ParkingEye: Another loss - Bristol

bargepole

Bristol County Court
Deputy District Judge Melville-Shreeve
Friday 24/01/2014
3JD06533 ParkingEye v Collins-Daniel

In the defendant's own words:

"Just to update you, I had my court case in Bristol with Parking Eye on Friday last week and won. The judge felt it could not be proved there was a contract between myself and parking eye and also pulled apart the signage which parking eye call the contract. The judge felt the signs were unclear and had many mistakes and could not be called on to act as a contract. He also got me lost earnings and travel expenses from parking eye. Thanks for your help with the cases. I'm not sure if I'll be able to get a transcript of my hearing - if you think this would be helpful for others let me know and I will try."

Oh dear. Looks like PE's "we win 90% of cases" on their website is becoming further from the truth every week.

SevenTowers

Just to add, this was another case supported by the forum regulars, although the defendant seems to have done a pretty good job herself. Hoping to have more details in the next few days.

4consumerrights

Well done again to all - wish I'd gone to hear the case!

Was their landowner contract heavily redacted as well or a dodgy witness statement produced?


Parking Eye - how many black eyes now is this?

Carry on like this and soon it will be losing at least 90% of court cases!

kirkbyinfurnesslad_2

Anyone would think some parking firms lied on their website

4consumerrights

kirkbyinfurnesslad wrote: »

Anyone would think some parking firms lied on their website

Do not believe everything you read on websites!

Watchdog once did a programme showing how easy it was to claim all sorts of things on a made up website to do with property rentals and claims of satisfaction.

One parking company even has a customer satisfaction statement with the same name surname as their company director - very original.

esmerobbo

I think they may be starting to regret their scatter gun approach. However I would guess those that cave in before a hearing are still making it worthwhile for them.

esmerobbo

4consumerrights wrote: »

Do not believe everything you read on websites!

Indeed, local job centre website advertised for staff, offered numerous people positions, charged them £65 for a CRB check, company didn't exist!

http://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/news/liverpool-news/suspected-conman-advertised-job-government-6636536

Umkomaas

esmerobbo wrote: »

I think they may be starting to regret their scatter gun approach. However I would guess those that cave in before a hearing are still making it worthwhile for them.

Agree on the 'folders', but the increasing head of steam regarding their actual court losses will get more and more wide publicity and have a larger negative strategic effect across the PPC network.

I bet the small fry PPCs are cursing the whole PE court escapade.

esmerobbo

Umkomaas wrote: »

Agree on the 'folders', but the increasing head of steam regarding their actual court losses will get more and more wide publicity and have a larger negative strategic effect across the PPC network.

I bet the small fry PPCs are cursing the whole PE court escapade.

I agree, their few early wins have been negated by defeats and the word spreading amongst the judiciary.

I wonder how Crapita are viewing this?

ledsons_teeth

Indeed, the ppc model has been a cash cow for a few years and it seems the likes of Haswell and Porkins, who were the bogeymen of the forums when I joined, have shown themselves smarter than Miss Ledson. They knew well enough not to rattle too many cages. PE pushed to the limit but you can't send out over a thousand court papers a month without following some through. It has to be said again. A huge congratulations to the brains here and Pepipoo who took them on and turned the tide.

stluke023

Anyway to get the court transcripts? or any one in pocession of?