ParkingEye Get the Chop in St Albans Court: No Standing

nigelbb

I can't find the figures at the moment but how large a proportion of the total number of cases per year in the small claims track do PE's 8-10000 amount to? What percentage of the actual hearings are PE cases?

bazster

born_3 wrote: »

I would take both these comments with a huge dose of NaCl (all articles about PE mention "...fines...". I really can't see James "24 houses" Clappison getting involved in this.

But, does this ruling mean that anyone who's been "done" by PE in B'wood retail park (or whatever they're calling it this week) can appeal and claim back any money they've given PE?

Huh? What would you take with NaCl? That the Borehamwood Times has been tipped off? Well I happen to be very intimately connected with the little birdy and the tip-off has most certainly been delivered. That the Borehamwood Times would be interested? Well you'd be wrong again, they've published lots of articles about this site.

All of the press love to use the word "fines". It's a short, punchy, emotive word and the more the press use it the better as far as I'm concerned, it has an impact.

I don't suppose the MP for Hertsmere will take a huge interest in anything the little birdy sends him since he's not the little birdy's MP, but the small avian has a thick file of correspondence with the MP for St Albans who is most certainly interested in these matters (and all the more so since she will want the little birdy's vote in less than a year).

bazster

Hot_Bring wrote: »

Be careful, Parking Eye might accuse you of a vendetta against them

:eek::eek::eek::eek:

bargepole

nigelbb wrote: »

I can't find the figures at the moment but how large a proportion of the total number of cases per year in the small claims track do PE's 8-10000 amount to? What percentage of the actual hearings are PE cases?

There were, according to the MoJ, approx 1,400,000 claims issued in England & Wales in 2013. Of these, beween 3 and 3.5% end up in a hearing.

PE issued around 13,500 claims last year, which is just under 1% of the total.

There is no possibility of them being declared a vexatious litigant, as they have won a large number of cases.

Vandeman

Hi - I am a new user - I keep seeing replies advising new users to go to the Newbies thread - but I cannot see how to find that. please help

waamo

Vandeman wrote: »

Hi - I am a new user - I keep seeing replies advising new users to go to the Newbies thread - but I cannot see how to find that. please help

Here you go.

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=4816822

Please start your own thread for advice.

bazster

The little birdy tells me that the Borehamwood Times has already been contacted by the defendant and they are onto it.

hoohoo

bargepole wrote: »

There were, according to the MoJ, approx 1,400,000 claims issued in England & Wales in 2013. Of these, beween 3 and 3.5% end up in a hearing.

PE issued around 13,500 claims last year, which is just under 1% of the total.

There is no possibility of them being declared a vexatious litigant, as they have won a large number of cases.

They are clearly not vexatious litigants. However, the way they act is against the overriding objectives of the practice directions, given here.

http://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/procedure-rules/civil/rules/part01#1.1

(2) Dealing with a case justly and at proportionate cost includes, so far as is practicable –
(a) ensuring that the parties are on an equal footing;
(b) saving expense;
(c) dealing with the case in ways which are proportionate –
(i) to the amount of money involved;
(ii) to the importance of the case;
(iii) to the complexity of the issues; and
(iv) to the financial position of each party;
(d) ensuring that it is dealt with expeditiously and fairly;
(e) allotting to it an appropriate share of the court’s resources, while taking into account the need to allot resources to other cases; and
(f) enforcing compliance with rules, practice directions and orders.

The courts can do something about all that, if they have a mind to.

nigelbb

hoohoo wrote: »

They are clearly not vexatious litigants.

Vexatious litigants are often not to put too fine a point on it bonkers however PE do seem to tick all the boxes in the classic definition of a vexatious litigant given by Lord Bingham

“Vexatious is a familiar term in legal parlance. The hallmark of a vexatious proceeding is in my judgment that it has little or no basis in law (or at least no discernible basis); that whatever the intention of the proceeding may be, its effect is to subject the defendant to inconvenience, harassment and expense out of all proportion to any gain likely to accrue to the claimant; and that it involves an abuse of process of the court, meaning by that a use of the court process for a purpose or in a way which is significantly different from the ordinary and proper use of the court process”.

bod1467

That would seem to describe PE's actions perfectly.