ParkingEye lose in court

Marktheshark

bazster wrote: »

Diarise the 28 days and send in the bailiffs if they are late. You will not be the first, and that will start costing them serious money!

Serving them a Statutory Demand will cost far more to put right.

bm1957

hoohoo wrote: »

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

It would make sense that this is why they've redacted the Savill's signature - we made quite a nuisance of ourselves trying to get him into court!

My case is held until May, pending the Beavis outcome, but I have much info ref. Savill's signatory, owners/shareholders etc. if you want it Cygnus. I'm in Swindon also.

The land ownership is very convoluted and one of the major ultimate shareholders is a University Public Pension Scheme!!!

Congratulations :beer:

Cygnus_Alpha

bazster wrote: »

Diarise the 28 days and send in the bailiffs if they are late. You will not be the first, and that will start costing them serious money!

Yes, I will certainly do that. Thanks.

Cygnus_Alpha

Ralph-y wrote: »

from a current ongoing thread

"Could it be something to do with the fact that Parking Eye had a turnover of £25.8 million and made a profit of £8 million last year"


With hindsight perhaps the judge should have been told that in the "car parking industry world " there is no such thing as mitigating circumstances ;-)

Ralph :cool:

Incredible. So they levied £25.8m in PCNs last year. That is £1 for every motorist in the country. People really need to stop paying these people.

Cygnus_Alpha

Ivor_Pecheque wrote: »

and check the cheque. They sent me an undated one.

I certainly will. And great frame and letter by the way. Couldn't believe you let them off with such low expenses though. You must do better last time.

Cygnus_Alpha

bm1957 wrote: »

It would make sense that this is why they've redacted the Savill's signature - we made quite a nuisance of ourselves trying to get him into court!

My case is held until May, pending the Beavis outcome, but I have much info ref. Savill's signatory, owners/shareholders etc. if you want it Cygnus. I'm in Swindon also.

The land ownership is very convoluted and one of the major ultimate shareholders is a University Public Pension Scheme!!!

Congratulations :beer:

Thank you BM. And good luck with your case. Were you caught in the same car park? If so, you need a picture of the sign they have behind a tree for your case - if the Beavis appeal fails that is. Do let me know if I can be of any assistance.

Someone mentioned to me that there did use to be a sign at the entrance. Presumably, PE had it removed so that they could catch more people.

bm1957

Cygnus_Alpha wrote: »

Thank you BM. And good luck with your case. Were you caught in the same car park? If so, you need a picture of the sign they have behind a tree for your case - if the Beavis appeal fails that is. Do let me know if I can be of any assistance.

Someone mentioned to me that there did use to be a sign at the entrance. Presumably, PE had it removed so that they could catch more people.

I am the registered keeper of the car which was caught in the same car park (actually wasn't driving, but fairly irrelevant)

Signage is in my defence but a very small part. I visited the site with the driver the day after we got the PCN, and to be fair the signage wasn't bad - bl00dy huge sign at the entrance... I had some choice words with the driver! (who genuinely missed them all, I have no idea how).

Even if Beavis fails, I believe my case is watertight on land ownership, dodgy witness statements etc. Been running on for nearly two years now :j

Mike172

bm1957 wrote: »

if Beavis fails

dont be ridiculous

bod1467

You think it's a slam-dunk win for Beavis? Seriously?

PE (and the parking industry) will be throwing everything they can at this appeal to get it seen off.

Half_way

The issue is that if commercially justified penalty's are allowed ( should beavis fail) then that could undo the Dunlop pneumatic tyre vs new garage and motor co, or weaken it at best.

another aspect that was touched upon on the Tv programm is the wider effect where restaurants could charge a commercially justified penalty for spilling wine.
Exceed your mobile phone usage limits that will be a comercialy justified penalty then
Exceed your internet providers fair usage policy, that will be a commercially justified penalty - and it goes on, a long way beyond the world of parking and the self interested PPCs.

It would be quite ironic of we saw the likes of Rachel Ledson posting on the internet forum asking for help as she had been handed a commercially justified penalty by her internet company for streaming too much netflix