won against PE now:

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showpost.php?p=62971894&postcount=65

It would be good to read about your experience, and the decision, here and/or in the Prankster's blog. Did you try mediation and did the solicitor try to convince you that you'd lose, outside of the court room? Do you have a witness statement, signed by whom (Prankster is collecting them)?

Stroma

Well done to you, the devil is in the detail, can you provide some more, if you wish email it prankster, he will blog about it and you will be immortalised, and will give encouragement to others in your position