Parking Eye guilty of Tort of deceit

kirkbyinfurnesslad_2

People must not forget that Parking eye were found by a court to be guilty of something known as tort of deceit

The tort of deceit, also known as "fraud", dates in its modern development from Pasley v. Freeman.[1] Here the defendant said that a third party was creditworthy to the claimant, knowing he was broke. The claimant loaned the third party money and lost it. He sued the defendant successfully.

Deceit occurs when a person makes a factual misrepresentation, knowing that it is false (or having no belief in its truth and being reckless as to whether it is true) and intending it to be relied on by the recipient, and the recipient acts to his or her detriment in reliance on it.

This was a finding by a court. Therefore it is factually correct. None of this "we firmly believe rubbish here m'lord.

Mse Team- If you get a complaint about this thread please contact me so i can provide you with the relevant court transcript to back up the factual statement on here

Stroma

Yes they are guilty of this , and there are transcripts to prove the case through Parking Eye v Somerfield I believe, can't remember what hearing it was, think it was the second one.

kirkbyinfurnesslad_2

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2012/1338.html

4consumerrights

Parking Eye spy being found guilty of tort of deceit only reinforces the fact that a leopard never changes its spots and they are continually operating in this manner by failing to provide documentary evidence to court.

Parking Eye are obliged as a member of the BPA to sign a declaration to abide by their code of practice in order to maintain AOS status and therefore obtain registered keeper details. The BPA proclaim after all to be committed in driving up the standards and require members not to act in an unprofessional manner.

However there is evidence to support that Parking Eye amongst many other parking companies continually are in breach of code of practice is all to evidently seen and yet the BPA do absolutely sod all to issue sanction points to their members.

It should be pointed out of course that adhering to the code of practice is also a requirement with the parking companies and who ever is foolish enough to engage the services.

Furthemore (and MSE) this is recorded in the BPA minutes parking companies have issued bonds to support the financial running of the BPA when POPLA was introduced and with Parking Eye at the highest tier of membership costs for both the BPA and the AOS - it speaks for itself why no action is ever taken against them.....

rizla_king

kirkbyinfurnesslad wrote: »

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2012/1338.html

Wow! Betcha they love the Court of Appeal putting that snippet in the public domain.

12. The Judge not only found that the third letter contained falsehoods but that those falsehoods were deliberately made by the relevant ParkingEye executive, albeit without dishonesty. Hence the Judge found ParkingEye was guilty of the tort of deceit on those occasions when the third letter was sent on its behalf. ParkingEye does not challenge this decision.

hoohoo

rizla_king wrote: »

Wow! Betcha they love the Court of Appeal putting that snippet in the public domain.

ParkingEye have absolutely no problem with this judgment and they quote it in most of their 'Reply to Defence' documents.

Not that quote though, for some reason.