ParkingEye DEFEATED in Court today

Stroma

Don't be daft it's not a rogue decision at all, the same as almost any other decision by a district judge, it's based on the interpretation of the law as they see it. All it proves is the absolute lottery of the court system at this level.

This is just a win for the motorists, wins for the parking companies is again a lottery, and I seem to remember one a few weeks ago where the defence basically got a similar kind of decision against them, where the judge was dismissive and appeared to have made his mind up before anyone was sat before him.

fil_cad

Poor parking eye my heart bleeds for them the scamming scumbags mr Bargepole, top man. :beer:

Guys_Dad

Stroma wrote: »

Don't be daft it's not a rogue decision at all, the same as almost any other decision by a district judge,

The specific point that I was describing as "rogue", and sorry if it was not clear, was the point that a PPC who did not own the land was not entitled to pursue charges and it had to be the landowner.

I was cautioning against relying on that point. Of course the outcome was welcome. And it is interesting that Bargepole takes the same view.

I stand by my opinion that it was a very abnormal viewpoint that the judge took.

salmosalaris

Guys_Dad wrote: »

The specific point that I was describing as "rogue", and sorry if it was not clear, was the point that a PPC who did not own the land was not entitled to pursue charges and it had to be the landowner.

I was cautioning against relying on that point. Of course the outcome was welcome. And it is interesting that Bargepole takes the same view.

I stand by my opinion that it was a very abnormal viewpoint that the judge took.

The way PE set themselves up as an agent , how can they sue for their losses on a contract between a motorist and their Principal , the landowner ?
IMO the judge is spot on and PE know it , it's why they produce their blizzard and Fairlie rubbish

Stroma

I don't think its abnormal, and with respects to bargepole on this, this happens up and down the country by various judges daily probably. That the point of law is not followed and they basically gets busted.

And you could say that any win for the parking company is abnormal, as their loss is not what they are claiming. It's how the judge sees it in their view of things, this case is just a lottery win and that is it. There is a 50/50 chance of winning at this level

Guys_Dad

salmosalaris wrote: »

The way PE set themselves up as an agent , how can they sue for their losses on a contract between a motorist and their Principal , the landowner ?
IMO the judge is spot on and PE know it , it's why they produce their blizzard and Fairlie rubbish

If you are correct - and let's forget all the other hundreds of cases that don't share this view, then there is one simple question.

Without monumental changes in their funding models, how can the Private Parking industry possible exist? They could never win another case.

spacey2012

I would say, it was a case where the Judge knew the law, how it applied and applied it.
The trouble starts when you get a judge that does not know the law very well.
You can not go round making contracts on land you do not own and pursuing court cases, that has been written in to our law for centuries.
so rather than thinking this was a rouge judge, it was in fact the opposite and might also be a good court to pick for a day out with parking eye.
I can not see them been in a hurry to test him again.
A victory for the law and hats off to the judge for reminding them what it is.

hoohoo

Guys_Dad wrote: »

If you are correct - and let's forget all the other hundreds of cases that don't share this view, then there is one simple question.

Without monumental changes in their funding models, how can the Private Parking industry possible exist? They could never win another case.

They of course chose to set up in business with these funding models. If it turns out their research was incorrect, then I'm sure ParkingEye will be crying all the way to the bank, waving their £57m cheque at Capita and laughing heartily.

salmosalaris

Guys_Dad wrote: »

If you are correct - and let's forget all the other hundreds of cases that don't share this view, then there is one simple question.

Without monumental changes in their funding models, how can the Private Parking industry possible exist? They could never win another case.

That has already been answered , small claims is a lottery and the finer points are often lost or not brought up .
The parking industry has never had to rely on court decisions to be profitable and probably will never need to

spacey2012

It does rely on them for threats.
Many defences make light of foundation evidence and go for points that are now covered by POFA, some even quote BPA trade rules as law, no judge is going to entertain that.
The whole case is built upon the fact they believe they have the right to pursue you for an illicit penalty on behalf of someone else.
A court solicitor defending would go straight for this, make no mistake, they are taught to undermine foundation evidence from the second the traps open.What has been shown here is a return to the basics can defeat them.
It is no good turning up arguing about contract points and signs unless you try to pull the case down at it's foundations first.

The proof of the pudding is in the one Parking eye are eating spoon by spoon at the moment.