ParkingEye PCN - County Court hearing date set

The_Deep

salmosalaris wrote: »

This payment is irrelevant

I feel that you should have won this. There is little commercial justfiication for this level of penalty in this location .[/QUOTE]

There doesn't need to be[/QUOTE]



More arrogance? Or is that based on fact?

salmosalaris

Ok , it is not arrogance , unless you consider anyone who disagrees with you arrogant in which case a mirror may be necessary
please explain why the payment to "farm" the site as you put it is relevant , and
Please show me where in the SC judgment the charge must be commercially justified

yotmon

Having just read this thread, I'm amazed that no-one commented on your first post and offered assistance with your court submissions. Having said that, i also found it bazaar that having joined MSE to post on a parking forum, you didn't actually asked for any help.

What advice did your Lawyer friend give you after going through the Beavis case with you. Was it to throw in the towel after reading all the salient points, or go for it seeing as he thought you had a fighting chance. And why did he not attend court with you ?

Seeing as it was County court, am I right in saying that there is a recorder. If a Judge made a comment half way through a court case saying that you should have paid the correct payment on a 'free' car park, then I think I would be heading straight back for an appeal. Again, what did you Lawyer friend say about this ?

Since your loss in court, I would have expected a bit more 'grunt' than all this passiveness that you seem to be displaying. The difference in your first post to the last one is a true transformation in character. You now seem to be singing the praises of PE and how they can't do any wrong. You have successfully argued with every regular on here how their advice wouldn't have worked as a defence. What was the point coming back to tell everyone that you lost, other than put doubt in every appellant's mind.......

Redx

when the OP says CoA , surely they mean the SC. ie:- Supreme Court ?

mattfromwales1984

yotmon wrote: »

Having just read this thread, I'm amazed that no-one commented on your first post and offered assistance with your court submissions. Having said that, i also found it bazaar that having joined MSE to post on a parking forum, you didn't actually asked for any help.

What advice did your Lawyer friend give you after going through the Beavis case with you. Was it to throw in the towel after reading all the salient points, or go for it seeing as he thought you had a fighting chance. And why did he not attend court with you ?

Seeing as it was County court, am I right in saying that there is a recorder. If a Judge made a comment half way through a court case saying that you should have paid the correct payment on a 'free' car park, then I think I would be heading straight back for an appeal. Again, what did you Lawyer friend say about this ?

Since your loss in court, I would have expected a bit more 'grunt' than all this passiveness that you seem to be displaying. The difference in your first post to the last one is a true transformation in character. You now seem to be singing the praises of PE and how they can't do any wrong. You have successfully argued with every regular on here how their advice wouldn't have worked as a defence. What was the point coming back to tell everyone that you lost, other than put doubt in every appellant's mind.......

Wow, I'm generally taken aback by a very harsh reply! I wasn't specifically asked for help when I posted my first post - in my experience, there are lots of threads started in cases like this and no one ever posts the final outcome. My aim was simply to do that - detail the process, record the outcome, let people make up their own minds. If people have something to chip in along the way, then even better and I'm very grateful.

Interesting that you assume my friend is a "he" - she's actually a "she", and her opinion was that the points I was making stood my in good stead to challenge the case, but with a heavy caveat that the outcome of the Beavis case at the SC made a victory far less likely. I wouldn't expect her to come to Court with me, and I didn't ask her to. I haven't asked her yet about the judge's comment as she's currently on holidays. I'm not planning to interrupt her time away with my parking issues.

As for your final paragraph, I'm beginning to wonder if actually you're just trolling here. I am in no way singing the praises of PE - I'm saying that they've wised up to the areas they were weak on in previous cases and have tightened up, and that their confidence has been massively boosted by the CoA and SC rulings.

I've not argued with anyone else - other people have helpfully asked if I mentioned x, y or z in my case and I've responded with facts - I'm really sorry that I did do all of my research first and approached all of the points people have made to make sure that all bases were covered. If you'd rather me say "oh yeah, I didn't do any of that" in order to propagate the myth that some people seem to be maintaining that these tickets are basically unenforceable, then I apologise unreservedly.

What I was trying to do, as previously explained, was to outline the details of the case and post the result. I can afford to write off £200 to PE (and I may well yet be appealing based on the judge's comments about paying to park) - but other people can't and I don't think it's right for people to blindly put faith in those who say "don't pay - challenge" without knowing the flip side.

Everyone else has been really helpful, and I hope that loads of other people continue to successfully challenge PCNs issued by PE and other such companies. Personally, I think it's going to get harder and harder, however sad that makes me.

mattfromwales1984

Redx wrote: »

when the OP says CoA , surely they mean the SC. ie:- Supreme Court ?

Apologies, yes, I meant both the rulings form the CoA and the SC.

yotmon

I'm sorry that you thought my reply was harsh, it wasn't meant to be. I can also reassure you that I am not a 'Troll' as you suggest, but someone who rightly or wrongly reads between the lines and sees things that may or may not be there. The purpose of my reply was to point out to you that your posts were coming across (to me and maybe others) as though PE could do no wrong. I don't know you from Adam, ( nor you me) so why should we take at face value all that we are told or read ?

In post #1 you listed 13 points, containing at least 15 precise times and dates, however, you only listed the court hearing as 'Early January'. This seemed to go against your writing style. What was the reason for the date being omitted - my suspicious mind could lead me to think that you didn't want regulars to look up the court list.
In your last reply to me you say -
'I'm saying that they've wised up to the areas they were weak on in previous cases and have tightened up, and that their confidence has been massively boosted by the CoA and SC rulings'.
On what do you base this opinion. Have you had other dealings in County court with PE to suggest that they have 'tightened up their weaknesses' as surely most cases are unique.
Whether as you say in your parting shot, 'Personally, I think it's going to get harder and harder' to beat them in court, well, we will just have to wait and see, won't we.

Ps, twas just an assumption on my part that your friend was male - please pass on my apologies when she gets back.

Umkomaas

Ps, twas just an assumption on my part that your friend was male - please pass on my apologies when she gets back.

@OP - Jeez, please don't tell yotmon her name is Rachel or Rosanna.:rotfl:

beamerguy

mattfromwales1984 wrote: »

Hi All,

As an update to this, the County Court found against me in the hearing, stating that ParkingEye were well within their rights to charge for the overstay, and that the level of charging has been found to be proportionate by the Court of Appeal. The fact the retail premises were closed for business at the time made no difference and I now have to pay £200 to PE.

So, it would seem that the courts have now given complete justification to PE for how they do their business and there's no way around it. Therefore, be very careful when parking on any site run by one of these private firms - if you overstay your time and are issued with a charge, there's going to be very little you can do to avoid paying it.

Matt, Parking Eye are owned by Capita who deal with the government with connections to the judiciary.
NUFF SAID

Any claim that could relate to the Beavis case seems to be a no brainer for county courts even though we all know that such charges are simply a scam.
Currently there is review by government into this cowboy industry and whilst cases can still be won against PE, it is on other points.

I have never come up against parking eye and in your position I would want value for your wasted £200.
Currently, you now have more avenues open to you than Parking Eye has.

That involves the media as its a big topic right now, that means asking your MP why he would expect your vote in future, that means telling as many people as possible never to use a car park managed by Parking Eye, that means telling the CEO of supermarkets and retailers that you will not spend money with them as they use parking eye.

Get the satisfaction you want as often as you want such as twitter, you really can get great value for your money time and time again.

Everyone should do this until the government puts the brakes on this scamming industry that belongs in the gutter.

Pass this petition to everyone
https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/111925

Sorry you lost, you will not be the last. The rule of thumb is never to use the unfair charges bit, this is a done and dusted case, that's all, lots of other ways to win and there is still lots of fun to have with Parking Eye

fuseman

I also believe the Beavis v ParkingEye ruling may actually help in a case involving an area which is not an open retail site. Please refer to my posting about UKCPS who dropped their claim against me.

I have included the argument I put to the court in this case although, since UKCPS threw in the towel, it was not tested.