Another ParkingEye Court Defeat

bargepole

I don't have all the details from the OP yet, but a couple of days ago in Barrow-in-Furness County Court (case no. 3QT52338), Parking Eye's claim was dismissed by the Judge, and £104 costs awarded to the defendant.

I helped with the original defence statement, and Axeman on Pepipoo also got involved with it once the first hearing was adjourned.

Apparently there was an issue with the validity of the landowner contract.

Will post more details when I get them.

bod1467

bargepole wrote: »

Apparently there was an issue with the validity of the landowner contract.

You don't say!

:T

halibut2209

Hmm, didn't see that case on the Parking Eye website. Can't be real

seanavfc92

halibut2209 wrote: »

Hmm, didn't see that case on the Parking Eye website. Can't be real

Something fishy there...

(sorry, couldn't help it after seeing your username!)

hoohoo

So, £104 to defendant
Plus £15 court fee
£25 hearing fee
£300 LPC law fee

Looks like ParkingEye have got themselves a nice little way of tipping money down the drain.

PS. I'm not including Rachel's £50 solicitor fee because we all know that the number of £50s she claims equates to a yearly salary of well over £1 million, and had therefore no actual substance

4consumerrights

hoohoo wrote: »

So, £104 to defendant
Plus £15 court fee
£25 hearing fee
£300 LPC law fee

Looks like ParkingEye have got themselves a nice little way of tipping money down the drain.

PS. I'm not including Rachel's £50 solicitor fee because we all know that the number of £50s she claims equates to a yearly salary of well over £1 million, and had therefore no actual substance

You would think that a firm of solicitors as large as LPC Law would ensure that their client had the right to pursue a claim before actually commencing county court action wouldn't you?:rotfl::T

Umkomaas

4consumerrights wrote: »

You would think that a firm of solicitors as large as LPC Law would ensure that their client had the right to pursue a claim before actually commencing county court action wouldn't you?:rotfl::T

At £300 a pop I'm not sure they're particularly bothered.

I presume they 'trust' the professional instruction of their equally legally qualified client - the ever fragrant Rachel

bargepole

4consumerrights wrote: »

You would think that a firm of solicitors as large as LPC Law would ensure that their client had the right to pursue a claim before actually commencing county court action wouldn't you?:rotfl::T

What happens in practice is that the claim, and all the court bundles, are prepared in-house by PE, and LPC Law are only called in at the last minute if the hearing actually goes ahead - in other words, if the defendant hasn't been scared off by the blizzard of bo11ocks that PE send out to try to justify the unjustifiable.

At my hearing in Brentford, where the LPC Law guy thought he was representing Private Eye, he was reading the bundle and making notes in the waiting room while we were sitting around before the hearing started.

At the risk of repeating myself, anyone intending to defend one of these, must pay attention to the 7 Ps - it's an advantage you will have over the other side, make use of it. The defendant in this case clearly did.

Dave_TH

Main point was the contract sent to the defendant was dated Feb 2013 whilst the "offence" was October 2012, so a real own goal by PE (someone will get a kicking for this) in addition

the witness statement from Paul shrew Brook and it's attached letter of authority was not dated. If it is NOT dated then parking eye did not have authority to manage the car park cause it contravenes section 7.1 of the bras code of practice which clearly states that the parking company must have authority before any management of a car park can commence.

Again I suspect PE where trying to bluff the defendant, many other holes in the PE submission but the 2 above where tha main ones discussed.

PE solicitor by all accounts an inexperienced chap who was ripped apart by an experienced judge.

The success with costs was brilliant.

Computersaysno

:)I would doubt that LPC are getting £300 for 20 mins in court...but them again we are talking about law firms here!!:)

HO87

A win that also lays bare a cornerstone of PE's blizzard is just that bit sweeter too.

Dave_TH wrote: »

The witness statement from Paul shrew Brook and it's attached letter of authority was not dated. If it is NOT dated then parking eye did not have authority to manage the car park cause it contravenes section 7.1 of the bras code of practice which clearly states that the parking company must have authority before any management of a car park can commence.

On dear. Serious breach too, isn't that a 10-pointer? Unfortunately you won't find me holding my breath waiting for the BPA Ltd to do anything too serious. Not unless you consider that a lot of head-shaking, tut-tutting and finger-wagging is the equivalent of public castration with a rusty spoon, that is. Noooo way. You'll find me behind the sofa.

Why? Well, the Haywards Heath headshed certainly aren't going to bite the hand that has been feeding them richly and if they were to publicly discuss kicking PE in the goolies - what with the POPLA mess developing a substantial head of disgruntled pressure within PPC World - the whole edifice could go with something of a... bang. A la Monsieur Creosote...

"C'mon. Its just a tiny waafer thin mint... "