Court claim form (Parkingeye)

Coupon-mad

You have ignored the penultimate para of my reply #4?

The Consumer Rights Act 2015 can kill parking charge cases stone dead. Normally not used for ParkingEye cases but if the terms were not clear...then the CRA coes into play.

Also did you read the thread about the Daily Mail article about the P/Eye case someone won, where the Judge said the Pay by Phone terms were 'as clear as mud'? Add that in.

simonlancs

The consumer rights act has now been added. Thanks for pointing that out. I assume i will need to find this and take it with me for the judge to peruse or will he be aware of it? Have you got a link for it?

Redx

simonlancs wrote: »

The consumer rights act has now been added. Thanks for pointing that out. I assume i will need to find this and take it with me for the judge to peruse or will he be aware of it? Have you got a link for it?

Dearie me , you are not even reading the forum or other threads ?? Madness

Here https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6081091/parking-eye-lose-in-middlesbrough-judge-agrees-pay-by-phone-instructions-clear-as-mud

Read the abuse of process thread by beamerguy and the CEC16 thread about the court victory by coupon mad for CRA advice too

Umkomaas

Also did you read the thread about the Daily Mail article about the P/Eye case someone won, where the Judge said the Pay by Phone terms were 'as clear as mud'? Add that in.

simonlancs wrote: »

The consumer rights act has now been added. Thanks for pointing that out. I assume i will need to find this and take it with me for the judge to peruse or will he be aware of it? Have you got a link for it?

The Judge is only likely to know if he/she is a Daily Mail reader.

Why do you need a link? It's so simple to find it for yourself - type this simple search phrase into Google:

Daily Mail clear as mud

Found within 0.46 seconds.

simonlancs

I have also added a mention of the court case in Middlesbrough and will take a copy of the newspaper article with me..if it gets that far.

Coupon-mad

Great! Be aware that you can't use the entire wording I used in CEC16's thread bcause P/Eye don't add a false £60 costs, so you can't argue that part.

But paras 6, 10, 14 and 18 of Sch2 of the CRA 2015 apply - and MUST be considered by the courts - in a case where consumer terms and/or notices were 'unclear'.

Which is why the 'clear as mud' case is relevant and that was P/Eye as well - you need the Judge to see that not all ParkingEye cases are waved through to win like in the Supreme Court case against Mr Beavis (familiarise yourself with that case and be ready to draw huge distinctions with your own case in terms of the clarity of the terms and payment methods, which are nothing like the free retail park in the Beavis case).

In a P/Eye case you have an uphill battle with some Judges, so knowing about the Beavis case and how different it is from your own, and being able to take the Judge to the stature law (CRA 2015) instead, is vital.