Parking Eye lose 2 more Court Cases & 1 adjournement

spacey2012

If they get the lot kicked out and lets be honest, they are building court cases in sand here, they dont even own the land, so what consideration can they offer in a contract ?
Well if they do, it will go in the journal to all district and circuit judges in the country.
It had to happen.

Looks like they may have pushed things a little too far.
Every reaction has a counter reaction.

I am ordering popcorn.

Stroma

Yep I think the wheel is going to fall off in a big way for parking eye, and they deserve it for their actions! Can I just say if it does happen can it be pointed out in defences for other parking companies claims, that PE has been named vexatious litigant's for exactly the same thing as this claim?

Could it be that the largest parking company has put the nail in the coffins of the whole parking industry ?

Browntoa

got the feeling no unless the other parties are raising as many spurious cases

just says the PE are wasting the courts time , not about the legal merit of the cases

but I suppose that having a big chunk of cases ALL thrown out in one hearing could be an interesting point

trisontana

I bet the smaller PPCs wish that PE had stuck to their old technique of just sending out threatening letters which enough people believed and paid up, while the "ignorers" were quietly forgotten about.That still bought in a steady "income" for them. But no, they had to get greedy and start issuing hundreds of court papers with the result that the whole thing has resulted in bad publicity for them and the shops they work for, plus getting on the wrong side of the courts.

spacey2012

The only similar case of this is Wilson VS Leeds council which the circuit judge ordered cases to be disclosed and ruled vexatious litigant which bars them from using the lower court.
The Plaintiff was issuing dozens of small claims a week.

They can not get out of this by dropping them neither, they might have just overcooked the turkey here.

The_Deep

It stands to reason that if you issue 1,000+ claims a month someone is likely to notice and look at the nature of those claims.

If they find that an ex clamper is demanding £100 for a short overstay in a free car park, and that people with temporary disabilities are being targeted, they are going to question their legitimacy.

As my old grandmother used to say, you never know how far you can go until you go too far.

trisontana

I think poor Ms. Ledson is now way over her head in this matter. I bet she thought "let's issue hundreds of court papers. People will be so scared they will just cave in and pay without it getting to court". Of course she got this badly wrong, many cases are going to court and judges are getting fed up of the whole thing.

It's a perverse use of the Small Claims Court. It was designed so that the "small man" could take on large companies and organisations without going to too much expense. Not for a large company to repeatedly bully the "small man".

Redx

on the PP blog now http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/

The_Deep

Would it not be better if these claims were dealt with on paper only?

The judge would soon be weary of reading through 100 pages from PE and perhaps look more sympathetically at mitigation.

The whole point of the small claims track is to enable the little man to fight huge companies without spending a fortune on solicitors, but it is being highjacked by greedy PPCs in order to bully motorists over alleged minor breaches of iffy contracts.

The_Slithy_Tove

If PE think that it's too risk going to a single court session with all those cases, with consequences as mooted here, it's more likely they will simply withdraw all those cases. The risk of a negative ruling from a DJ, even if it's only at county court level, or being tagged as vexatious litigants, is too high.


Mind you, that would make them pretty well unable to raise any cases in the Eastern counties, and word will get around ...