Parking eye court claim form

4consumerrights

DavidFeist wrote: »

Have you considered offering ParkingEye an amount to settle? The dogmatic 'experts' with high post counts and those with vested interests (such as 4consumerrights, who 'is involved' in a company that charges motorists for parking advice) will not admit this, but the reality is that in the wake of the Beavis judgment it is going to be very hard if not impossible for anyone but a Bargepole level parking expert to "get you off the hook". A Judge is going to take one look at the Supreme Court ruling and you are going to find it very difficult to convince them that the should not rule in ParkingEye's favour.

I suggest you read up on the Barry Beavis case, who also ignored ParkingEye!

I would offer PE £100 to go away. You might win in court, but it's going to take a bloody good effort.

One final thing: who advised you to ignore it? Was it something you read on here?

David - it may surprise you to learn but "Bargepole" and I are directors and shareholders of the same company......

Any court claim now is going to be difficult.

The OP must still file a defence at this late stage to avoid a default judgment .

Your advice has already been covered off forum to the OP

Quentin

4consumerrights wrote: »

Quentin I suggest you read the whole thread very carefully again and look at what was being said.

The discussion was not about any times for default judgments and you also misquoted my post regarding that matter where I said the OP needed to get his skates on to submit a defence.


You obviously didn't read the whole thread and your advice was was absolutely appalling to suggest the wording you offered.

"A simple defence along the lines of "the defendant denies owing the claimant any money" is all that is needed."

Your suggestion is unneccessary. And please show me where I have misquoted you so that I can correct it.
Why have you now gone back to the original argument which has been done to death in this thread!

You subsequently wrongly accuse me of giving false information regarding when the claimant can ask for judgement in default, and when I take exception to your wrong comment instead of standing corrected (you were wrong - no claimant can win a judgement in default if they apply for it after a defence has been submitted irrespective of when the defence was submitted) you revert to this.

grahamcaley

Thinking about it surely the beavis result doesn't matter as all cases are individual. I'm not arguing on grounds that it is unfair, it is unfair, but I had no idea that I had to do anything and that by parking in the car park I was entering into a contract. It's ludicrous. Surely not all judges are going to have been watching the beavis case intently. And £100 for a pint of Guinness David are you nuts?

Bargepole/ 4consumerrights / quentin/couponmad

Give you thoughts: pay up or court....I'll go with the majority

Thanks

Quentin

My thoughts:

Try an offer - but bear in mind the costs they already have paid apart from the "parking charge" - so do make it a "sensible" one.

bargepole

grahamcaley wrote: »

Thinking about it surely the beavis result doesn't matter as all cases are individual. I'm not arguing on grounds that it is unfair, it is unfair, but I had no idea that I had to do anything and that by parking in the car park I was entering into a contract. It's ludicrous. Surely not all judges are going to have been watching the beavis case intently. And £100 for a pint of Guinness David are you nuts?

I'm afraid you don't seem to have grasped how the law works.

A decision from a higher court (and there are none higher than the Supreme Court) creates a binding precedent for the lower courts, where the facts of the case are substantially the same. I can assure you that the high profile nature of the Beavis case means that all District Judges are well aware of it, and will follow that ruling unless it can be shown that there are factors in a particular case which mean it can be distinguished.

You may consider it unfair, but the law doesn't. It's not £100 for a pint of Guinness, it's damages for breach of a parking contract.

Unless you can prove, with photographic evidence, that the signage was unclear/obscured/too badly lit, the court will rule that you saw, or should have seen, the signs.

If you can't do that, you should consider an offer of settlement.

System

Try an offer - but bear in mind the costs they already have paid apart from the "parking charge" - so do make it a "sensible" one.

Their current going rate is Parking charge + £25 - usually £125.

Given that you are going through domestic upheaval then it may be better to get a deal and move on.

Guys_Dad

This thread has been about what you must do to avoid a default judgement. However we need to go back to basics to answer your last post.

You parked at a hotel and went for a drink. What, therefore, are you accused of doing that contravened the parking regulations? Did you actually do whatever it was?

In other words, unless you have some form of defence, you will lose. I agree tha,t from your posts, you are not likely to win unless you have some hard evidence or letter from the hotel asking the PPC to cancel. By that, I am saying that other posters on other threads have stood a better chance of winning.

Look honestly at your view of your own capabilities and decide if you could assemble and present various procedural appeal points and any legal ones. If you have not actually contravened and can in any way prove it, then take your chance to present your case in court. If not, and going against advice I usually give, then try an offer to the parking company.

The_Deep

49 posts, and where are we, still counting the deckchairs. I at a loss as to discern any understanding by the OP as to their situation, he/she seems to lack focus.

He/she went for a drink in a hotel, failed to observe the parking requirements, and ignored PEs invoices. Now PE are taking him to court. He /she has two choices, defend or pay.

My advice would be to pay, I do not believe that he could mount a successful defence, he /she seems unable to grasp simple concepts. The cavalier attitude towards getting a CCJ is ludicrous, unless of course he is as rich as Croessus and will never need credit.

Quentin

The_Deep wrote: »

.... The cavalier attitude towards getting a CCJ is ludicrous, unless of course he is as rich as Croessus and will never need credit.

I don't think the OP fully understands CCJs.

Saying not bothered about getting credit trashed will be the least of the worries if a CCJ gets registered - think bailiffs/attachment of earnings etc!

A CCJ only affects credit if it's registered, and they only get registered if you don't pay it off within a month of getting one.

4consumerrights

grahamcaley wrote: »

Thinking about it surely the beavis result doesn't matter as all cases are individual. I'm not arguing on grounds that it is unfair, it is unfair, but I had no idea that I had to do anything and that by parking in the car park I was entering into a contract. It's ludicrous. Surely not all judges are going to have been watching the beavis case intently. And £100 for a pint of Guinness David are you nuts?

Bargepole/ 4consumerrights / quentin/couponmad

Give you thoughts: pay up or court....I'll go with the majority

Thanks

I can't believe we are still deliberating this aspect...

and you are definitely now in danger of a default judgment against you and this is the 11th hour....

Filing the defence is the first stage for your position / getting the landowner to instruct cancellation or negotiating a WP offer can be done afterwards.Without Prejudice offers to settle can be made at any time during the process and you can even offer to settle at court before entering the hearing (should it get that far).

Parking Eye's legal team and point of contact normally take 10 days to look at any paperwork.


The advice given to make an offer to settle is, given your procrastination, personal problems and grasp of legal aspects is a sound one but you should still file a defence IMHO to avoid any risk of automatic default judgment which would make you liable for £200 and remove any rights to negotiate.

By the way your credit rating will not be affected if you pay any judgment (whether determined in court ) or from a default judgment within 28 days.

This case does have aspects which make it distinguishable from Beavis and contrary to Parking Eye's standard terms of engagement with their clients... However, I am not prepared to put this on an open forum.