Parking Eye Being Vindictive

The_Deep

This is what I keep saying, get the case to court and the Judge will do the right thing.

Parking-Prankster

I hope to be able to host the judgment soon, but am on the phone to tech support wit problems.


It is important because it shows that (at least according to this judge) ParkingEye v Beavis only applies to free car parks. ParkingEye apparently agree with this too, because they (or their representative) have argued exactly this in at least one recent hearing.

Parking-Prankster

The judgment is available here
http://www.parking-prankster.com/case-law.html


Blog here
http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2014/12/parkingeye-lose-in-court-beavis.html

trisontana

So it turns out that the P&D revenue went to the Snowdon Mountain Railway Company and not to PE. So why were PE taking the person to court when they had not suffered any loss because the motorist did not pay that extra £2?

Perhaps PE were intending to pass on any money they won in court to the landowner? There goes another flying pig!

Ryan_Bryan

Trisontana. Could you possibly change the title of this thread now?

I like Parking Eye Humiliated In Court After Being Vindictive

trisontana

You wish is my command. Done

Ryan_Bryan

The defendant has posted an update on his original pepipoo thread.
http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=95294

Ledson the Fragrant ought to be paying the £165 out of her own pocket.

The_Deep

In this instance, the Judge did not consider any mitigating circumstances, but perhaps she might have if she accepted the PPCs losses, who knows?

trisontana

What did Parking Eye actually lose?

hoohoo

trisontana wrote: »

What did Parking Eye actually lose?

Nothing initially.

About £600 from sending LPC lawyers to the hearings.

Another £200 odd for the defendant costs.

Two small forests for the paper printed.

About £57 million if Beavis become irrelevant.