Lost to PE in Court Today: Had to happen sooner or later!

jkdd77

It's interesting that PE claim in their paperwork and on their website that their invoices are "not penalties", then turn around and argue in court that they are penalties, albeit supposedly "commercially justifiable".

Some might describe this as dishonest.

andy_foster

Buzby wrote: »

Since most of these cases depend on signage, providing your own negates and repudiates the establishment of a contract, as the burden of risk shifts.

Utter drivel.

Contracts for parking are generally accepted by performance. Your signs cannot negate performance, neither can they constitute a counter offer.

You cannot negotiate with a sign.

4consumerrights

andy_foster wrote: »

Utter drivel.

Contracts for parking are generally accepted by performance. Your signs cannot negate performance, neither can they constitute a counter offer.

You cannot negotiate with a sign.

You could try.:)

salmosalaris

GingerBob wrote: »

Like so much else here, a professional opinion would be useful.

Well I wouldn't waste my money to be told that the obvious

BenefitMaster

salmosalaris wrote: »

Well I wouldn't waste my money to be told that the obvious

My Professional opinion is that if the PPC takes a photo of your number plate, and you can prove that there are words on it negating any contract they offer, then they have no leg to stand on.

I'm dumb enough to try it, to be fair, so might stick something similar on my number plates, and have the car park at Town Quay, where we know we can win simply on Keeper Liability,

4consumerrights

bazster wrote: »

Now that is EXACTLY the kind of nonsense that p***es me off about this place. See Andy's post above: a 1:10 chance of getting a court claim is a long, long way from "almost certainly". Anyone could be forgiven for thinking you are making this stuff up in the interest of driving customers to your own business.

Anyone who says that I advise people to go to court is either an idiot or a liar. I don't recall doing so except perhaps in the rare totally-egregious residential parking case where the motorist is clearly the lawful occupier of the land and ought to be threatening the PPC with a claim rather than the other way around.

However, I do advocate giving people all the facts rather than browbeating them into appealing to this forum's beloved PoPLA with lurid scaremongering about court cases. Some regulars here even trot out the same bloodcurdling spiel even when it's a PPC who has never done court.

Give people the facts, let them make up their own minds. If you could be bothered to look you would find many posts where I have told people that "their" PPC never or hardly ever does court, and then I follow it up by pointing out that the PPC has 6 years to change their mind about it. Those are the facts people need to make an informed decision, not hysterical rubbish about "certainly" receiving a court claim.

You seem to forget that they have SIX years to bring about a court claim.

There is no denying that Parking Eye are the most litigious of the parking companies - and there is no clairvoyance with the outcome of the COA.

Is it a gamble that you would be willing to take?

when you know that you can currently get the parking charge cancelled either at first stage appeal or at POPLA?

Giving people the facts is all well and good - to informed people who know how to make the appeals in the first instance.

Seems you are unaware of the tales of misery that we see via our company.

Marktheshark

The best advice I would offer is if you are not prepared to appeal a conjunctive county court decision and that is what they are, joined up bits of random evidence then keep as far away from the county court as possible.
You will always run the risk of a loss as there has to be no lawful basis to a decision.
Many judges will just reside against you for acting as lay vs advocate.

4consumerrights

andy_foster wrote: »

Off the top of my head, PE issue ~700,000 fake parking fines a year, about 30% of which are paid, leaving ~500,000 unpaid, of which the number appealed to POPLA is insignificant. Assuming that they are still issuing ~1000 county court claims a week, that is only ~50,000 a year or 1 in 10 of those who refuse to pay.

A 1 in 10 chance does not equate to almost certainly. Presumably coincidentally, it just about makes it worthwhile paying £16 to make it go away.

However, that does not mean that ignoring and relying on templates is the best solution in every case, but it also does not mean that it is not the best solution in some cases. Some people will not get involved in disputes, lodge appeals, etc., and cannot or will not do the research to do anything more than rely on templates. A 1 in 10 chance (assuming the most litigious PPC at their most litigious) of losing £150 if they are taken to court and either lose or default makes more sense than folding and paying £85.

Andy I am really surprised as you have missed out a basic flaw there.... (plus most are for £100 - Morrisons have £85.00)

circa - 700,000 tickets issued
less 30% circa 200,00 for those who pay first

leaves 500,000

less 55% circa 324,000 * which are cancelled on first appeal to parking eye

leaves circa 176,000*

not including popla
*


which narrows the odds considerably when you additionally factor in those who pay at debt collector stage, those who cough up after receving a LBCC



* corrected typo from eagle eyed Stroma

The_Deep

Whatever the odds. if you go to court and are against a person trained in the law, you need to keep your wits about you. Using a defence which you do not fully understand is a recipe for losing.

It seems that, in this case that the plaintiff was a pilgrim who believed what she had been told by armchair lawyers and hobbyists and had signed off on a defence which was incomplete.

The Judge was obviously not prepared to cut her any slack, and the PPC won. No big deal, she dis not make the best of the hand which she had been dealt and lost to a superior player.

Stroma

4consumerrights wrote: »

Andy I am really surprised as you have missed out a basic flaw there.... (plus most are for £100 - Morrisons have £85.00)

circa - 700,000 tickets issued
less 30% circa 200,00 for those who pay first

leaves 500,000

less 55% circa 324,000 * which are cancelled on first appeal to parking eye

leaves circa 276,000

not including popla


which narrows the odds considerably when you additionally factor in those who pay at debt collector stage, those who cough up after receving a LBCC

Theres a flaw in your figures as well 500-324=176

But you are relying on figures provided by parking eye, have you considered the fact that they are a bunch of lying scum ? There is no way on earth they cancel 55% of tickets.

And I'm interested in your figures , the 30% figure is the total amount who pays is my take on that, it includes the people who pay later on. Can you give details on how you got those figures ?