Didn't Parking Eye win fair and square ? (so far.)

Ivor_Pecheque

Interesting reading all the posts immediately following the Beavis and Parking Eye result.

Lot's of personal stuff, from both sides. (Was a little surprised by the vitriol expressed by the "professionals," perhaps it was a release of cathartic expressions).

Heard lot's from "our side" about Judges living in cloud cuckoo land, on the payroll etc, but if it had gone the other way, would the same attitude have prevailed ?

I have complete faith in the division of the powers, and I suspect that the truth will eventually prevail.

Personally, I hold those who work for Private Parking Companies with the same contempt I hold for tobacco companies, but am always a little unnerved when it get's to mud slinging.

cheers,

Ivor.

hoohoo

Well, they lied to the judge about the average costs they incurred per ticket, stating it was £53.

They told the judge council charges were £70, when they are £50.

Then there was the hoax phone call!

Not to mention all the other court cases where their behaviour has been disgraceful.

TDA

Ivor_Pecheque wrote: »

Heard lot's from "our side" about Judges living in cloud cuckoo land, on the payroll etc, but if it had gone the other way, would the same attitude have prevailed ?

Full on conspiracy theory 'tin foil hat' mode for those that believe that IMO...!

bargepole

Ivor_Pecheque wrote: »

Personally, I hold those who work for Private Parking Companies with the same contempt I hold for tobacco companies, but am always a little unnerved when it get's to mud slinging.

There is no valid comparison between PPCs and tobacco companies. The vast majority of people who fall foul of PPC penalties are people taking a bit too long to do their shopping, not reading signs properly, finding P&D machines not working, or even, as in your case, driving around looking for a space without actually parking. They do not make a conscious choice to engage with the PPC.


Nobody, as far as I know, accidentally goes to a kiosk and says '20 Marlboro Gold, please' without realising it.


Personally, after reading some of the comments on these forums, I'm grateful for the existence of tobacco companies.

The_Deep

I am puzzled, did not PE redact vital information in contract at the original CC hearing. If they had not done so, might not BB have won?

Ivor_Pecheque

I'm sure the truth will prevail.

The_Deep

Well, it comes out eventually. I heard rumours in Whitehall about Greville Janner over 20 years ago.

bargepole

The_Deep wrote: »

I am puzzled, did not PE redact vital information in contract at the original CC hearing. If they had not done so, might not BB have won?

They redacted the part which showed that PE were an agent, so Moloney ruled they were the principal. But he also said that the outcome would have been the same if they were the agent.


At the CoA hearing, the Judges thought that PE's status was that of a sub-contractor, although they didn't pursue that line. But again it wouldn't have made a difference to the outcome.


The whole decision was based on the argument that, without the charges being enforceable, the retailers would suffer due to unavailability of spaces, therefore they would be less likely to renew the tenancy with the landowner, and the consequence was that PE's contract with the landowner would probably be cancelled.


When I went there to record the piece for the BBC, I surveyed the managers of all of the retail units. The majority of them thought that PE's operation of the car park had a negative effect on their business, with trolleys being abandoned mid-shop because time was nearly up, and other customers vowing never to return after being ticketed for being a few minutes over.


With the wisdom of hindsight, if we had done that survey before the first CC hearing, and got signed witness statements from those disgruntled retailers, that might have swung it in BB's favour.

Captain_Leaky

What is this 'mysterious phone call' all about then? I'm intrigued.

Fergie76

Captain_Leaky wrote: »

What is this 'mysterious phone call' all about then? I'm intrigued.

The day before the original Maloney court date, someone phoned the PE Barrister to say the case had been postponed, so the Barrister never turned up.

Funnily enough, that Barrister was not PE's first choice, however, their first choice was available for the rearranged date.

Draw your own conclusions...