ParkingEye lose in court. LPC Law contradict witness

Parking-Prankster

Sketchy reports have come in of another court loss for ParkingEye. I will report further and blog if I get more details.


Apparently the LPC Law advocate tried to argue ParkingEye were not an agent but the principal.


This is fairly surprising as ParkingEye are known to regularly submit a 2 page document on agency from Jonathan Kirk QC explaining why they are agents. They also regularly submit a witness statement saying ParkingEye are agents.


Anyway, the judge was reportedly not impressed that the LPC Law advocate was directly contradicting the witness statement.


Case dismissed.

4consumerrights

Look forward to receiving the full report in that case Parking Prankster.

Are Parking Eye

a) Confused
b) Liars
c) worried about the upcoming hearing Friday?
d) all of the above.

Sorry Parking Eye - you have used up all your lifelines and cannot ask this audience!

spacey2012

There is a reason these people doing agency work can not get a real job.
Qualifying is easy, having the basic common sense is a little harder.
The Golden rule many years ago when at court .
"Just think of something stupid to say and for Christs sake dont say it"

Looks like these advocates never heard that one.

Personally I am really enjoying parking eye getting spanked by hiring these self immolating solicitors.

Roll on the next ones, it's only Monday !

Kite2010

Another defeat for Parking Eye, how many more until they get banned?

ampersand

4consumerrights wrote: »

.......Parking Eye - you have used up all your lifelines and cannot ask this audience!

########
In full pe mode, may I suggest they phone a friend?:rotfl:

hoohoo

ampersand wrote: »

########
In full pe mode, may I suggest they phone a friend?:rotfl:

Do they have any?

kirkbyinfurnesslad_2

hoohoo wrote: »

Do they have any?

Well Rachels got martin lol

HO87

They could go 50/50. After all that would be far better odds than they are getting in court at the moment.

Johno100

spacey2012 wrote: »

There is a reason these people doing agency work can not get a real job.
Qualifying is easy, having the basic common sense is a little harder.
The Golden rule many years ago when at court .
"Just think of something stupid to say and for Christs sake dont say it"

Looks like these advocates never heard that one.

Personally I am really enjoying parking eye getting spanked by hiring these self immolating solicitors.

Roll on the next ones, it's only Monday !

And to be fair getting a training contract is even harder.

bargepole

spacey2012 wrote: »

... Personally I am really enjoying parking eye getting spanked by hiring these self immolating solicitors ...

I don't think it's entirely the fault of the freelancers supplied by LPC Law.

They can only work to the instructions given by their client. And if that client is daft enough to instruct their advocate to contradict the client's own previously supplied witness statement, then nobody should be surprised at the outcome.

There appears to be some desperate scrabbling around searching for sticking plasters at Chorley Towers, as their house of cards teeters on shifting sand.

da_rule

I would suggest that this may actually breach the SRA code of conduct for the solicitor. Either ParkingEye have attempted to mislead the court by submitting an incorrect statement or the solicitor has mislead the court by claiming that ParkingEye are principals rather than agents. If this was the argument that he/she was instructed to present then she must have realised that the statement was misleading and is therefore complicit in misleading the court. If he/she came up with this argument on their own then this would mean that they have mislead the court, as well as not acted in their clients best interest (undermining your clients own statements is not usually in their best interest). This obviously assumes that ParkingEye did submit the usual 2 page document on agency from Jonathan Kirk QC.