ParkingEye v Heggie

Stroma

New transcript available. ParkingEye v Heggie on pranksters website

http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2014/03/new-transcript-available-parkingeye-v.html

Direct link

http://nebula.wsimg.com/8e335480ee4b2083edff95cce95ba7ab?AccessKeyId=4CB8F2392A09CF228A46&disposition=0&alloworigin=1

IamNotAllowedToUseMyName

It is with a read because the defendant did just about everything wrong, but still won because the charge was totally unjustifiable. The defendant barely had to speak and didn't have to justify the legal technicalities, just provided an honest account of events.

Stroma

Yes it's almost entirely on mitigation in my opinion, yes the pre estimate of loss is the winner, but the judge said that technically there is a breach of contract, but the defendant entered the wrong reg number, so the mitigation. But the 4 minute overstay is a joke, what about the grace period that must be allowed ?

Anyway a very good win, and one that proves that there is very little loss in even a pay car park.

The_Deep

There is a loss to PE here, but whether they did everything they could to mitigate that loss I do not kno.

However there is bound to be occasional human error in this type of system. What is wrong with a simple in/out camera record? Introducing another, in my opinion unnecessary, level of complexity, is bound to throw up SNAFUs, and few judges are likely to punish a motorist for a simple human error

The more hoops PPCs force clients to jump through, the more claims they are likely to lose to mitigation. .

trisontana

But what "loss" did PE actually suffer?

The_Deep

trisontana wrote: »

But what "loss" did PE actually suffer?

Court expenses. Time finding correct number plate, correspondence dealing with it.

Had Mr Heggie engaged with them earlier this might have been sorted sooner.

In fact I might venture that if people took these companies head on at a very early stage a lot of court time could be saved.

trisontana

Surely most are not losses they are day-to-day running costs. I don't imagine they employed anyone new to do the research. I imagine all the can claim is the dvla fee and the cost of stamps and a few sheets of papers .

spacey2012

The morals of the story :
Judge confused Parking eyes locus Standi, but that was the defendant who did not point out they did not own it.
There is no loss, what they are claiming is a unlawful (case law) penalty.

And finally, always take a mate as a lay representative and if asked expenses, say yes please £90 for me and £90 for my buddy.
Sticking £180 on the bill will top them out about a grand loss each case.

The_Deep

I suppose it depends on what you regard as a loss. I have to pay Council Tax when one of my properties is empty. That is a loss of income.

trisontana

I image that one of those "losses" was a £50 solicitor's fee for taking the case to court. Of course PE have their own in-house and salaried solicitor who does that work, so why do they claim that £50?

The_Deep

Surely it is more effective to use a solicitor local to the area than have their own solicitor travel around the country. Also, do they not bring several cases in a day sometimes.