NCP been very harsh...plz help!

enfield_freddy

next time you google , check the date of the link , those PE cases are all dated 2013. and most were default cases where the accused did not turn up in court.


since that time people have learnt the law and at present (pre COA) we were winning about 90% of cases.


I am not going to start on the size of bays apart from to simply say that the new mini is actually larger than the Mk 1 range rover , the new astra is about 18 inches longer and 7 inches wider than the original astra ,


you seem to know the laws regarding private parking , with a smidgings of on St parking when you need to confuse things , please carry on and give your good advice

enfield_freddy

londonTiger wrote: »

Also Mr Barry Beavis a MSE champion who took parking eye to court. and lost

"Mr Barry Beavis a MSE champion " new one on me , whats his user name?

and is appealing at the supreme court , please catch up with your selective postings

londonTiger

enfield_freddy wrote: »

"Mr Barry Beavis a MSE champion " new one on me , whats his user name?

and is appealing at the supreme court , please catch up with your selective postings

selective postings? he's lost in court already using the word for word typical MSE defence. He is appealing against it but very unlikely to win the appeal. So what happened to Barry Beavis? Did he not appear in court???

londonTiger

I bet a large number of people who got shafted by parking eye are those that took advie from MSE users and assumed they can park willy nilly in private car parks without paying and not face consequences.

hoohoo

londonTiger wrote: »

So many people harp on about the ancient loopholes with their head buried in the sand. A lot of people are being taken to court and forced to cough up for the initial "invoice" as well as the other parties legal costs.

This is incorrect.

In the small claim costs are strictly limited, so parking companies lose money each time they go to court. For instance, ParkingEye pay a lawyer £200-£300 to represent them to recover a £85-£100 ticket. This cost is not reclaimable if the motorist behaved reasonably and so PE are down at least £100 even if they win the case.

hoohoo

londonTiger wrote: »

Also Mr Barry Beavis a MSE champion who took parking eye to court. and lost

I believe it was ParkingEye who took Mr Beavis to court rather than the other way round.

enfield_freddy

I eventually stopped banging my head against a brick wall last night , and moved on


whatever London Tiger is smoking , I wont some

photome

londonTiger wrote: »

selective postings? he's lost in court already using the word for word typical MSE defence. He is appealing against it but very unlikely to win the appeal. So what happened to Barry Beavis? Did he not appear in court???

Why do say that?

your posts have always been ridiculous but maybe you have just been biding your time on here to come to the defence of PPCs

fisherjim

londonTiger wrote: »

I know it feels unjustified and frustrating, legally speaking they are entitled to ticket you for being slightly outside of the bay.

For good reason, after you leave the car parked it could get very busy and veering slightly over the line would make the bay next to you unusable.

You are supposed to park on the centre with equal space on both sides - if everyone parked like that you could park with cars on either side and still open your doors.

If you park right to the line on one side it makes it impossible to open the doors if there is a car on the other side - but you dont get a ticket because it's legally OK to do. But is is inconsiderate.

So you have some leeway - so parking past the line and getting fined - justifiable IMO.

No doubt when you get a ticket from one of these scamming companies for being 5 minutes over time because you had to queue to get out of a badly managed car park you will pay up with joy!

neil.net

londonTiger wrote: »

The defintion of preestimate of loss is not set in stone and down to the interpretation of the judge. The private parking services can always point to what the council charges for similar "breach of contract" and that sets ceiling of what the private companies can charge.

you can cite anciant case laws all you want but private parking companies are winning in court.

https://www.parkingeye.co.uk/motorist-information/parkingeye-win-over-90-of-county-court-hearings/

The council charges are based around statutory penalties (not breach of contract, and they have a public/not-for-profit duty), PPC charges are civil in nature for breach of contract, just because a council charges something similar doesn't mean they have they are related.

Whilst there have been some changes in particular circumstance recently, the base approach to correcting civil wrongs is to put the damaged party in the position they would have been if the contract had not been breached - A.K.A genuine damages. As you state, pre-estimate of loss is not set in stone, so why do all of the PPCs charge similar values? Why is POPLA allowing appeal based on charge not reflecting genuine pre-estimates of loss?

londonTiger wrote: »

2) cost of enforcement is included in the parking fine, you clearly dont run a business so you have no idea the business overheads are in chasing someone who violates parking rules. If they sent a bill for the cost of an additional parking ticket for parking in 2 bays they will be out of business because it's a very involved process doing all the paperwork and having a warden on site.

And it appears neither do you, unless (given the sanctimonious nature of your posts) you run a PPC?