The following untrue claims have been removed.
'It should be noted that every court hearing that ParkingEye has attended as Claimant in 2013 (where Judgment has been given) has been listed above.'
'ParkingEye has not vacated any hearing unless the defendant has chosen to pay prior to the date of the hearing.'
It should be noted that every court hearing that ParkingEye has attended as Claimant in 2013 up until the 29th of August (where Judgment has been given) has been listed above.The other untrue claim has been completely removed. Several other untrue claims remain. Here is one example.
Further to this many motorists, on receiving a claim form, visit these sites for a 'robust' template defence.This sort of defence, and all that have subsequently followed, have failed to convince any County Court Judge that ParkingEye's charges are unfair, disproportionate or a penalty.Judge Buckley ruled that ParkingEye's charges were 'pursuing a claim for their own profit as opposed to quantifying a breach and a loss'.
'Of course there are operating costs in enforcing parking restrictions eg barriers, ticket machines, chasing and pursuing defaulters but these are simply the costs in the car parking operation. Enforcement is merely part of the operating costs. Whatever system they have, if nobody breached the contract, they would still have to set up a system to pursue those who do break the contract.'
'We have a rather bizarre situation where the claimants make no money apparently from those who comply with the terms of the contract and make their profit from those who are in breach of the contract. Well that cannot be right. That is nonsense it seems to me.'
Judge Buckley's decision is available on The Parking Prankster court transcript page. More transcripts will be available shortly.
For a robust template defence, visit the Parking Prankster robust template defence web page.