ParkingEye DEFEATED in Court today

salmosalaris

spacey2012 wrote: »

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.

I agree that the threat is necessary . But let's face it if that is all it is without any substance most will pay up anyway .

spacey2012

salmosalaris wrote: »

I agree that the threat is necessary . But let's face it if that is all it is without any substance most will pay up anyway .

You could not pull this scam in any other country than England, they are authority complexed, can you imagine the French taking any notice of a fake parking ticket, they dont pay real ones.

I would follow this victory up with the usual planning permission pulls, cameras, timings on applications and request the council review the rates .
Stick the fork in, they started it.

salmosalaris

spacey2012 wrote: »

You could not pull this scam in any other country than England, they are authority complexed, can you imagine the French taking any notice of a fake parking ticket, they dont pay real ones.

I would follow this victory up with the usual planning permission pulls, cameras, timings on applications and request the council review the rates .
Stick the fork in, they started it.

As a nation we are conditioned to accept and fear what we perceive as authority , whether it actually is or not

spacey2012

What you should also do is if you have these documents the solicitor attempted to insert at court, I would make a complaint to the SRA about attempting to pervert the proceedings by serving falsely dated documents in the court waiting area they intended to rely on in court.
Why should they get away with it.
Sharp practice by any means and anyone that gets involved with these and pulls such stunts deserves at the very least to have a complaint on file.

bondy_lad

bargepole,,please ,take a bow. well done.dont suppose you managed to video it???

bargepole

bondy_lad wrote: »

bargepole,,please ,take a bow. well done.dont suppose you managed to video it???

As I'm not currently locked in the cells awaiting trial, no I didn't!!

Coupon-mad

Just bumping this back to the top so people can see it in the morning in case they missed it!

kirkbyinfurnesslad_2

esmerobbo wrote: »

Well done on your hard and helpful work Bargepole.

Oh how we need just one of these to get to a high court!

Cant see them adding this case to their Parking Eye News page!

Maybe you should email and ask them:)

Lynnzer

The Judge absolutely hammered home the nail.
PoFA is a 2 edged sword. It gives a PPC certain rights but also affords a degree of protection to the individual.

In this case, maybe without stating it or even knowing of it, the judge just dismissed the case on the basis of no relevant contract.

Also I think this is a great time to get Trading Standards involved, as well as a complaint to the BPA since PE obviously don't have authority to take the action they did.

Mr Lada was unfortunate as it was going to happen to someone, sooner or later. Bet he wished he'd stayed in bed.

For ParkingEye, maybe next time they'll go for a Jaguar or Bentley.

Custard_Pie

Guys_Dad wrote: »

Wet blanket time.

Guess I am not going to be popular here, but I think this is a rogue decision and before we all get drunk on this success - which I am very happy for - I wouldn't bet on a repeat any time soon, except in this judge's court.

Even the sainted Judge McIlwaine didn't take this view and throw out the PPC without hearing the casel.

I wouldn't want to see any thread starter being given false hope or advice from this one decision.

Agree to a degree, but it's the latest case and therefore can be quoted as a legal precedent. My understanding is that it is now case law, until a similar case comes up that quashes the statement with a point of legal fact. Perhaps Daisy can confirm either way.