The Small Claims Court and Parking Companies

trisontana

This guest blog on Parking Prankster's site highlights the miscue that private parking companies are marking of the Small-Claims system:-

http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2016/03/what-happens-when-greed-and-automation.html

I always thought that the original intention of the Small Claims Court system was to enable the general public to seek redress without all the expense and bother of the main County Court system.

Instead PPC's are using it as a debt-collecting blunt instrument to force people into paying up. The whole system has become one sided. If the case goes to court then on one hand you have the motorist, with probably very little legal knowledge, and on the other side, the parking company with professional lawyers and reams of paperwork who try to bamboozle the poor defendant.

Why has this been allowed to happen?

beamerguy

Yes, I just saw this Prankster blog.

Parking Eye is the scum of this earth. But, Parking Eye is just a name, it's the scum who run Parking Eye who have taken themselves off the list of humanity.

You have heard of "Meet to Fockers", well, companies in the UK is proud to present .... "The Scum" headed of course by Capita.

Clearly the Directors are very ashamed of their disgusting methods, they hide behind a mail forwarding service address in SW1P 1QT, London

https://www.companiesintheuk.co.uk/directors/parkingeye

Half_way

It may be parking eye, but where was it? who is responsible for letting them loose on the car park?
it's no different than letting dangerous wild dogs run loose in a car park, either which way someone will get savaged.
Until we see site managers, store managers etc, in front of a judge and being personally held liable for the actions of their agents, the dogs will continue to run wild.

bargepole

The expression 'Small Claims Court' is a bit of a misnomer, it's actually the Small Claims track of the County Court, and is used for money claims up to £10,000 in value. Amounts over that go to the Fast Track, or if over £25,000 they are put on the Multi Track, where they often end up in the High Court.

The Small Claims track has its own separate procedure rules (CPR 27), with limited costs, strict rules of evidence not necessary, and discretion for the Judge to conduct the hearing in any way he sees fit.

The original intention was for the public to sort out disputes without incurring massive legal bills, so for example a typical case might involve a householder suing a builder for a few hundred pounds worth of unfinished work.

The fact that Parking Eye in particular are pursing claims using qualified advocates to argue their case, accompanied by huge bundles of paperwork - often over 100 pages - so that it costs them money even when they win, is arguably an abuse of the process, but probably not one which will be addressed by HM Courts and Tribunal Service any time soon.

salmosalaris

What is particularly cynical is bringing claims for incidents many years earlier . A side effect of this is someone coming across a CCJ on their credit file because all court paperwork went to a previous address ( nobody redirects mail for 6 years ) and having to fork out time , effort and money to get it set aside.
This could become an increasing problem, there must be a vast number of "debts" unpaid in the last 6 years.

beamerguy

bargepole wrote: »

The expression 'Small Claims Court' is a bit of a misnomer, it's actually the Small Claims track of the County Court, and is used for money claims up to £10,000 in value. Amounts over that go to the Fast Track, or if over £25,000 they are put on the Multi Track, where they often end up in the High Court.

The Small Claims track has its own separate procedure rules (CPR 27), with limited costs, strict rules of evidence not necessary, and discretion for the Judge to conduct the hearing in any way he sees fit.

The original intention was for the public to sort out disputes without incurring massive legal bills, so for example a typical case might involve a householder suing a builder for a few hundred pounds worth of unfinished work.

The fact that Parking Eye in particular are pursing claims using qualified advocates to argue their case, accompanied by huge bundles of paperwork - often over 100 pages - so that it costs them money even when they win, is arguably an abuse of the process, but probably not one which will be addressed by HM Courts and Tribunal Service any time soon.

The court system has the power to stay these cases, just as they did with "the reclaim of bank charges" until a higher authority which the then FSA was, intervenes

Many of those cases were just filed away and now gather dust. The current system simply allows scammers to peddle their "cash cow"

bargepole

beamerguy wrote: »

The court system has the power to stay these cases, just as they did with "the reclaim of bank charges" until a higher authority which the then FSA was, intervenes

Many of those cases were just filed away and now gather dust. The current system simply allows scammers to peddle their "cash cow"

They did stay a large number of cases in 2015, while waiting for the outcome of the Beavis appeal.

Unfortunately, the Supreme Court judgment is now regarded as the 'higher authority', and presents a hurdle for any defendant to argue the reasons why that decision shouldn't apply to his case.

beamerguy

bargepole wrote: »

They did stay a large number of cases in 2015, while waiting for the outcome of the Beavis appeal.

Unfortunately, the Supreme Court judgment is now regarded as the 'higher authority', and presents a hurdle for any defendant to argue the reasons why that decision shouldn't apply to his case.

But that was not the court system, it was the BPA.

The Supreme Court never allowed for the huge abuse that is going on right now

salmosalaris

beamerguy wrote: »

But that was not the court system, it was the BPA.

The Supreme Court never allowed for the huge abuse that is going on right now

??????????????

pappa_golf

oh boy , think back.


when Parking Eye were setting up and they needed cash to get going , they went where? , Barclays, Lloyds , the local loan shop , umm NO!


they went and asked the UK government for a business loan




and our friends from the northern regional "quango,s or us" lent them the start up funds ., yup and they hung on to 8% of the buisness

bargepole

beamerguy wrote: »

But that was not the court system, it was the BPA.

The Supreme Court never allowed for the huge abuse that is going on right now

No, I wasn't referring to POPLA or the BPA, the County Courts themselves stayed cases throughout most of 2015 while the Beavis saga was ongoing through the court system.

The Supreme Court only considered the facts and legal arguments in that one particular case. The wider implications were never a part of their deliberations.