ParkingEye DEFEATED in Court AGAIN

kirkbyinfurnesslad_2

Me thinks bargepoles name is well known in the offices of the ppc fraternity

bargepole

4consumerrights wrote: »

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?

These are all recent cases where I helped the defendant, and had a successful outcome:

3QT55160 Excel v Stanyard at Sheffield CC – No show by claimant, claim struck out
3QT58105 ParkingEye v Daly at Swansea CC – No show by claimant, claim struck out
3JD00684 Parking Eye v Magee at Edmonton CC – Discontinued by claimant 2 days before hearing
3YK50188 Civil Enforcement v McCafferty at Watford CC – Claim dismissed
3QT52338 Parking Eye v Walkden at Barrow-in-Furness CC – Claim dismissed
3QT62646 Parking Eye v Sharma at Brentford CC – Claim dismissed
3QT60598 Parking Eye v Gardam at High Wycombe CC – Claim dismissed

There were a number of other defendants to whom I supplied defence statements, but who decided they couldn’t , or didn’t want to, attend a court hearing, so settled out of court. There is also one of my “clients” mentioned on the PE news page (3QT61574 Parking Eye v Hudson) where he lost his case, and admitted afterwards that he didn’t do enough research to be able to understand the defence arguments properly. He thought the Judge would just read the papers and throw it out, but it doesn’t work like that.

spacey2012

So parking eye down.
£90 = £470+ VAT for the solicitor (quoted rates) .

Keep it up you will soon be bust and everyone you lose shows more and more people that you are just full of SH_T

esmerobbo

spacey2012 wrote: »

So parking eye down.
£90 = £470+ VAT for the solicitor (quoted rates) .

On their "NEWS" page their biggest win was £350 most £200 others less, a fine example how not to run a business.

Unfortunately the capitulators are probably making it worthwhile!

A little worrying that the Judge was thinking the £100 was somehow sanctioned by the OFT.

dannny_2

peter_the_piper wrote: »

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.

That could read you can park there for a maximum of 2 hours, but we could state you may only park for 10 minutes.

If there was a minimum time of 2 hours, we couldn't state you can only park for 10 minutes.

nigelbb

peter_the_piper wrote: »

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.

The judge's interpretation is entirely logical. The planning permission allowed for a maximum of 2 hours parking not a minimum. The intent of demanding a maximum time was probably more to do with ensuring that there was a turnover of spaces in the car park than allowing a particular time for individual shoppers.

peter_the_piper

Ignore the minimum its a red herring. IMHO the council intended that you could be allowed to park there for a maximum of 2 hours. The judge interpreted it as being any time that PE want up to a max of 2 hours. Totally different to what the council meant but did not make totally clear, lets face it they had probably not met anyone as devious as PE.

bondy_lad

bargepole,,,arise sir knight.

Coupon-mad

Added this famous win here which is in the 'WELCOME' sticky:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/62971894#Comment_62971894

...wonder how soon PE will update their news section?! Two decisions on the same lines is persuasive - especially when the first one was by the secretary of the Judges' Association who will be known by other Judges...

Has anyone got the case number and court for the last win re PE's fundamentally flawed lack of evidence about their ANPR system (PE v Fox-Jones)? Could do with being able to cite that one too in POPLA appeals and defences.

hoohoo

Coupon-mad wrote: »

Added this famous win here which is in the 'WELCOME' sticky:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/62971894#Comment_62971894

...wonder how soon PE will update their news section?! Two decisions on the same lines is persuasive - especially when the first one was by the secretary of the Judges' Association who will be known by other Judges...

Has anyone got the case number and court for the last win re PE's fundamentally flawed lack of evidence about their ANPR system (PE v Fox-Jones)? Could do with being able to cite that one too in POPLA appeals and defences.

I'm pretty sure if you phone up PE or ask enforcement@parkingeye.co.uk they will tell you.

:rotfl::rotfl::rotfl: