Parking eye won cambridge case

bazster

nigelbb wrote: »

Driving through a gate or under a raised barrier would be taken as giving implied consent which as POFA states confers legal authority to subsequent closure of the gate or lowering of the barrier. If the bollard or other barrier is not so obvious then a warning sign would be necessary.

Hallelujah, the penny drops.

bazster

The_Deep wrote: »

So, in my block, what you are you saying that all 36 keyholders need to obtain the consent of Scumbag before they can legitimately close the barrier to protect their property? Surely that cannot be right?

Scumbag would be deemed to have given implied consent if the presence of the barrier was obvious or there was sufficient signage warning of it.

Otherwise whomever deploys the barrier commits an offence (albeit one that may be hard to prove) if he does so with the intention of restricting the movement of a vehicle. If you don't like it take it up with your MP, I didn't write the law.

nobbysn*ts

bazster wrote: »

Scumbag would be deemed to have given implied consent if the presence of the barrier was obvious or there was sufficient signage warning of it.

Otherwise whomever deploys the barrier commits an offence (albeit one that may be hard to prove) if he does so with the intention of restricting the movement of a vehicle. If you don't like it take it up with your MP, I didn't write the law.

In reality, the driver (may) kick off, phone the police, the only enforcement likely would be to let him out. The second time it happens, the driver has no excuse, as he knows the barrier exist from last time, and therefore must have given consent.

SeduLOUs

The_Deep wrote: »

So, in my block, what you are you saying that all 36 keyholders need to obtain the consent of Scumbag before they can legitimately close the barrier to protect their property? Surely that cannot be right?

Wouldn't the obvious solution be to keep the barrier closed to prevent someone parking, rather than closing them in after they park?

The_Deep

Wouldn't the obvious solution be to keep the barrier closed to prevent someone parking, rather than closing them in after they park?

Indeed, but 17 of the flats have tenants in them, only one is owner occupied, and he cannot control the other 17, he has a company to run. I have another flat in a much larger complex where the parking is controlled by a four digit code and we still have problems. People with two cars and only one space will use someone else's if they can get away with it.

There seem to be a general disregard for the rights of property owners in this country, and this allows PPCs to get away with as much as they do. Also the law is heavily slanted in favour of the interloper. Small private landlords cannot offer an appeal service, and it can take a month to get RK details from the DVLA.

ABN

Coupon-mad wrote: »

I don't think donations are needed and an advocate is likely to take the case on a pro bono basis (free). Neither party will claim costs AFAIK..

Well to sorta get this back on topic.

Parking Eye have never been known to be generous when it comes to court costs etc.

One has to wonder why they have presumable waved their right to claim costs should they win.

Could it be because they wanted it to go to appeal but were prevented from so doing by winning so have tried to remove any obstacle that would stop the defendants from appealing.

They must feel very confident that they are going to win and pave the way for even bigger profits in the future.

Anyway good luck.

nobbysn*ts

ABN wrote: »

Well to sorta get this back on topic.

Parking Eye have never been known to be generous when it comes to court costs etc.

One has to wonder why they have presumable waved their right to claim costs should they win.

Could it be because they wanted it to go to appeal but were prevented from so doing by winning so have tried to remove any obstacle that would stop the defendants from appealing.

They must feel very confident that they are going to win and pave the way for even bigger profits in the future.

Anyway good luck.

Maybe they want a decision, one way or another. If they lose, it's just another tax write off this way. If they win, it's just a tax write off.

Stroma

Bantex wrote: »

What if the issue in non customers using the spaces?

How do you prove that? How do you quantify a genuine loss of the person using that space? The reality is there can be no real abuse at say a retail park where a shopper has gone across the road for a burger.

atilla

Stroma wrote: »

How do you prove that? How do you quantify a genuine loss of the person using that space? The reality is there can be no real abuse at say a retail park where a shopper has gone across the road for a burger.

And going shopping does not mean you are obligated to purchase.

nobbysn*ts

Stroma wrote: »

How do you prove that? How do you quantify a genuine loss of the person using that space? The reality is there can be no real abuse at say a retail park where a shopper has gone across the road for a burger.

Well, this is going to be quantified very shortly. It's an interesting time now, the history books will be making a note of this forthcoming court decision.