Parking Eye lose in court in 5 minutes

Stroma

Judge said they had no authority after reading the contract, and it's the landowners loss not theirs.

Case dismissed !

http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2014/04/parkingeye-lose-in-court-another-5.html

The_Deep

It looks as though HJs are becoming more and more aware of [EMAIL="PPCs'c@s@'s"]PPCs' [/EMAIL] little ways. Perhaps more of you will now trust them.

tykesi

Not enough to trust the court process over 100% guaranteed win at POPLA but yes, they do seem to be wising up more and more.

HO87

The_Deep wrote: »

It looks as though HJs are becoming more and more aware of PPCs' little ways. Perhaps more of you will now trust them.

Bearing in mind your stance on the subject that is a perfectly fair comment. Those of us who have been into small claims courts know that it is the least intimidating arrangement you could wish for - given the necessity for some degree of formality. The fact remains, however, that the word "court" conjures up all manner of gloom and doom for the majority and they are truly frightened by the prospect. That is not the least of it in that small claims will always be something of a lottery.

In the above case the judge had clearly been down the road before but it is very unlikely that you could say that for very many of his colleagues, at least for the moment.

Parking-Prankster

Got another loss coming in - report later

HO87

Parking-Prankster wrote: »

Got another loss coming in - report later

Just to clarify - that's another loss for PE. This time in north London. We await details with baited breath.

Fridays really aren't good days for those in Chorley Towers. Must stuff up the weekends dreadfully. There again, in PPC World perhaps its always Monday?

esmerobbo

Must be looking forward to Easter at Chorley towers a least they are guaranteed a "good Friday"!

Coupon-mad

Great news again! :T

bargepole

Parking-Prankster wrote: »

Got another loss coming in - report later

We've got the story on this one now.

It was at Edmonton County Court, 04/04/2014, case no. 3JD10885, ParkingEye v Griffiths.

It was one of those cases which appeared on the Courtserve list, but the defendant had never been on any forums, so we knew nothing about it. But, as it happened, one of the NoToMob guys was free to go along to the court this morning.

Ms Griffiths turned up, and appeared to be a confident and well prepared defendant, so our man just went in as an observer. This seemed to unsettle the LPC Law rep, who was demanding his name and in what capacity he was there. But the Judge said that it was a public court, and anybody was entitled to sit and observe.

She had submitted a comprehensive defence citing the usual points about contracts, GPEOL, etc., but had also provided evidence that she had made two separate visits to the shopping centre car park, and that PE's photos only showed the first entry and last exit - a classic case of 'double dipping'.

The Judge decided, on balance of probabilities, that he preferred the defendant's evidence to that of the claimant, so case dismissed.

The_Deep

Any inference that the cameras may be at fault?

If I was ticketed for double dipping this is the avenue which I would go down. I would also contact Trading Standards/Weights and measures.

Such ticketing verges on criminality if the measuring devices are non compliant.

bargepole

More news just in, of another ParkingEye court loss yesterday.

Dudley County Court, 3JD10322, PE v Sheppard.

We sent an Amicus Curiae pack in the morning, with no knowledge of the defendant. This is what he sent back:

"I would like to take this opportunity to thank you for the fax you sent to the courts in Dudley on the 4th of April of which they gave me a copy. I think the Judge found them very useful, as he brought them to the attention of their solicitor, the outcome being their claim was dismissed. Thank you for your interest. Regards Freddie Sheppard"

So we now know that in at least 3 of the 4 PE cases listed yesterday, the defendants won.

PE no longer claim that they win 90%, or even 80%, of their cases, they just say that they win 'the majority'. At this rate, even that soon won't be true.