Taking parking eye to court?

prjohnsonnn10

as regards these other |PE cases with them in defendants position, can we find out where these are and what the background is to them? Are any of them involving a person attempting to recover 'costs' from them by any chance do you know?

System

as regards these other |PE cases with them in defendants position, can we find out where these are

Check the daily court lists at https://www.bmpa.eu/courts.html

and what the background is to them?

You'd either have to sit in on them, or find the claimant beforehand

Are any of them involving a person attempting to recover 'costs' from them by any chance do you know?

The Norwich one on 5th February is against ParkingEye and Radisson Blu so that is very likely to be a costs one. The others probably are too, but you'd need to sit in on them to get the detail.

Coupon-mad

IamEmanresu wrote: »

It must be catching. There is a fourth case with ParkingEye in the defendant's chair. Norwich on 5th.

At this rate, it may need to be a sticky.

Wow. It really must be catching! Anyone near Norwich?

prowla

ManxRed wrote: »

It is though. Theirs is based on a contract, accepted by peformance (these are the terms, if you don't like them, then drive off). In theory (and I know PE often raise tickets where people HAVE driven off, but forget them for a second) they have offered you the chance to accept or decline their contract.

The OP hasn't given PE the same choice.

I doubt if this would ever fly in court, just my opinion though.

That's not quite true - their so-called "contract" doesn't really exist, ie. you haven't agreed to it.

ManxRed

prowla wrote: »

That's not quite true - their so-called "contract" doesn't really exist, ie. you haven't agreed to it.

On what do you base that assumption?

prowla

ManxRed wrote: »

On what do you base that assumption?

Because the "contract" is not presented to you and you do not have to do anything to confirm assent.

Therefore it is not a contract.

Upon what do you base the assumption that it is a contract?

ManxRed

The contract is presented to you on a sign, and by parking (and not driving off) you are deemed to have accepted it under established contract law principles relating to 'acceptance by performance'.

If you didn't want to accept the contract, you would simply leave. At least you have the choice. Sending some made up contract to a PPC in the post doesn't give them any opportunity to reject it.

Grandad123

What is the situation like mine where I didn't have the option of driving off.


I was delivering a disabled person to a doctors surgery at the only disabled access point.

prowla

ManxRed wrote: »

The contract is presented to you on a sign, and by parking (and not driving off) you are deemed to have accepted it under established contract law principles relating to 'acceptance by performance'.

If you didn't want to accept the contract, you would simply leave. At least you have the choice. Sending some made up contract to a PPC in the post doesn't give them any opportunity to reject it.

"Deemed" - that's the word; however, a parking company deeming something does not make it law.

And indeed in this case, that has been proven.

ManxRed

Acceptance by performance is a well established principle within Contract Law. It's not just something that applies to parking companies, it applies to everyone.

You saying 'it isn't' over and over won't overturn decades of established contract law.

I don't even understand the last sentence - (a) why is that relevant in a discussion about the validity of a contract sent to a PPC in the post, and (b) I can't actually see which post in this thread 'proves' that 'acceptance by performance' is not part of established contract law.

The advice in this forum has been going downhill for many weeks now, and this sort of tripe doesn't help much.