ParkingEye Lose THREE Court Cases In One Day!

bargepole

Our team of helpers over on Pepipoo has been beavering away, and yesterday (Friday 06/12) three PE cases were heard in court, with defences supplied by the team.

Case #1: 3JD00565 at Colchester County Court (ParkingEye v Rogers)

The defendant produced photographs, showing that there was no signage at the entrance to the car park, and others were obscured. PE had produced their own photos, showing a full set of signage, which the LPC Law rep tried to argue had been taken at around the same time. However, in the background of PE’s photos were images of people in shorts, and shop signs saying “Summer Sale”. As the event occurred last November, this seemed highly unlikely. The Judge dismissed the claim on the basis of no signage = no contract.

Cases #2 & #3: 3QT62681 and 3QT62156 at Southampton County Court (ParkingEye v Lemon, and PE v Harris)

The Judge decided to hear two cases simultaneously, from the same car park, and with identical facts. This had been adjourned from a previous hearing, to allow PE to produce their landowner contract.

In the first defendant’s own words: “We won! The solicitor for ParkingEye produced a contract which was dated Feb 2013 (our parking overstay was Oct. 2012) and the judge was not amused that it hadn't been included in either his or our bundles. He also refused the claim because the wording of the sign was ambiguous.

Sue was awarded costs of £90 (the maximum allowed) for loss of earnings. I was unable to claim for anything as I'm retired and didn't have any travelling costs.

Very many thanks for all your help and advice. If I can ever do anything to help, I'll be only too pleased. I have been absolutely disgusted with what I have discovered about ParkingEye Ltd.

We will be contacting our local paper and I will probably write to the Daily Mail and The Telegraph.

I'm also going to contact Trading Standards and the DVLA about the fact that PE have taken money wrongly (is illegally too strong a word?) for over a year in The Range car park here.”

The good thing about all these, is that the Defendants were sufficiently well briefed, and confident enough to conduct their own defences against the LPC Law advocates. A bad day at the office for Rachel, I think.

esmerobbo

Good work by all concerned.

Shows the problem with the scattergun issuing of claims poor Rachel has been party to!

What did they used to write on my school work, oh thats it concentrate, double check, and try harder!

HO87

The relatively basic errors in PE's case in each of these instances could be seen as having the smack of desperation about them were it not for the fact that they have had over a year to put the facts together. In that event it can hardly be described as desperation. More like cynicism.

And a very well done to those defendants who were prepared to stand up to what amounts to legalised bullying.

peter_the_piper

"""PE had produced their own photos, showing a full set of signage, which the LPC Law rep tried to argue had been taken at around the same time. However, in the background of PE’s photos were images of people in shorts, and shop signs saying “Summer Sale”. As the event occurred last November, this seemed highly unlikely."""

Is there no such law as perjury in county court? This was a downright lie and was done with intent.

fisherjim

This is just deserts for these lying, scamming, scumbags.
No doubt they will include these court cases on their website and correspondence!

Stroma

Excellent work, just shows that parking eye deliberately set signs to maximise profits, most people don't even know they are entering into a so called managed car park!

Zero_Gravitas

A thought - in the same way that PE send out huge lists of cases they have won when trying to intimidate people into paying, should there now be a "sticky" (similar to the POPLA decisions thread" that lists all the cases that PE have lost, and a quick summary of the reason why?


I know it's not a precedent, but it might be useful to have to (a) quote back to PE at some point, or (b) have a part of a small claims defence, should that prove necessary?


Best Regards,


ZG.

Half_way

Congratulations, a good result.
Are these car parks owned and operated by parking eye - or are parking eye the agents for someone else?
If they ( parking eye) are acting for someone else its about time that whoever employed them are held to account for the actions of their agents.

nigelbb

Half_way wrote: »

Congratulations, a good result.
Are these car parks owned and operated by parking eye - or are parking eye the agents for someone else?
If they ( parking eye) are acting for someone else its about time that whoever employed them are held to account for the actions of their agents.

Parking Eye do not own any car parks it is not their business model at all to have money tied up like that. They merely act as agents of the occupiers of the land.

Well done all involved on these three cases but while nice they are just examples of where PE mucked up the case with either lies or incompetence. Better examples are those that go to the heart of their business e.g. ParkingEye vs Sharma before District Judge Jenkins (3QT62646) where the case was thrown out on the basis that PE do not have sufficient interest in the land to bring a case (see above).

Coupon-mad

Zero_Gravitas wrote: »

A thought - in the same way that PE send out huge lists of cases they have won when trying to intimidate people into paying, should there now be a "sticky" (similar to the POPLA decisions thread" that lists all the cases that PE have lost, and a quick summary of the reason why?

I know it's not a precedent, but it might be useful to have to (a) quote back to PE at some point, or (b) have a part of a small claims defence, should that prove necessary?

Best Regards,
ZG.

At the moment I am keeping a 'running total' of wins against any PPC, with names/case numbers & details, in the 'WELCOME' sticky thread under 'PPC court cases (non exhaustive)'. There's a limit to how many stickies a forum can have I believe.

I will add these successes to the WELCOME thread link shortly. Great news!

4consumerrights

Surely it's time that Parking Eye updated their news page on their website - to show all these forum assisted wins now from this thread and others!

THANKS BARGEPOLE -GREAT NEWS - ANOTHER LOSS FOR PARKING EYE.