Parking Eye - The wheel is falling off

Stroma

Here is the afternoon news from Parking Prankster

BONG!

New ParkingEye court case referred to POPLA
http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2014/03/new-parkingeye-court-case-referred-to.html

BONG!

7 up
http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2014/03/7-up.html

BONG!

ParkingEye lose in court (echo?). Rheidol Retail Park
http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2014/03/parkingeye-lost-in-court-echo-rheidol.html

BONG!

ParkingEye drop two claims after being ordered to by landowner
http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2014/03/parkingeye-drop-two-claims-after-being.html

BONG!

ParkingEye lose in court - Bristol Retail Park
http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2014/03/parkingeye-lose-in-court-bristol-retail.html

BONG!

ParkingEye lose case which was referred to POPLA from court (is there an echo here?)
http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2014/03/parkingeye-lose-case-which-was-referred_28.html

BONG!

ParkingEye lose case which was referred to POPLA from court
http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2014/03/parkingeye-lose-case-which-was-referred.html

BONG!

Dr Julian Lewis MP gets to the heart of the matter. Why are the DVLA not taking action against ParkingEye?
http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2014/03/dr-julian-lewis-mp-gets-to-heart-of.html

BONG!

ParkingEye witness statement irregularities
http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2014/03/parkingeye-witness-statement.html

More to follow in our later bulletin

There's no vendetta against parking eye - honestly!

MothballsWallet

BONG!

Parking Eye execs may need a BONG! of a different kind to steady their nerves at this rate

The_Deep

I am sure that it cannot have escaped THs' notice that rather a lot of cases from PE are coming in front of them where the plaintiff seems to be acting in a rather vindictive manner. It only needs one unsympathetic judge to blog their doings in a judgely forum, and the cat gets out of the bag, PE are abusing the system.

I think that you underestimate the situation OP, I thing that wheels (plural) are coming off.

MothballsWallet

The_Deep wrote: »

I am sure that it cannot have escaped THs' notice that rather a lot of cases from PE are coming in front of them where the plaintiff seems to be acting in a rather vindictive manner. It only needs one unsympathetic judge to blog their doings in a judgely forum, and the cat gets out of the bag, PE are abusing the system.

I think that you underestimate the situation OP, I thing that wheels (plural) are coming off.

And Parking Eye probably think that The Flintstones was a true to life documentary, so they can use their feet now

da_rule

And don't forget the waiting/looking for a space is not parking fiasco:
http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2014/03/waiting-for-space-is-not-parking.html
Which could completely undermine the use of ANPR, especially when the 'infraction' has only been for a few minutes.

Ivor_Pecheque

Well we drove round looking for a space for 31 minutes. That isn't actually "Parking" is it ? (The Judge agreed.)

PE said that there was something on the signage stating that we were liable for the charge, even if we didn't park. But how were we meant to read the signs if we couldn't stop ? They sent us close up pictures of the signs, and we still couldn't read them.

PE send a barrage of documentation, I suspect it's designed to make the defendant "cave in." I went through it with a fine tooth comb before I went to court, and it soon became apparent, that most of the stuff didn't reflect the truth.

We won (interestingly the Judge also stated that even if we had parked, he'd find it difficult to rule that there was a £100 loss in this case.)

Now that we have won (PE have sent us an incorrectly dated cheque, but that's another matter), I'm going through the stuff with a finer comb. It appears that the legal department seem to be in breach of the Solicitors Regulatory Authority "Principles."

Whether or not there is any criminality will depend on the investigation by the police.

da_rule

Ivor_Pecheque wrote: »

It appears that the legal department seem to be in breach of the Solicitors Regulatory Authority "Principles."

Are you going to complain to the SRA regarding these breaches (either by ParkingEyes in-house legal team or their rep at court - I'm assuming LPC Law)?

Ivor_Pecheque

I got the feeling that the LPC lawyer was nothing more than a "hired gun." She didn't seem to know much about Parking or contract law. (The Judge did though.) It was almost as if she was reading from a sheet. (Well, actually, she was.)

I found, at an early stage, that the whole process was adversarial. The charge was actually against Mrs Ivor Pecheque. She was desperate to settle, and would have, at mediation, but the process was more adversarial. I was about to write the cheque (for a hundred quid), when she stopped me, and said, "let's go to court."

The LPC lawyer was very polite, and even introduced herself to us before the hearing, informing us about the procedural stuff, "call the Judge, Sir, etc). She did, at an early stage, try and distance herself from Parking Eye. "I don't work for them."

In Court, she pulled a few nasties. "It's my understanding that Mrs Pecheque didn't want to settle at mediation (a "Parking Eye" slang for "Lie,") which was untrue. We were told that the mediation process was confidential, but that was her opener. We offered, what we considered was a generous offer of loss, (fifteen quid), and would have gone up to £50. We were able to get our point across to The Judge near the end of the hearing. It felt that we were made to feel unreasonable, and we weren't.

She also quibbled about our costs, even questioning our car parking fee for the day in The Court. "Well, I haven't any evidence that you've paid £3."

The Judge, quite rightly observed, that the evidence was likely where it should be- in the windscrees. (And awarded costs)

In regards to the accountability issues, I'm looking closely at the Parking Eye papers that have been sent to us. The stuff they've sent us, compared to the truth, seems to breach most of The Solicitors Regularity Authority principles, particularly those surrounding integrity and best interest. Principles 8 & 9 are also quite interesting, but are further along the line.

It seems to me that Parking Eye may have breached the Perjury Act 1911 and The Fraud Act 2006, I'm just trying to get my head around that bit, before I ask The Police to investigate. Ultimately, the decision to proceed would be through the CPS.

sarahg1969

How about a complaint to the Information Commissioner? PE did not have reasonable cause to request your details, bearing in mind there was no evidence of any contravention.

fil_cad

Oooooh this is music to ones ears!

Ivor_Pecheque

I have to read, rest, reflect, then return :-)

Parking Eye's actions were wrong. And that was defined in Court.

I'm just trying to work out the routes of accountability, and there are many.

Getting my head around the Professional Code of Conduct/SRA stuff, the criminality stuff takes a little more thinking about, after all, one has to provide a case beyond reasonable doubt.

The Parking Prankster is doing a great job in collecting "irregular" stuff that they dish out. He's collating it all.