Parking Eye pay £1000 a week to ticket people

bazster

kirkbyinfurnesslad wrote: »

Indeed it would
So the question would be , if Parking eye lose would they risk going to the COA
If our side lost could we persuade either one of the defendants (as it would only need on) to challange this in the COA

I personally think if we lost this case then this is a golden opportunity to strike at the heart of the matter. It comes with the same risks as Parking eye would face, could can we lose this chance?

I for one would be willing to contribute to a fighting fund.

Nodding_Donkey

bazster wrote: »

I for one would be willing to contribute to a fighting fund.

So would I, having recently won compensation from EE it would seem fitting to use one scammers money against another

4consumerrights

PARKING EYE SPY SEEM TO BE MAKING THREATS TO MSE ABOUT FORUM USERS COMMENTS :

YET MSE CHOOSE TO DELETE POSTS RATHER THAN CONTACT INDIVIDUALS TO SEE IF THEY WANT TO STAND BY WHAT THEY SAID AS PER THE NEW DEFAMATION LAWS.

Apparently Parking Eye are now sensitive if the following is mentioned

RACHEL LEDSON HEAD OF LITIGATION AT PARKING EYE

maybe due to the embarassment that their legal department mess is in or not as the case may be ......

I have asked MSE ANDREA TO CLARIFY HER STATEMENTS IN THE SITE FEEDBACK SECTION ON THE FORUM.



THIS CASE IS OBVIOUSLY CAUSING PARKING EYE SOME CONCERN AND IT IS NO SECRET THAT THEY TRIED TO POSTPONE THE CASE IN ORDER TO GET THEIR CHOICE OF LEGAL REPRESENTATION AT THE HEARING. WHEN THIS WAS REFUSED IRONICALLY AND COINCIDENTALLY THE COURT CASE WAS CANCELLED DUE TO THE PHONE CALL SAYING THE JUDGE WAS ILL.

PARKING EYE THEN HAD THEIR CHOICE AT THIS HEARING.



BTW I WOULD SAY PAYING £1,000 PER WEEK COULD ENVISAGED AS A CASH INDUCEMENT IN ORDER TO FACILITATE PARKING SERVICES

Stroma

Yes I agree, this £1000 a week to ticket in a free car park is a nice little earner for the landowner, and it will be hard to envisage that parking eye make a loss there.

Coupon-mad

Paying £1000 a week in order to then recoup that outlay by issuing charges to customers for 'breach of contract' where there is no loss...surely this is the same 'nonsense' debunked by DJ Buckley in ParkingEye v Clarke case number 3JD00517:

http://nebula.wsimg.com/71a4eb1b5de25e5c60b4d5cacfed6b40?AccessKeyId=4CB8F2392A09CF228A46&disposition=0&alloworigin=1

I expect PE are still smarting about that one!

Half_way

4consumerrights wrote: »

PARKING EYE SPY SEEM TO BE MAKING THREATS TO MSE ABOUT FORUM USERS COMMENTS :

YET MSE CHOOSE TO DELETE POSTS RATHER THAN CONTACT INDIVIDUALS TO SEE IF THEY WANT TO STAND BY WHAT THEY SAID AS PER THE NEW DEFAMATION LAWS.

Apparently Parking Eye are now sensitive if the following is mentioned

RACHEL LEDSON HEAD OF LITIGATION AT PARKING EYE

maybe due to the embarassment that their legal department mess is in or not as the case may be ......

I have asked MSE ANDREA TO CLARIFY HER STATEMENTS IN THE SITE FEEDBACK SECTION ON THE FORUM.



THIS CASE IS OBVIOUSLY CAUSING PARKING EYE SOME CONCERN AND IT IS NO SECRET THAT THEY TRIED TO POSTPONE THE CASE IN ORDER TO GET THEIR CHOICE OF LEGAL REPRESENTATION AT THE HEARING. WHEN THIS WAS REFUSED IRONICALLY AND COINCIDENTALLY THE COURT CASE WAS CANCELLED DUE TO THE PHONE CALL SAYING THE JUDGE WAS ILL.

PARKING EYE THEN HAD THEIR CHOICE AT THIS HEARING.



BTW I WOULD SAY PAYING £1,000 PER WEEK COULD ENVISAGED AS A CASH INDUCEMENT IN ORDER TO FACILITATE PARKING SERVICES

Caps lock stuck on?
Im not sure why they would be sensitive over the Fact that Mrs Ledson works for parking eye, that appears to be well and truly in the public domain as is most of the management, listed under the comments on the parking prankster blog here :
http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2014/01/parkingeye-send-hill-dickinson-after.html

Stroma

Surely it's a matter of public record as you get this from the SRA website?