Parking eye a deceitful company? (court finding)

kirkbyinfurnesslad_2

The fact parking eye found by a court to guilty of the tort of deceit , do I assume that this makes them a deceitful company?

Does this then flow to make them a deceitful company

The_Deep

You can assume what you like, but proving it in a court of law might be costly.

It ia precisely this sort of provocation which is causing the management of the board so many problems.

BenefitMaster

The_Deep wrote: »

You can assume what you like, but proving it in a court of law might be costly.

It ia precisely this sort of provocation which is causing the management of the board so many problems.

Well, ParkingEye were found to be seeking to enforce Keeper Liability at Town Quay, Southampton, when they had no entitlement to do so because of the relevant byelaws.

And they are still at it, despite knowing they are not entitled to do so. That is certainly deceitful.

Custard_Pie

Agree with The Deep. Making purposely inciting statements is not helpful, but detracts from the end goal here.

Stick to the facts as known. If a court judgment exists that uses that wording, then fine, let the facts speak for themselves.

We don't need Jose Mourinho tactics here blocking what should be us moving in the same direction.

Give PCC's a big enough shovel and they will dig themselves a big enough hole.

kirkbyinfurnesslad_2

The issue is this was a factual finding by a court.

kirkbyinfurnesslad_2

Custard_Pie wrote: »

Agree with The Deep. Making purposely inciting statements is not helpful, but detracts from the end goal here.

Stick to the facts as known. If a court judgment exists that uses that wording, then fine, let the facts speak for themselves.

We don't need Jose Mourinho tactics here blocking what should be us moving in the same direction.

Give PCC's a big enough shovel and they will dig themselves a big enough hole.

Thats the point a court judgement does exists which said parking eye were guilty of the tort of deceit

HO87

Custard_Pie wrote: »

Agree with The Deep. Making purposely inciting statements is not helpful, but detracts from the end goal here.

Stick to the facts as known. If a court judgment exists that uses that wording, then fine, let the facts speak for themselves.

We don't need Jose Mourinho tactics here blocking what should be us moving in the same direction.

Give PCC's a big enough shovel and they will dig themselves a big enough hole.

A train of thought exists suggesting that, much like the emperor's new clothes, that there is "no hole" and that it has not been present, nor getting deeper, for several years.

trubster

Is the pope catholic?