parking eye summons to court

bod1467

You should accordingly be making the court aware of the COA hearing ... PE will NOT be doing that, even though their lawyers (LPC law) have a duty to the court to do so.

spikyone

errrcantthinkofone wrote: »

does anyone know the outline details of the ruling hhj molony qc made in favour of parking companies ,parking eye seem to be referencing it alot in their pre court papers???

This is the oft-mentioned Beavis case. Without wishing to be rude, if you haven't made that connection then you probably haven't done enough research into how best to defend yourself. Knowledge is power!


Search Parking Prankster's blog for the Beavis case, and be prepared to ask for a stay pending the outcome of Beavis from the COA. If the stay isn't granted, your fall-back (when PE inevitably bring up Moloney's ruling) is the link that Castle provided - para 13; the initial Beavis ruling relates only to free car parks.

errrcantthinkofone

well had my time in court with p.e and lost miserably thanks for all your help everyone but i dont think its the last time you cant move round cornwall now without parking eye picking you up somewhere ,interesting tactic used by their solicitor out of the 1hr allocated hearing he spent 47mins delivering his case mostly shuffling through the 172 pages of unindexed "evidence" which left me about 3 minutes to offer a defence and then 10 mins for the summing up .All the points i raised about signage location ,no direct link between land owner and p.e (p.e have a contract with a leaseholder not the landowner) and the business model of p.e being built on penalties and ensnaring people with a contract they didnt realise they entering into therefore not working as a deterrent to unruly parking were dismissed by the judge as inappropriate in this case .The judge in his summing up stated that if he himself owned land in a position like this he would also turn it into a car park to make an awful lot of money from a relatively small outlay,so i think i had lost before i got up yesterday morning

bod1467

Did PE rely on the Beavis case in their evidence?
Did you mention the Beavis appeal? Did the PE lawyer mention it?

The_Deep

This really does not surprise me at all, OP seems to have been remarkably unprepared. I am astounded that, even 24 hours before the case, he/she had to ask about Beavis.

I think we can put this down as an "own goal" loss.

ampersand

'The judge in his summing up stated that if he himself owned land in a position like this he would also turn it into a car park to make an awful lot of money from a relatively small outlay'

#
What !?!?...notwithstanding the lottery that Court can be on these, but shouldn't.

Any chance of transcipt to anchor Judge's comments, op? I'm appalled that you lost on this, given that you seem to have tried to relate the main defence points in 'unpoliced' time.

' he spent 47mins delivering his case mostly shuffling through the 172 pages of unindexed "evidence" which left me about 3 minutes '

Who was the 'he', please?

PP - aware of this one?

Anything to be done re: Judge?

jkdd77

The OP has 21 days to appeal.

If Beavis wins his appeal, and the CoA ruling is handed down within this time period, then I would suggest that the OP should also appeal, all the more so given the grossly inadequate signage.

In fairness to the OP, I don't think that the best defence in the world could have been properly presented in three minutes. I think that it sounds like the judge was monumentally biased towards PE, to the point where the OP has simply not had a fair hearing at all, and would probably have lost even if he/ she had spend ten hours researching the details of Beavis.

ampersand

Exactly, jkdd77.

Need one of the Forum Greats to spell out next steps.

Lick wounds, op - but please don't give up. Having lost at this stage, you're in a better position to appeal, if crassness of Judge is seen in transcript.

errrcantthinkofone

sorry the "he" i referred to was p.e's solicitor

ampersand

..which emphasises ineptly directed Hearing.