New transcript available. ParkingEye v Collins-Daniel

Hot_Bring

IanMSpencer wrote: »

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.

Agreed - it should be reserved for those I assigned to Group 4 in another thread. If G24 decide to send me an invoice for my "contravention" at the weekend I think I plan to appeal on only the wording of the signs grounds to POPLA - just to test it.

bargepole

IanMSpencer wrote: »

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.

I think I might be one of the "certain forum members" you refer to, having been known to indulge in the odd bit of pedantry in the past.

What the Judge did here, was to apply the principle of Contra Profenterem to the nth degree. This basically means that if the wording of a contract is capable of more than one interpretation, a court should apply the one which is least favourable to the person who drafted it. So, for example, where there are signs at London tube stations saying "Dogs must be carried on the escalator", does that mean if you have a dog you must carry it, or does it mean you can't use the escalator unless you have a dog to carry?

But the best bit of all is the delicious irony of PE starting out by trying to claim a sum of money they are not entitled to because it isn't a reflection of their loss, and then ending up having to pay costs to the defendant which she hadn't lost. Hoist on their own petard.

IamNotAllowedToUseMyName

James_N wrote: »

I wonder about the attitude of the companies running the quieter threat scam to all this.

PE have the potential to screw up the "under the radar" scammers.

I think the model I would want to use as a PPC is to simply issue the charges, deny all appeals and then if someone wants to use a POPLA code, issue a duff one and if someone complains, apologise for the mistake and cancel the charge to avoid the £30 overhead (while keeping access to DVLA). As most people believe that they have broken a rule and having asked for mitigation have been rejected, it is only the motivated few who would use POPLA and they aren't worth taking on, especially if you detect that they've found this site.

I was surprised this ruling didn't also add in the lie under statement of truth, but perhaps the other case was a pincer movement, destroy the legalities of the PE case here and destroy their abuse of the court system there to keep it simple.

Coupon-mad

daveyjp wrote: »

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!

I thought that - I could imagine DJJ Prigg and this Judge looking at their lot for the day and this Judge seeing 'ParkingEye' and going 'I want that one! can we swap?!' The way he ripped into them from the outset suggested he had at the very least heard about them before, either from other Judges or maybe his own wife got one of their fake tickets once?!

Seemed a bit personal didn't it?!

Parking-Prankster

Coupon-mad wrote: »

I thought that - I could imagine DJJ Prigg and this Judge looking at their lot for the day and this Judge seeing 'ParkingEye' and going 'I want that one! can we swap?!' The way he ripped into them from the outset suggested he had at the very least heard about them before, either from other Judges or maybe his own wife got one of their fake tickets once?!

Seemed a bit personal didn't it?!

He's my uncle.

Parking-Prankster

Just kidding

IamNotAllowedToUseMyName

Coupon-mad wrote: »

I thought that - I could imagine DJJ Prigg and this Judge looking at their lot for the day and this Judge seeing 'ParkingEye' and going 'I want that one! can we swap?!' The way he ripped into them from the outset suggested he had at the very least heard about them before, either from other Judges or maybe his own wife got one of their fake tickets once?!

Seemed a bit personal didn't it?!

Perhaps it was preparing the ground to get them declared a vexatious litigant?

The_Deep

I am amazed at the length of time spent on arguing over a mere £20.

The poor woman has had to spend hours fighting this, probably burning the midnight oil, been dragged to court, and does not get to say a word. What a waste of everyones' time.

The_Slithy_Tove

IanMSpencer wrote: »

However, for certain forum members it will be something else to add to the tool bag.

Though there would be a certain amount of irony if one were to quote from this case in any other court case. While there is loads of useful ammunition there, the Judge also pointed out quite clearly that he's not minded to take much notice of other lower court judgements as they set no precedent.

IanMSpencer wrote: »

I think the model I would want to use as a PPC is to simply issue the charges, deny all appeals and then if someone wants to use a POPLA code, issue a duff one and if someone complains, apologise for the mistake and cancel the charge to avoid the £30 overhead (while keeping access to DVLA).

This modus operandi is clearly already in operation within many PPCs. They play on the fact that neither the BPA Ltd nor DVLA issue any soft of sanction despite obvious underhand tactics and repeated violation of the Code of Practice.

kirkbyinfurnesslad_2

The_Slithy_Tove wrote: »

Though there would be a certain amount of irony if one were to quote from this case in any other court case. While there is loads of useful ammunition there, the Judge also pointed out quite clearly that he's not minded to take much notice of other lower court judgements as they set no precedent.



Quite.

one should never attach that much importance to these county court rulings