Parking eye won cambridge case

Stroma

The thing is people are allowed to express their opinions on the matter, I have no direct financial interest in the case unlike the esteemed Renshaw-Smith, it was his company involved.

I don't expect everyone to win their day in court, but how can this judge say on one hand it's a penalty, but on the other say that this business should be supported by victims because of the way they conduct business ?

ABN

If ParkingEye had lost and then appealed would the defendants have to yet again defend the claim.

In which case would they still be liable for the many thousands of court costs in the event that ParkingEye won?

If it is the case that the defendants would be liable then its questionable that they would be able to risk so doing in which case ParkingEye would win by default and then get a legally binding ruling in their favour which would do us no good at all.

Whilst I think that the ruling and logic behind it sucks, if the above is correct perhaps its better that they lost?

Computersaysno

Just a guess but......if they can get the costs of an appeal 'parked' [ie each side responsible for their own, as opposed to winner takes all/Russian roulette], then I'm sure the defendants would be keen to take it to the Court of Appeal.

Coupon-mad

Even if the defendant decides not to appeal I wonder if a Consumer Association could find out how to refer the decision to the European Council as an example of how UK law decisions at county court level are apparently not complying with Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts. Therefore it can be demonstrated by this garbled hash of a decision against consumer rights, that our own laws based on that Directive are not clear enough.

Bet it costs a packet to get an injunction though, even though I read that the EU subsidise such applications for injunctions, when made by Consumer groups. Just thinking out loud about options. Wondering if the CAB might get onside, ultimately.

Annie1960

pvt wrote: »

Sorry to keep resurrecting this, but it is really playing on my mind.

Another thought raised by Moloney's decision that, although it is a penalty, it's justified because the PPC wouldn't have a business otherwise, since all its income apparently derives solely from those penalties:

It's the modern version of a protection racket.

Coupon-mad

Those are the words I have been using for years to describe PPC World.

They send a plausible 'suit' to the CEO of a retailer, paint a picture of them having a parking 'problem' and/or scare them about the disabled bays & the Equality Act (an Act that they haven't even read but pretend they are experts). They convince them to 'look after' (protect) their car parks. Then they fleece the customers who go near.

No different than any protection racket. It's a parasite 'industry' leeching off the back of struggling retailers to bleed their customers dry - and if I worked for one of 'them' I would be personally ashamed.

da_rule

Computersaysno wrote: »

Just a guess but......if they can get the costs of an appeal 'parked' [ie each side responsible for their own, as opposed to winner takes all/Russian roulette], then I'm sure the defendants would be keen to take it to the Court of Appeal.

Problem is that the general rule is that the loser pays costs, and the court won't consider applications without the fees being paid. But these fees can be reduced/scrapped altogether based on the means of the applicant.

Annie1960

Coupon-mad wrote: »

No different than any protection racket.

Well, it is different now, because a judge is supporting it. That's the problem.

da_rule

Coupon-mad wrote: »

They send a plausible 'suit' to the CEO of a retailer, paint a picture of them having a parking 'problem'

And this is one of those types of circular arguments, because if everyone actually followed the PPC 'rules' then they would have no income (besides any fees they take from the landowner) and would therefore go out of business, or they actually cure the 'problem' and the landlord decides they don't need them anymore. This is the problem with allowing profit from PCN's as by their nature the whole business plans of these PPC's if flawed as if they didn't issue any PCN's then they would go out of business. Customers are now potentially being fleeced because of one judges opinion that the flawed business model should be protected.

Amanintheknow

At what point do those who appeared for the defendants in Cambridge either formally or informally disclose the offer that ParkingEye have made re costs.