Parking Eye Vs Barry Beavis & Martin Wardley

esmerobbo

bargepole wrote: »

Moloney's original Judgment was NOT from a higher court, it was a small claims case like any other, so is not binding on other cases. The only difference is that the first instance hearing was heard by a senior Judge, so it may be regarded as persuasive.

Yup I remembered after I posted it was still at SCC stage but never edited or deleted my post before you posted.

The_Deep

Was there not also some mentioned that PE had not been entirely frank in the evidence which they presented at the Beavis hearing? ISTR that they played a fast one.

deflated

Been very naive with the stress and missed the obvious but yet another public display of their underhand tactics, she walked away without even any paperwork to state the outcome cant even remember the judges name how would this be found out.The representitive was a Mrs Green i suppose they come from the same firm every time in the Derby court,thinking about it there was another case before her so they were going over the same things no wonder he couldnt wait to get rid also she mentioned it was her collegue so presumably the same dodgy firm.

Ryan_Bryan

The_Deep wrote: »

Was there not also some mentioned that PE had not been entirely frank in the evidence which they presented at the Beavis hearing? ISTR that they played a fast one.

Yup. The Prankster blogged about it. Whether it has any relevance in the appeal remains to be seen. I'm pretty sure the appeal team will mention it.;)

http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2014/07/did-parkingeye-deliberately-deceive-hhj.html

trisontana

PE keep calling this a "test case". It's nothing of the sort, especially as that particular car park is very different from the majority of places that PE infest. In this case PE pay £1,000 a week to the landowners to "manage" the car park. And fool can see that the only way that PE can then earn income from it is for many motorists to break their rules.

deflated

Thanks everyone for the advice and info bit unsure of some of the abbreviations but i intend to wright to the judge as soon as i can find out who he is he might feel hes been had over in his own court,any ideas anyone cant seem to find any court lists or any thing to say who he is unless the court will give me that info on monday.I will give the SRA and the prankster a go too,nothing to loose now, this deliberate ommision has got to be bordering on contempt

Coupon-mad

Ms Proverbs (not you) should just write NOW IMMEDIATELY to the local court with a letter marked 'For the urgent attention of the Judge in the case of ParkingEye v Proverbs, claim number A1JD4518 (heard on 27th November)'.

Don't expect the Judge to change the decision but you could ask that in view of the wholly unjust fact that the ParkingEye rep did not disclose the fact the case they were relying upon (you have now discovered after research) is set for the Court of Appeal and has been for months (and LPC Law know this) could the Judge consider suspending enforcement of the Order, in a similar move that was followed by the Judge in this case:

3/9/14 3JD04003 PE v Mr X, Kingston.
DDJ Jones followed Beavis & gave Judgment to PE. BUT she suspended enforcement until 42 days after Beavis (i.e. gives the defendant time to appeal in April 2015 if PE lose Beavis).

Bristolbob_2

I recently received a ticket for parking outside a bay. People using this car park have always Parker in these un marked bays. There are no lines to say you can't. I bought and displayed a ticket. Any help please

Ralph-y

First you need to read

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=4816822

then start a new thread of your own.

This stops advice getting mixed up , and enables the forum advisers to keep track

Ralph:cool: