New transcript available. ParkingEye v Collins-Daniel

tykesi

Makes great reading and just keeps getting better the further on you read.

Talking the costs up an extra £25 was particularly amusing. Well done Mr Gopal :T

HubertGrumblethorpe

I found it a touch ironic and highly amusing when PE's brief claimed there had been no loss when Deputy District Judge Melville-Sheeve (top man!) was working out the costs for Mrs Collins-Daniel !!


What goes around comes around ! It's Karma !


Well done Mrs Collins-Daniel and all who helped ....

IamNotAllowedToUseMyName

Basically the judge was saying the failings of the case were obvious, that Parking Eye were acting outside the bounds of normal legal etiquette.

After you read it, ask yourself:

If the flaws in the case are so obvious, why is the independent appeals process at POPLA unable to see these things unless a carefully constructed case is presented?

Surely if someone ticks the unfair charge box, it should automatically trigger POPLA to check the geopl with the parking company - something that should be trivial for a legitimate company to produce, they should have already worked it out.

James_N

This is a very satisfying read!
Being careful what we wish for though - the judge here points out that IF a case ever came to a court of higher standing, and the parking company won, it would be game over. That's hugely unlikely, because the likely risk to the parking company is that THEY lose and it's game over for them.
But personally I'd rather see a review of this entire scam, with a root and branch revision of this wicked business model. One that would render OUR activities here unnecessary because the parking system would be fair.

IamNotAllowedToUseMyName

James_N wrote: »

This is a very satisfying read!
Being careful what we wish for though - the judge here points out that IF a case ever came to a court of higher standing, and the parking company won, it would be game over. That's hugely unlikely, because the likely risk to the parking company is that THEY lose and it's game over for them.
But personally I'd rather see a review of this entire scam, with a root and branch revision of this wicked business model. One that would render OUR activities here unnecessary because the parking system would be fair.

In summing up, the judge make it clear that snowballs and hell and chance are words related to the probability of Parking Eye winning a case properly with his reasons for rejecting the chance to appeal out of hand.

daveyjp

Makes you wonder if the change of Judge was so the new one could get his teeth in to PE as he was aware of their antics. Its more of a law lecture than a Judgement!

Hot_Bring

While the costs part is funny by far the most significant part is the dissection of the contract wording. It might well be something we want to put into POPLA appeals - i.e. the ambiguity of the wording and punctuation ( or lack of ) making the intent of the contract unclear.

bob?_3-2

I had tears running down my face whilst reading this,

IamNotAllowedToUseMyName

Hot_Bring wrote: »

While the costs part is funny by far the most significant part is the dissection of the contract wording. It might well be something we want to put into POPLA appeals - i.e. the ambiguity of the wording and punctuation ( or lack of ) making the intent of the contract unclear.

It is not something that can easily be distilled into The System (which seems to be pretty bullet proof at the moment) and actually the Judge was displaying a high degree of literacy and pedantry that might be beyond the abilities of many forum members. However, for certain forum members it will be something else to add to the tool bag.

I'm also not sure it would fly at POPLA as I don't know the level of English ability of an adjudicator - is this too subtle? While geopl and contract standard paragraphs throw the burden onto the PPC to prove, I think you'd have to make the argument on ambiguity (or nonsensical meaning even) pretty clear.

James_N

IanMSpencer wrote: »

In summing up, the judge make it clear that snowballs and hell and chance are words related to the probability of Parking Eye winning a case properly with his reasons for rejecting the chance to appeal out of hand.

Appreciated and agree in full but don't forget who are the stupid ones here. MOST parking companies took the money from the gullible and the easily frightened and backed off when there was resistance. That way I am guessing they had a good income and wrote off the smaller % who were "difficult" I myself saw off a company this way - that's what brought me here. Even with the revised procedures, several still do "just give up" or back off at the POPLA stage.

But it's ParkingEye that have chosen to take on hundreds of cases, and each loss for them in court further exposes them in that the law and the business model are two different things. A non-authorative but still persuasive and useable body of decision is going against them. Who is to say if they will take their stupidity to the next level. And I wonder about the attitude of the companies running the quieter threat scam to all this.