Printfriendly

Friday, 4 April 2014

ParkingEye lose in court. Another 5 minute case

Pepipoo are reporting another ParkingEye defeat in court.

This morning I was in court, we barely had time to sit down when the Judge requested a copy of the contract between the landowner and Parking Eye. After reading through it he said I do not believe you have authority to bring this case to court as there is nothing in the contract which clearly says you have permission to bring legal action for their loss; and this is their loss not yours.
After a few minutes of their representative trying to convince the Judge they had permission, he said the case was to be dismissed.
I was quite shocked it was over so soon!

The Judge has the identified the situation perfectly. This is exactly why ParkingEye go to such great lengths to try and stop Judges seeing the actual unredacted contract. This is also why ParkingEye try and get away with landowner witness statements instead of a contract.

ParkingEye's landowner witness statements have been completely discredited following a freedom of information request releasing emails which appear to show that ParkingEye provide witness statements which are knowingly untrue and which contain statements not in the witness knowledge. They also show that ParkingEye also use pre-signed witness statements which they copy and date themselves and which contain statements not in the witness knowledge. 

Happy Parking 

The Parking Prankster

6 comments:

  1. I like the fact that somebody on Pepipoo suggested that Judges might be having a competition to see who could dismiss a ParkingEye claim the fastest.

    Maybe they should all put £5 in, and run a sweepstake to the end of 2014, winner to be decided by shortest start to finish time on the court recording equipment. I might suggest that, next time I'm in court.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I quite enjoyed my 2 hours of defending my case, was looking forward to another 2 hours, but The Judge seemed to have got the point.

      We tried mediation but that was time limited. Shame really, 'cos I had loads of points to get across.

      Delete
  2. Why hasn't ParkingEye been thrown out of the BPA? They consistently lie in court because they know they have no right to be there in the first place. To exist as a company and to make a profit, they rely on frightening the driver into paying these trumped up charges.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Sharon W... That's because Capita "own" the BPA with the contributions and bonds that they have forked out for ParkingEye and Car Parking Partnership.

    So if POPLA goes down the toilet Capita will lose their bond - but they will save the cost of losing all those appeals.

    And Nicola Mullany, the so-called independent chair of the so-called independent board overseeing POPLA is actually on the payroll of the British Parking Association and has been from day 1.

    May be the Prankster can ask her to deny this.

    ReplyDelete
  4. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
  5. If the Judge's are having a sweepstake then all fair and well. I must say, I enjoyed my two hours of evidence giving, would have loved to have given two hours more, but the body language from the Judge made me think that he'd heard enough.

    ReplyDelete