Parking eye won cambridge case

da_rule

Amanintheknow wrote: »

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.

What do you mean? From my understanding PE won their costs, which would (should) have been submitted to the court at the end of the hearing.

Amanintheknow

Not talking about historic costs just those associated with the Court of Appeal

da_rule

Ok, so why would ParkingEye make an offer for costs for the appeal? The upfront costs will fall on the applicant (the person appealing). PE are unlikely to offer any funding to someone who is appealing a decision which they won.

Coupon-mad

Annie1960 wrote: »

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

Not really, it's a flawed decision at county court level and it flies in the face of unfair contract terms law, IMHO.

nigelbb

Coupon-mad wrote: »

Not really, it's a flawed decision at county court level and it flies in the face of unfair contract terms law, IMHO.

The first part of the decision that the parking charges are penalties intended to deter actually supports our case. It's the second part that even though they are penalties they are justified is the bit that flies in the face of hundreds of years of contract law which many (most?) judges will not agree with.

hoohoo

Amanintheknow wrote: »

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.

If you know something please tell us.

Guys_Dad

hoohoo wrote: »

If you know something please tell us.

Regrettably on a public forum "tell you" equals tell "PPC". Not about the offer, of course, but any strategy to deal with it.

Annie1960

Coupon-mad wrote: »

Not really, it's a flawed decision at county court level and it flies in the face of unfair contract terms law, IMHO.

I agree, but that's not how PPCs will view it.

It is a flawed decision because it is unlikely that this is what Parliament intended when they passed the legislation that led to this business model being developed.

HO87

Annie1960 wrote: »

I agree, but that's not how PPCs will view it.

It is a flawed decision because it is unlikely that this is what Parliament intended when they passed the legislation that led to this business model being developed.

The business model has been in use since at least 2004 to my personal knowledge. What POFA did some eight years after that, in 2012, was to provide it with a veneer of respectability - something PPC World has been desperately seeking out for years.

Over that same period PPC's have latched on to anything - vaguely understood legal concepts; otherwise completely unrelated and irrelevant case law, default judgments, indeed anything at all that lent their otherwise bizarre business some element of legitimacy. Indeed we have even had examples of PPC's quoting entirely ficticious legislation to justify themselves and as a means of hoodwinking the public.

What they might do, indeed are already doing, with the Cambridge case is no different in that they will exploit it for maximum benefit. We are seeing nothing new here.

nigelbb

HO87 wrote: »

The business model has been in use since at least 2004 to my personal knowledge. What POFA did some eight years after that, in 2012, was to provide it with a veneer of respectability - something PPC World has been desperately seeking out for years

If you read POFA then it refers to 'unpaid parking charges'. Any normal person will read 'unpaid parking charges' as referring to those where a legitimate charge was due e.g. pay & display. It's only the PPCs with their bizarre business model where they make money by doing a poor job who describe as 'parking charges' their penalties for infringing their made up rules like parking outside a marked bay or P&D ticket wrong way up.