ParkingEye lost for the 3rd time against Bargepole in High Wycombe, according to this post on moneysavingexpert.
However, it looks like the courts are now in two minds about the lack of standing to bring claims, with Judge Jones reversing her earlier decision after taking regard to VCS v HMRC.
In that case, VCS were the principal, issued permits to park, did not account to charges to the landowner and had the sole right to cancel charges.
In the current case, ParkingEye were agents of the landowner, did not issue permits, collected charges on behalf of the landowner and may have had to cancel charges depending on clauses in the user manual.
However, Judge Jones ruled that in this particular case, there were insufficient grounds of difference.
The Prankster thinks that this particular argument is not fully played out yet, and awaits to hear what HHJ Moloneys says on the matter.
The case then moved on to the issue of whether there was a contract between ParkingEye and motorist. For a contract to exist, there must be consideration from both sides. As this was a free car park, there was no consideration required from the motorist.
Judge Jones ruled that a contract did not exist, and therefore ParkingEye could not sue for breach of contract.
The LPC Lawyer tried to argue the £100 was a contractual charge, not damages for breach. However, Bargepole referred the court to several paragraphs in the Reply to Defence and Jonathan Langham's witness statement.
Bargepole explained how the Judge clarified the situation.
"If you give me your coffee mug as a gift, and it then cracked five minutes later, I couldn’t sue you."
Claim dismissed. £50 awarded to the defendant for loss of earnings.
The Parking Prankster