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

HO87

A couple of quote:

trisontana wrote: »

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

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

trisontana wrote: »

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

[my emphasis]
Exactly!!

At long last someone of note has stated that which has been obvious to those who have been involved in this for any length of time.

I have long agreed with the way a PPP regular (bam) has described this - as the "switcheroo". And the problem is - like even a halfway decent stage magician - the vast majority in the audience, unless the are watching like hawks, completely miss it - and they were expecting it! For those who do not normally conduct their lives expecting someone to hoodwink them at every remove this is a killer. It even works on MP's and civil servants.

It matters not a jot how good or otherwise the magicians are, or how well prepared the audience is, it all boils down to the fact that the whole PPC business model is founded on an illusion and it always has been. Based on this judgment you might as well describe it as a variation on "Chase the Lady", or "The Three-card Trick". The only significant difference is the fact that instead of being played on an upturned suitcase it is being played in car parks. At least with the cheap, street-corner "games" the players supplied their own card tables because now they've even managed to get their marks to supply their own playing surfaces at no cost - and no risk to themselves.

bargepole

I'm quietly pleased to have played a small part in this, having helped Mr Clarke with his defence submissions, and some advice pre hearing.

"Judge Spots Very Large Elephant In Room" might be a better title for this thread.

Anyone defending a claim from PE should now reference this case, and include a copy of that Judgment in their bundle.

daveyjp

If the PE contract is available online is there anything stopping you putting a copy in your bundle and bringing to the judges attention the clauses they don't want him to see?

Parking-Prankster

daveyjp wrote: »

If the PE contract is available online is there anything stopping you putting a copy in your bundle and bringing to the judges attention the clauses they don't want him to see?

That's the whole point. Please do, as Bargepole says, put this in your bundle and reference it in your defence.


If your court case is in the next 14 days and you have missed the filing deadline....file it anyway. ParkingEye do! I have lost count of the number of times ParkingEye try and file things after the deadline and the judges let them get away with it. I have also lost count of the number of times ParkingEye have bitterly complained after a defendant filed after the deadline. It seems like they don't think the rules apply to them, but they do to everyone else.

bargepole

daveyjp wrote: »

If the PE contract is available online is there anything stopping you putting a copy in your bundle and bringing to the judges attention the clauses they don't want him to see?

Nothing to stop you doing that, but it could be a double-edged sword.

Some Judges might skim through it, and say that there seems to be a contract authorising PE to act on behalf of the landowner, so that's OK.

Far better to attack their Witness Statement on behalf of the landowner, which doesn't meet any of the requirements for a court witness statement, and in many cases has a signature photocopied from another document.

Then, if the PE solicitor produces a redacted copy of the contract, you can object to it on the grounds that it wasn't served as part of the claimant's bundle. If the Judge allows it in, then you can produce the unredacted copy from your back pocket and point out the clauses which torpedo the contract.

salmosalaris

Let PE unleash their blizzard which is all smoke and mirrors .
Don't try and outdo them in a paper war which a Judge probably won't bother to read .
Keep to short succinct points of defence with relevant transcripts referenced to each point . We are building up a useful set now .