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
2

Comments

  • Me thinks bargepoles name is well known in the offices of the ppc fraternity
    Proud to be a member of the Anti Enforcement Hobbyist Gang.:D:T
  • bargepole
    bargepole Posts: 3,236 Forumite
    Part of the Furniture 1,000 Posts Name Dropper Combo Breaker

    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.

    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.
  • spacey2012
    spacey2012 Posts: 5,836 Forumite
    Tenth Anniversary 1,000 Posts Combo Breaker
    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
    Be happy...;)
  • esmerobbo
    esmerobbo Posts: 4,979 Forumite
    Part of the Furniture 1,000 Posts
    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
    dannny_2 Posts: 169 Forumite
    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
    nigelbb Posts: 3,818 Forumite
    Part of the Furniture 1,000 Posts Name Dropper
    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
    peter_the_piper Posts: 30,269 Forumite
    Part of the Furniture 10,000 Posts Name Dropper
    edited 14 November 2013 at 7:52PM
    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.
    I'd rather be an Optimist and be proved wrong than a Pessimist and be proved right.
  • bondy_lad
    bondy_lad Posts: 1,001 Forumite
    Part of the Furniture Combo Breaker
    bargepole,,,arise sir knight.
  • Coupon-mad
    Coupon-mad Posts: 151,174 Forumite
    Part of the Furniture 10,000 Posts Name Dropper Photogenic
    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.
    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 THREAD
  • hoohoo
    hoohoo Posts: 1,717 Forumite
    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:
    Dedicated to driving up standards in parking
This discussion has been closed.
Meet your Ambassadors

🚀 Getting Started

Hi new member!

Our Getting Started Guide will help you get the most out of the Forum

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

Is this how you want to be seen?

We see you are using a default avatar. It takes only a few seconds to pick a picture.