DEAL filed a number of parking claims a while back. Although solicitor Michael Schwartz stated recently in court that he personally checks all claims, he failed to notice that in a large number of claims the parking date was 1 January 1900.
DEAL decided to take at least one case all the way to a hearing. The judge dismissed the claim on the basis that the defendant was not born at the time.
The case was reported on pepipoo.
Happy Parking
The Parking Prankster
Putting the fun back into parking
Click for guide to fighting ParkingEye court claims
Click for help with low-cost appeals and court defences
The vehicle was the Tardis.
ReplyDeleteUsual sloppy stuff from the parking parasites.
ReplyDeletewhen Parking Eye took us to Court, it was very obvious that there were some "communication issues" within their own team.
ReplyDeleteShwartz the non existent solicitor and crap software that reverted to 1900, the only pc,''s in the world affected by the millennium bug
DeleteShwartz the non existent solicitor and crap software that reverted to 1900, the only pc,''s in the world affected by the millennium bug
DeleteI'm surprised that CEL didn't use the tried and tested 'through the principles of the Law of Agency, the defendant would be liable for the actions of their ancestors' attack.
ReplyDeleteI'd love to have seen what an IPC barista would have made of this case.
ReplyDeleteThe Appellant submits that he was not born on the material date, and that neither the vehicle manufacturer nor the Operator company was in existence at that time.
DeleteThe onus is on the Appellant to prove his case, and he has provided no evidence to support these assertions. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed, and the parking charge should now be paid.
S. Kippy LLB (Hons) (Failed), IAS Adjudicator
Had the same claim with this date and Judge has allowed DEAL to amend the claim form to the correct date and had to submit amended defense!!
ReplyDelete