ParkingEye lose in court

Cygnus_Alpha

hoohoo wrote: »

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 beleive him Eire 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

A total lack of parity shown by the judge in that case.

The irony is that when they do show up as I did, PE wail that they have to pay my very reasonable expenses when they lose.

I did want to cross examine the facts in the PE witness statement with their solicitor just to bring home that they were not there to be questioned themselves but did not have the opportunity.

Herzlos

Cygnus_Alpha wrote: »

This after they told me via mediation that they had won every case since Beavis so that I should give in.

Surely something can be done about a company lying in court appointed mediation? Or is it a more off-the-record kind of thing?

Marktheshark

It needs to be hit home that the redacted sections are the sections that deal with litigation and ownership and that is whey they are redacted, why does the brief not have a un-eacted version to show the judge ?
How would showing a judge an unredacted contract have commercial confidentiality ?
people need to make it clear to the judge that you believe they are attempting to bluff this court by removing information from the contract that proves the defence case and demand the Judge disallows it or orders them to serve up the real document.
This doubt needs planting in the judges head early doors.

The reason they are called Legal Arguments is because once in session you are allowed to argue a point with the judge, thats how courts work, the judge says no, you argue your point with them, respectfully of course, but keep on at it, refer to it again and again, plant that doubt.

Cygnus_Alpha

Herzlos wrote: »

Surely something can be done about a company lying in court appointed mediation? Or is it a more off-the-record kind of thing?

It is all off the record and done by phone. You don't actually get to speak to them though. You relay a message via the mediator and he relays one back after putting you on hold.

I did offer them £10 and was probably prepared to go to £20 but they held out at £100. Now it has cost them a few hundred quid.

Herzlos

Did you mention to the mediator that the statement was a total lie? I just feel that every avenue to shut these scammers down should be explored, and lying in mediation doesn't sit well.

I'm sure they knew they'd probably lose it, hence the reduced offer, but as said they are after heads on spikes rather than settling.

Cygnus_Alpha

Marktheshark wrote: »

It needs to be hit home that the redacted sections are the sections that deal with litigation and ownership and that is whey they are redacted, why does the brief not have a un-eacted version to show the judge ?
How would showing a judge an unredacted contract have commercial confidentiality ?
people need to make it clear to the judge that you believe they are attempting to bluff this court by removing information from the contract that proves the defence case and demand the Judge disallows it or orders them to serve up the real document.
This doubt needs planting in the judges head early doors.

The reason they are called Legal Arguments is because once in session you are allowed to argue a point with the judge, thats how courts work, the judge says no, you argue your point with them, respectfully of course, but keep on at it, refer to it again and again, plant that doubt.

I totally agree.

While I thought the judge was substantially fair, I did feel I was at a disadvantage in being a “litigant in person” and that for long spells the judge effectively challenged their solicitor on my behalf and I was only brought in at the end in a very limited way at the end. I therefore didn’t feel I had time to put questions to them.

One set of prepared questions I had was:-
“Can you describe what is in the sections redacted”
(if their solicitor says they don’t know)

“So there could be conditions in there that are helpful for the defendant?”
(if their solicitor does know and describes them)

“Based on what you describe, I see no reason why there was a need to redact other than to deny the court to properly examine evidence which may be harmful to your case”.

But alas I wasn’t given the opportunity. I would recommend to anyone to put the arguments Marktheshark has outlined above in their witness statement or skeleton argument as they may not get the chance in the hearing itself.

Cygnus_Alpha

Herzlos wrote: »

Did you mention to the mediator that the statement was a total lie? I just feel that every avenue to shut these scammers down should be explored, and lying in mediation doesn't sit well.

I'm sure they knew they'd probably lose it, hence the reduced offer, but as said they are after heads on spikes rather than settling.

At the time I didn't know it was a lie as i had not at that stage discovered this part of the forum. The mediator did make it clear that it was something they said and not something they had substantiated.

At the end of the day they can lie at mediation.

Half_way

could it be said that savils have been or are negligent in allowing parking eye to operate on their land, and as a direct result you have suffered from stress worry and anxiety. plus could it be also said that savils have failed to show a basic duty of care towards the public?

Cygnus_Alpha

Half_way wrote: »

could it be said that savils have been or are negligent in allowing parking eye to operate on their land, and as a direct result you have suffered from stress worry and anxiety. plus could it be also said that savils have failed to show a basic duty of care towards the public?

That did cross my mind. The name of the Savills signatory is redacted. Probably to forestall such a follow up.

Had I lost I would have tried to find a way to pursue Savills though I am not sure negligence would fit the bill.

Another thought I had was to pursue the owners London Metric - not necessarily on a legal basis but to question them on Corporate Responsibility and Ethics. I don't have their shares though so but if anyone else does...

Ryan_Bryan

Glad you're online as I'd like to ask you a favour Cygnus. Please make sure you stay an active member of the forum. People like yourself are a real inspiration to others. Ivor Pecheque similarly. Any advice and help you can offer aids the battle against the scammers.
Also remember to upload a photo of the cheque you receive as well as the accompanying covering letter. Always good for a grin.