We'd like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum... Read More »
IMPORTANT: Please make sure your posts do not contain any personally identifiable information (both your own and that of others). When uploading images, please take care that you have redacted all personal information including number plates, reference numbers and QR codes (which may reveal vehicle information when scanned).
We're aware that some users are experiencing technical issues which the team are working to resolve. See the Community Noticeboard for more info. Thank you for your patience.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
ParkingEye DEFEATED in Court AGAIN
Options
bargepole
Posts: 3,236 Forumite
In the: High Wycombe County Court
Before: District Judge Jones
Claim No.: 3QT58735
Claimant: ParkingEye Ltd – represented by Mr Matthews of LPC Law
Defendant: Mrs Victoria Gardam – represented by myself
Date: 14 November 2013
The defendant was being pursued as the registered keeper. Another driver had parked the car at EuroGarages / Starbucks, Bath Road, Heathrow, on 11/10/2012 and stayed for 1h 48m when the signage said 1h 30m maximum. All correspondence had been ignored , up until when the claim was issued.
We went into a side room for the hearing, established who everyone was, and DJ Jones started by saying that the first point she wished to address was the issue of the breach of planning regulations. The planning permission for the site states “a maximum of two hours”, and she felt that PE were not in breach of that by reducing it to 1.5. If it had said a minimum of two hours, they would have been.
She asked why the Defendant had not responded to any of the Claimant’s letters, or appealed to POPLA. I explained that based on the prevailing advice at that time, the best course of action was to ignore, as PPCs hardly ever took anyone to court. That advice has now changed. She mentioned that her own son had a private ticket, which he was planning to ignore, and she had advised him to pay. I said don’t do either of those, get a POPLA appeal code and check the forums for how to win – I snuck in the fact that PE always lose when the appeal puts them to show genuine pre-estimate of loss. She thanked me for that information!
Next, we moved on to the question of whether the charge could be considered a penalty, or at least not a genuine pre-estimate of loss. Mr Matthews pointed to PE’s “commercial justification” arguments in their witness statement, which I countered by saying these were High Court cases between parties of equal standing, and therefore not applicable. The Judge said she wasn’t too sure about that, the law was the law and applied to individuals as well as rich corporations.
She also looked at their quote from Combined Parking Solutions v Dorrington, saying that she wasn’t familiar with the case, but it looked as if the claim had been brought on a different basis. I explained to her that CPS base their charges on agreed contractual terms, rather than breach of contract, so that case didn’t help the claimant at all.
It then moved on to the BPA Code of Practice (19.5) which says that charges must be a genuine pre-estimate of loss, and if it’s more than £100, operators must be able to justify the charge in advance. She interpreted this as meaning that the DfT had indirectly approved the figure of £100, so a detailed breakdown of loss would not be necessary.
It wasn’t looking too hopeful at this point, but then I referred her to the recent PE v Sharma case at Brentford, and handed her a copy of the Judgment. She knew DJ Jenkins personally (he is the secretary of the Judges’ Association), and said that his ruling looked persuasive.
Mr Matthews chipped in with a copy of the landowner contract with EuroGarages, which the Judge scrutinised thoroughly, but said that there was no explicit granting of rights by the landowner to the agent, and therefore she concurred with Jenkins’ view that PE had no standing to bring the claim in their own name.
She announced that, because of this, the Claim stood dismissed. I asked for defendant’s costs, which she said would be capped at £90. Mr Matthews objected, saying that had the defendant used POPLA, she could have avoided a hearing. I countered that by saying that the Claimant would have been aware of the decision in the Brentford case relating to the same site, and could have discontinued the claim because of that.
Claim dismissed. Costs of £90 awarded to Defendant.
Bosh!
Before: District Judge Jones
Claim No.: 3QT58735
Claimant: ParkingEye Ltd – represented by Mr Matthews of LPC Law
Defendant: Mrs Victoria Gardam – represented by myself
Date: 14 November 2013
The defendant was being pursued as the registered keeper. Another driver had parked the car at EuroGarages / Starbucks, Bath Road, Heathrow, on 11/10/2012 and stayed for 1h 48m when the signage said 1h 30m maximum. All correspondence had been ignored , up until when the claim was issued.
We went into a side room for the hearing, established who everyone was, and DJ Jones started by saying that the first point she wished to address was the issue of the breach of planning regulations. The planning permission for the site states “a maximum of two hours”, and she felt that PE were not in breach of that by reducing it to 1.5. If it had said a minimum of two hours, they would have been.
She asked why the Defendant had not responded to any of the Claimant’s letters, or appealed to POPLA. I explained that based on the prevailing advice at that time, the best course of action was to ignore, as PPCs hardly ever took anyone to court. That advice has now changed. She mentioned that her own son had a private ticket, which he was planning to ignore, and she had advised him to pay. I said don’t do either of those, get a POPLA appeal code and check the forums for how to win – I snuck in the fact that PE always lose when the appeal puts them to show genuine pre-estimate of loss. She thanked me for that information!
Next, we moved on to the question of whether the charge could be considered a penalty, or at least not a genuine pre-estimate of loss. Mr Matthews pointed to PE’s “commercial justification” arguments in their witness statement, which I countered by saying these were High Court cases between parties of equal standing, and therefore not applicable. The Judge said she wasn’t too sure about that, the law was the law and applied to individuals as well as rich corporations.
She also looked at their quote from Combined Parking Solutions v Dorrington, saying that she wasn’t familiar with the case, but it looked as if the claim had been brought on a different basis. I explained to her that CPS base their charges on agreed contractual terms, rather than breach of contract, so that case didn’t help the claimant at all.
It then moved on to the BPA Code of Practice (19.5) which says that charges must be a genuine pre-estimate of loss, and if it’s more than £100, operators must be able to justify the charge in advance. She interpreted this as meaning that the DfT had indirectly approved the figure of £100, so a detailed breakdown of loss would not be necessary.
It wasn’t looking too hopeful at this point, but then I referred her to the recent PE v Sharma case at Brentford, and handed her a copy of the Judgment. She knew DJ Jenkins personally (he is the secretary of the Judges’ Association), and said that his ruling looked persuasive.
Mr Matthews chipped in with a copy of the landowner contract with EuroGarages, which the Judge scrutinised thoroughly, but said that there was no explicit granting of rights by the landowner to the agent, and therefore she concurred with Jenkins’ view that PE had no standing to bring the claim in their own name.
She announced that, because of this, the Claim stood dismissed. I asked for defendant’s costs, which she said would be capped at £90. Mr Matthews objected, saying that had the defendant used POPLA, she could have avoided a hearing. I countered that by saying that the Claimant would have been aware of the decision in the Brentford case relating to the same site, and could have discontinued the claim because of that.
Claim dismissed. Costs of £90 awarded to Defendant.
Bosh!
I have been providing assistance, including Lay Representation at Court hearings (current score: won 57, lost 14), to defendants in parking cases for over 5 years. I have an LLB (Hons) degree, and have a Graduate Diploma in Civil Litigation from CILEx. However, any advice given on these forums by me is NOT formal legal advice, and I accept no liability for its accuracy.
0
Comments
-
Great news and congratulations :T0
-
Terrific work Bargepole. Congratulations on another epic win against PE.
Look forward to seeing your cases appear on their News page very soon
Please note, we are not a legal advice forum. I personally don't get involved in critiquing court case Defences/Witness Statements, so unable to help on that front. Please don't ask. .
I provide only my personal opinion, it is not a legal opinion, it is simply a personal one. I am not a lawyer.
Give a man a fish, and you feed him for a day; show him how to catch fish, and you feed him for a lifetime.Private Parking Firms - Killing the High Street0 -
Great result but I think she misread/misunderstood the planning terms. Parking was for a maximum of 2 hours wheras PE had reduced it to a maximum of 1.5 hours. PE did not allow you to park for the 2 hours maximum.I'd rather be an Optimist and be proved wrong than a Pessimist and be proved right.0
-
Always good when the Judge's son has a ticket!One important thing to remember is that when you get to the end of this sentence, you'll realise it's just my sig.0
-
Well done again!
Surely PE news is due an update!0 -
BARGEPOLE YOU ARE A STAR AND INSPIRATATION TO EVERYONE RECEIVING COURT PAPERS!
I'VE LOST TRACK OF THE NUMBER OF CASES YOU'VE ASSISTED AND HELPED TO DEFEAT AT COURT - CAN YOU PROVIDE AN UP-TO-DATE NUMBER PLEASE?
Great result but I think she misread/misunderstood the planning terms. Parking was for a maximum of 2 hours wheras PE had reduced it to a maximum of 1.5 hours. PE did not allow you to park for the 2 hours maximum.
Yes - It's a pity the Judge overlooked the implications regarding this.
Surely PE news is due an update!
- Yes especially as the recent court defeats have all had forum assistance!
0 -
Well done Bargepole, an absolute rock for these defendants and for others who can cite your successes!PRIVATE 'PCN'? DON'T PAY BUT DON'T IGNORE IT (except N.Ireland).
CLICK at the top or bottom of any page where it says:
Home»Motoring»Parking Tickets Fines & Parking - read the NEWBIES THREAD0 -
The planning permission for the site states “a maximum of two hours”, and she felt that PE were not in breach of that by reducing it to 1.5. If it had said a minimum of two hours, they would have been.
Who's ever heard of enforcing a MINIMUM parking time? :eek:
"Yes, You can park here. But if you try to leave before 2 hours have expired, God Help You!" :rotfl:0 -
Methinks a complaint to the appropriate council about them changing the planning consent.I'd rather be an Optimist and be proved wrong than a Pessimist and be proved right.0
-
Already been done by the previous defendant, Ms Sharma. Council have acknowledged and say they are investigating.peter_the_piper wrote: »Methinks a complaint to the appropriate council about them changing the planning consent.
I have been providing assistance, including Lay Representation at Court hearings (current score: won 57, lost 14), to defendants in parking cases for over 5 years. I have an LLB (Hons) degree, and have a Graduate Diploma in Civil Litigation from CILEx. However, any advice given on these forums by me is NOT formal legal advice, and I accept no liability for its accuracy.0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 350.7K Banking & Borrowing
- 253K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 453.4K Spending & Discounts
- 243.7K Work, Benefits & Business
- 598.5K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 176.8K Life & Family
- 256.9K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.1K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.6K Read-Only Boards