ParkingEye lose in court

Cygnus_Alpha

Ryan_Bryan wrote: »

They said your costs were disproportionate? Sheer brazen effrontery.

The judge said that as their claim was for £100 + £50 solicitors costs plus £25 court fee, the amount I was claiming was reasonable. He agreed that had I not taken holiday, the flexible holiday scheme at my work would have meant I would have been paid for it. And he also agreed that he saw no other way I could have travelled to Swindon from London without the travelling expenses I claimed.

Ryan_Bryan

Sorry Cygnus. I was actually having a dig at their 'parking charges' and PPCs GPEOL claims in general.

bod1467

It's OK - I knew what you meant.

Marktheshark

Would they accept a redacted contract as your defence ?
Some of these judges need to go back to basics,

Cygnus_Alpha

bazster wrote: »

So an employee who isn't able to monetise his holiday simply has to sacrifice a precious day's holiday because of ParkingEye? That sucks big time!


Geez, what will the scumbags think of next? I don't suppose you even knew what your costs would be when you sent your defence.

Yes, I too was surprised the judge would take that stance and I had to think quick on my feet to counter the point. But once I did, he agreed with me. Perhaps it was just this one judge, but I would warn anyone who is an employee and who wants to claim the loss of earnings expenses to have a good reason (like I did) as to why it is valid.

And true, I did not know what my costs were when I sent my defence. Had I been in Swindon that day I would have had £4 of expenses. As it was I was working and staying in London that week. If anything they got off lightly. The Standard peak return Swindon Paddington fare is £121, standard off peak return is £56 and super off peak £45. As it was I split my ticket in Didcot and used my network card to get a 33% discount for the Didcot leg - hence £28.

Cygnus_Alpha

Guys_Dad wrote: »

A lesson to all those appealing or going to court. Do your homework and don't just copy templates verbatim. Check out signage and as OP did, get the details of where the PPC is deficient when possible.

And the advice about dressing properly and coming over as truthful will always help in court.

And have evidence of your costs as well for when you win.

Congratulations again. :beer:

Thank you. I did spend between 10-15 hours on this case but it was worth it to fight the good fight. And really I should have spent more time as I did err on some of my points and it is only right that I show some humility on that score (as well as the gloating:D).

I view these people in a similar vein to hostage takers. The more you pay them off, the more hostages they will take.

Cygnus_Alpha

Half_way wrote: »

and to anyone reading this after receiving an unlawful parking ticket, the best way to get rid of these things is not to ignore but to try and get rid of it at the earliest opportunity.

As this is/was a multiple retail park, it may be possible to make a claim against the land owner?

I totally agree. Had I not ignored it, maybe ParkingEye may not have been emboldened to take me to court. In their witness statement they claim that when people appeal, they succeed 65% of the time - though I saw no evidence to back up that point.

Half_way

Much as it may seem easy to go for the likes of Halfords/The range it would appear that the real target should be savils
Theres a contact page here http://www.savills.co.uk/people-and-offices/

Marktheshark

When a Solicitor is prepared to hawk up and lie in court, you have a job on your hands.

Cygnus_Alpha

hoohoo wrote: »

Was this in Swindon county court? If so, well done. This is normally a motorist's graveyard.

I presume ParkingEye didn't mention Beavis was being appealed either.

Yes Swindon County Court. I hadn't been aware it was a motorist's graveyard. Interestingly Swindon Borough Council have a near monopoly in car parks in the borough.

This judge had not come across Beavis and they did not mention Beavis being appealed. I was the one who mentioned it in my skeleton argument on the advice of this forum and also said it was of persuasive force only. Indeed they talked throughout as though it was case law.

They also asked for the right to appeal on the grounds that the judge had ignored the case law set out but the judge refused them on the grounds that Beavis was not case law.