ParkingEye lose in court

Marktheshark

A land registry check is a good spend as well.
See who really owns the land, a lot of contracts are with contractors assigned by land owners.
They dont have the authority to assign that right to start with.

Cygnus_Alpha

Ivor_Pecheque wrote: »

Fab result Cygnus, well done, another in the eye for the bullies.

Parking Prankster would be more than interested to hear from you, I'm sure.

We had a similar experience with PE's lawyer when we went to court, think she was called Ms Vibond.

Good good. This lady had a Nigerian surname and was based in Reading. She was very good at her job I have to say but she has chosen to use her fine skills for the dark side.

The judge was quick to slap her down when she quoted case law that was not similar to my case. For example she quoted case law that said if the signs were present then a contract had been formed but the judge pointed out that in that case, the defendant conceded he had seen the signs while in my case I hadn't.

Cygnus_Alpha

Ryan_Bryan wrote: »

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

Yes that is how I took it. Interestingly PE did not at any time claim it was a GPEOL. Instead they seem to play the Beavis case.

Cygnus_Alpha

Marktheshark wrote: »

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

Exactly. I did want to ask their solicitor to describe what had been redacted but did not get the opportunity. Even the signatory had been redacted so that I no way of following it up with Savills to find out if the contract was still in place or that the person was properly authorised to sign.

The judge did describe it as a "narrow margin". I would like to thing had I not already won on the first point that the judge would've been minded to have been more generous towards my arguments on this point.

Marktheshark

A good defence as to why Beavis is not applicable should be included.
The Beavis case rests upon a redacted document in which the Judge could not establish principle so decided they were.
Hence why a land registry search is a good inclusion as to prove why Beavis is not valid in this case as this document proves they can not be principles on land they do not own.
One case where one Judge gets it very wrong and they hawk on it like flies.
Be ready for it anyone else and have a plank to nail over that rat hole they use of redacted documents.

bluetoffee1878

I'm surprised we haven't seen any comments from friendswithbenefits, he was very vocal recently about a PPC win "against the forum experts"

How about a comment on this PPC loss just for balance.

Ralph-y

should we all PM him to ask ?

...... sorry .... troll baiting is prob against the rules ;-)

Ralph:cool:

HO87

bluetoffee1878 wrote: »

I'm surprised we haven't seen any comments from friendswithbenefits, he was very vocal recently about a PPC win "against the forum experts"

How about a comment on this PPC loss just for balance.

What friendswithbenefits fails to mention - understandably perhaps - is the occasions when he has withdrawn proceedings when faced with "forum experts" defences. One wonders why?

hoohoo

Cygnus_Alpha wrote: »

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.

Recently in Swindon there was a case where a motorist broke down in a ParkingEye car park. The principle of frustration of contract therefore applies. This of course trumps everything. To get round this the judge ruled she did not beleive the driver had broken down because the driver was not in court to be questioned. The mechanic attending wrote a letter. The judge ruled she did not believe him either because he was not in court to be questioned. The judge beleived everything in ParkingEye's witness statement despite ParkingEye not being there to be questioned.

In a previous case in Swindon the judge refused an application to summon ParkingEye witnesses because it was not proportional to the value of the claim

Cygnus_Alpha

bluetoffee1878 wrote: »

I'm surprised we haven't seen any comments from friendswithbenefits, he was very vocal recently about a PPC win "against the forum experts"

How about a comment on this PPC loss just for balance.

I take it that this friendswithbenefits is a PPC apologist. Well PE lost against a complete amateur - me. Although late in the day I did get some very helpful snippets reading from the experts on here.