Parking eye won cambridge case

Hot_Bring

IanMSpencer wrote: »

This may well be a deliberate decision to get it to the appeal court.

I only wish I could agree with you. He could have achieved the same by agreeing with the defendant. The difference being that then PE would have had to paid to take it to appeal rather than the defendant in this case.

nigelbb

Umkomaas wrote: »

I'm not sure this was in the Judge's thinking, Ian. Why would he find for a multi-million pound organisation and against the 'little man', placing the financial burden of appeal on the least financially able.

Surely if this was his strategic thinking, and he wanted to ease this on its way to the CoA, then finding against PE might have produced a better result for him.

This result is far better for those of us who have a vendetta against PE. If the case had gone against them then it would have been a multi-million pound gamble on the part of PE to appeal. This way if the defendant is willing then it will definitely be settled in the Court of Appeal whereas PE would have been leaned on by all the other PPCs not to rock the boat if they had lost.

halibut2209

There is no way that PE would have appealed if they lost. We've been clamouring for years to get a case put up in a higher court. This is that chance.

Umkomaas

nigelbb wrote: »

This result is far better for those of us who have a vendetta against PE. If the case had gone against them then it would have been a multi-million pound gamble on the part of PE to appeal. This way if the defendant is willing then it will definitely be settled in the Court of Appeal whereas PE would have been leaned on by all the other PPCs not to rock the boat if they had lost.

That's a good point Nigel, and I wouldn't argue against that.

I wonder whether PE have spotted this potential; perhaps they've more to worry about now than to celebrate. Might take a bit of the fizz out of their shampoo!

Half_way

salmosalaris wrote: »

So is that a green light for any business to start charging their customers penalties because they are commercially justified ? If so case I can see a few schemes starting to appear

From what I know, the Private companies can not issue fines or penalties largely stems from the Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre v New Garage & Motor company case, with subsequent legislation weighting things in favour of the individual when he/she may be up against a big corporation and all the resources that a large organisation/company etc may be able to leverage against them.

The wider issue is that if private companies can fine private individuals then whats to stop other companies doing likewise, weather they be involved in car parks, private estates, or businesses far far removed from the world of the PPCs?

As for the Cambridge case, the big question is will it be appealed or not?

Bantex_2

Hot_Bring wrote: »

To be frank I couldn't care less what the PPCs or landowners want. I parked correctly twice but still got invoices and threats from G24. I now don't bother even attempting to stick to the "rules" and have a G24 and Parking Eye ticket ( both unpaid ) to prove it. All the landowners and PPCs can blame G24 for my current attitude and I've lost them thousands over the last few years. You reap what you sow.

If the T&C's were reasonable and the PPCs didn't attempt to scam you I might have some sympathy.

EDIT - I've had threatening emails and phone calls from PPCs as well just because I've dared to try and expose the scam. Make no mistake - the PPC industry is a scam and rotten to the core.

Which rules did you chose to ignore?

Hot_Bring

Bantex wrote: »

Which rules did you chose to ignore?

Where I park. How long I park for. Leaving site. Returning within the "you cannot return period".

I do always pay the parking fees when required though.

Other than the fees I just pretend there are no T&Cs. As I say G24 can be thanked for my attitude.

esmerobbo

Bantex wrote: »

rules

Rules ? Did you mean conditions?

Stroma

Yes these are conditions of parking not rules, they don't have any statury powers to enforce rules on anybody.

Guys_Dad

Appeals are only good things if you win.

If it goes to appeal, and we lose, then the PPCs have a massive advantage in court from that point and can definitely lean on POPLA and get the BPA to rewrite their GPEOL paragraphs in their CoP.

At present, this is only a verdict in a SCC that came down one way, whereas there are many that went the other way.

Yes, it bodes badly for the stayed cases, but when the dust has settled, is it really any more significant for future cases than the McIlwaine and Jenkins cases that found for the motorist.

Given the perverseness of our judiciary, I would stay well away from the Appeal court as an adverse decision would do us much more harm than the current disappointing SCC verdict.