Parking Eye's "Solicitor's Costs"

trisontana

Thanks for the parking Prankster for blogging this:-
ParkingEye bogus £50 solicitor costs struck out

http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2015/08/parkingeye-bogus-50-solicitor-costs.html

As many of us have been saying for a long time, There is no way that PE can justify that £50.

bargepole

I've been saying this in all defence statements for PE cases for a long time, and now a District Judge has picked up on it and agreed.

The calculation of only 4 minutes per claim is one that I made, and assumes that the solicitor does no other work.

But the reality is, that PE have a direct interface to Northampton and are able to issue these claims in bulk, sometimes up to 200 in a day. I very much doubt that, apart from drafting the original templates for the particulars of claim, either of PE's solicitors have any involvement in these at all.

Just another example of how PE try to mislead defendants, and the Courts.

Umkomaas

Just another example of how PE try to mislead defendants, and the Courts.

I'm no legal expert, but is this sort of thing known as the tort of deceit?

The_Deep

Is this not of some concern to the SRA?

Herzlos

Definitely. It's fraudulent somewhere and allowing/charging fees that aren't incurred must be against code of practise (and even law).

bargepole

Parking Eye rely on two old cases to justify the £50 filing fee.

These are Nossen's Letter Patent [1969] 1 WLR 638, and London Scottish Benefit Society v Chorley [1884].

In the first case, the Judge determined that in house solicitors could charge a fee where 'expert services' were required, and in the second case, it was held that it was unreasonable to pay a fee to an external solicitor, to do work that could be done in house.

But in both of those, solicitors would have actually had to do some real work, in drawing up the forms and manually signing them, probably with a quill pen in 1884.

In those days the concept of automated electronic filing had not been envisaged, and a charge of £50 for 4 minutes' work (or even no minutes' work, as the task is probably delegated to a junior administrator) simply cannot be justified.

trisontana

The question must be asked - where does that£50 end up? In the hot, sticky hands of one or both of the solicitors, is id divied out among all of the legal department, or just it just end up in PE's bank account?

enfield_freddy

trisontana wrote: »

The question must be asked - where does that£50 end up? In the hot, sticky hands of one or both of the solicitors, is id divied out among all of the legal department, or just it just end up in PE's bank account?

crapita's bank accounts

peter_the_piper

Nice Captain Jack is still on the little guys side.

Parkrage

When I asked the question, 'Will, oneday, PE have to return all thei ill-gotten gains - much like the PPI scandal - I

Parkrage

When I asked the question, 'Will, one day, PE have to return all their ill-gotten gains - much like the PPI scandal - I was informed that "PE have no assets". (Hence I wonder what happens, i.e. who gets, all this money they collect?). Apparently, they're owned by Phoenix - although Capita was mentioned above - so hopefully they'll get landed with a huge amount of payouts at some point!