PE -v- Clarke: Judge hits the nail on the head

Umkomaas

From Parking Prankster's blog, here is a link to the transcript from this recent case involving The Range and their Agents.

From my reading of the judgment this is the nearest a Judge has got to hitting the nail smack on the head since Judge McIlwaine.

http://nebula.wsimg.com/71a4eb1b5de25e5c60b4d5cacfed6b40?AccessKeyId=4CB8F2392A09CF228A46&disposition=0&alloworigin=1

trisontana

Parking Eye's whole operation is shown up for the lie that it is.

"They are pursuing a claim for their own profit as apposed to quantifying a breach or loss"

esmerobbo

A real down to earth summing up by the Judge, and as you say smack on the head of the nail!

Redx

that is one of the best letters I have seen on this whole shebang, superb summing up and proves that PE have no case when it comes to any others, so it would certainly mean PE were out of order with the lainieee case too (which we all obviously know was a travesty of justice as well) , never mind her aldi-pe case that aldi dropped and not PE

quite a landmark case if any more come to court I would think !!

perhaps those stayed in the south east will become VERY INTERESTING when that circuit judge has his views known !!

trisontana

It's a sort of "Emperor's Clothes" moment where somebody has finally woken up and stated the bleedin obvious.

The_Deep

Total common sense, one in the eye fo0r Parking pillocks.

4consumerrights

Thanks U - I had trouble unzipping those court judgments the other day - kept getting error messages.

I see also that "the actual contract has not been disclosed between Parking Eye, the claimaints and the landowners because they claim its provisions are commercially sensitive" and that they tried to get away with a defunct witness statement yet again.

"commercially sensitve":rotfl:Don't make me laugh - more like their terms and conditions reveal EXACTLY that they have no right to bring about claims in their own name - shame that these clauses are now public knowledge.:cool:

superbuilder

This is indeed very good news and gives me a lot of hope in my case against them! I had some very good coverage on itv west tonight too. I think the business models of these unscrupulous modern day highwayman are finally doomed.

Redx

4consumerrights wrote: »

Thanks U - I had trouble unzipping those court judgments the other day - kept getting error messages.

I see also that "the actual contract has not been disclosed between Parking Eye, the claimaints and the landowners because they claim its provisions are commercially sensitive" and that they tried to get away with a defunct witness statement yet again.

"commercially sensitve":rotfl:Don't make me laugh - more like their terms and conditions reveal EXACTLY that they have no right to bring about claims in their own name - shame that these clauses are now public knowledge.:cool:

rename them by adding dot pdf on the end of the filename, then open in adobe reader (free)

Umkomaas

"commercially sensitve"Don't make me laugh

Or do they mean 'legally disastrous'?

Coupon-mad

I have used the 'bizarre...nonsense' quote and a bit more, in two POPLA appeals already this evening! I like that transcript!