Parking eye won cambridge case

andy_foster

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.

I don't *know* why they offered us an undertaking. I can probably make a slightly more educated guess than anyone else outside the ParkingEye camp, but it would still only be a guess.

Whilst on the face of it, the undertaking enabled Mr Beavis to appeal when otherwise the risk of the costs he might be ordered to pay if he lost would have been prohibitive, he would have had very strong grounds for a protective costs order, as this case is about as "David and Goliath" as it gets. It seems likely that such an order would merely cap the amount of costs he could be ordered to pay at an affordable level, rather than negating them entirely.

Computersaysno

National Trust have announced that anyone stepping on the grass at their properties will be liable for a £100 penalty.

hoohoo

Computersaysno wrote: »

National Trust have announced that anyone stepping on the grass at their properties will be liable for a £100 penalty.

Wrong business model.

National Trust have announced they had outsourced grass management to GrassingEye, who will be paying the National Trust £1000 a week per property managed. GrassingEye have put up signs stating that anyone reading the signs enters into a contract agreeing that grass must not be stepped on, and the charge for breach of contract is £85.

Stroma

nobbysn*ts wrote: »

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.

Not it's not ! Even if the Cambridge case is lost it's only very limited to certain car parks, which would be a tiny amount.

These companies still cannot prove a loss, vcs is trying to do so by changing amounts etc and reasons for their unlawful penalties, they are losing it and are speaking crap

nobbysn*ts

Stroma wrote: »

Not it's not ! Even if the Cambridge case is lost it's only very limited to certain car parks, which would be a tiny amount.

These companies still cannot prove a loss, vcs is trying to do so by changing amounts etc and reasons for their unlawful penalties, they are losing it and are speaking crap

I would suggest that small claims judges may not know the nuances of how parking eye operate these particular car parks, but would merely hear that the decision has been made in a court of record. As you say, they may decide that a decision made in a court of appeal doesn't apply in their particular case, due to how this particular car park is set up. Personally, I reckon it'll come down to how good the defendant is on the day, if PE win, at convincing the judge it doesn't apply due to a slight difference on paper. Conversely, it'll also come down to how good PE's brief is on convincing the judge it doesn't apply if PE lose. I hate to say it, a one off defendant, who is losing their money, or a brief that does it day in, day out , with PE's money? But we won't lose anyway!

peter_the_piper

hoohoo wrote: »

Wrong business model.

National Trust have announced they had outsourced grass management to GrassingEye, who will be paying the National Trust £1000 a week per property managed. GrassingEye have put up signs stating that anyone reading the signs enters into a contract agreeing that grass must not be stepped on, and the charge for breach of contract is £85.

Unlrss the signs say that sitting on the lawn is free but by leaving the lawn to visit the shop you agree to pay them 85 pounds.

Ivor_Pecheque

In the big scheme of things, Capita probably 'aint that worried.

They have to Tupe so many employees across, but there is a limit. Then' hey ho. :-)

nobbysn*ts

Ivor_Pecheque wrote: »

In the big scheme of things, Capita probably 'aint that worried.

They have to Tupe so many employees across, but there is a limit. Then' hey ho. :-)

Yes. Take the money, stop the loss, move on. It's just another paycheque until the day it isn't.

bargepole

nobbysn*ts wrote: »

Well, this is going to be quantified very shortly. ...

I wouldn't advise anyone to hold their breath, it will be many months before the appeal hearing takes place.


And probably several weeks after that before Judgment is handed down.

Umkomaas

bargepole wrote: »

I wouldn't advise anyone to hold their breath, it will be many months before the appeal hearing takes place.


And probably several weeks after that before Judgment is handed down.

Giving plenty more time make hay.

Let's get ready to plunder.....!