A6FC009J ParkingEye v E&D Scaffolding before DDJ Woods, Central London County Court 26/01/2016
The company are a scaffolding and roofing contractor, who are a sub-contractor to the main contractor carrying out building work at the Royal Free Hospital.
They had a number of vans coming and going which were recorded as contractors’ vehicles, but PE tried to claim that only a maximum of 4 of their vehicles could be put on the ‘white list’.
Here is the court report from the man on the spot...
What a very interesting day E&D Scaffolding (EDS) had in court with Parking Eye (PE). Deputy District Judge Woods (DDJW) was not impressed with PE's stance on this matter or PE’s representative, Mr Gibson one little bit.
The nub of PE's claim was that EDS were not permitted to enter the Royal free Hospital (RFH) for free. PE were relying on the signs that a driver passes and or reads when entering the Royal Free Hospital as being the contract; ie when you drive into the Royal Free car park area the sign stipulates the terms and conditions of entering the Royal Free and this is the contract; PE claimed that E&D Scaffolding broke the contract.
DDJW asked the PE representative on numerous occasions during the hearing that “had they put forward all their details of claim and had no further points to add to their claim?” The PE representative replied they had put forward all their points and they had no further points to add.
The EDS defence was that they were contracted as a sub contractor to supply and fit/dismantle scaffolding for the NHS Royal Free Hospital maintenance main contractor so were allowed to enter the Royal Free Hospital to do contractual works.
The Judge was very accepting that PE were very difficult to get hold of due to no e-mail contact address or telephone number and this made it very difficult to contact PE to try to advise PE of all EDS registration numbers so EDS could be exempt. The registrations had been given to the main contractor to forward on.
DDJ Woods dismissed the Barry Beavis Judgement as irrelevant and said that it would play no part in the hearing due to its complete irrelevance to the current claim.
In his judgement he found that Parking Eye had no grounds for any claim against EDS and that they were most vexatious and unreasonable in their pursuit of EDS for the fines. This was especially so because a Charge Notice that PE had issued EDS on the very same day as the Charge Notice that PE were claiming for at the hearing had been cancelled by PE in November 2014.
DDJ Wood found that a contract had been made between EDS and the main contractor and intern with the Royal Free Hospital/landlord/owner of the land prior to entering the FRH to supply and erect/dismantle scaffolding for maintenance works at the Hospital; and this contract was in place before the alleged contract that PE were claiming was made when EDS entered the Hospital and passed the PE signs. Therefore the alleged ParkingEye contract was superseded.
DDJ Woods was not happy with ParkingEye in any shape or form for bring the claim against E&D Scaffolding Contractors Limited.
The judgement was a slam dunker against Parking Eye.
The judge dismissed the claim as ‘utter nonsense’ and laid into Mr Gibson, the LPC rep, for wasting court time with what was clearly a vexatious claim.
Prankster Note
This is an important judgment because it shows that if you have a valid prior contract or authority to park, then the parking company cannot override this. This might occur in several situations. For instance if you are a resident and have authority from a managment agent to park at your residence; or if you made a contract with a company such as Bargain Parking to park at one of their sites.
Meanwhile, if ParkingEye need a bigger database which can accommodate more than 4 entries, The Prankster will be more than happy to recommend some modern platforms which can cope with this type of stress. In return, all that would be required for this service, would be a watch.
If you think it's wrong for ParkingEye to attempt to penalise legitimate contractors working at a hospital just because their system capacity is pathetic, then please consider signing Barry Beavis's petition to get the government to look at the private parking industry.
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
They must be one of Daves mates on the government payroll, certain companies get away with behaving as appallingly as this yet Joe Bloggs the one man band plumber winds up in court because he claimed 5 miles fuel when it was only 4.99 miles.
ReplyDeleteBTW whats happened to the pepipoo web site? I can get on but only in the lo-fi version, cant be that hard to fix, I have a bus lane ticket that needs sorting.
ReplyDeletea vexatious claim.....never. Just when you think this company has scrapped the barrel of absurdity they find some more crud.I wonder if the court transcript is available of this one.
ReplyDeleteI think it will contain no more than two words. One of them beginning with F
ReplyDeleteI've signed.
ReplyDeleteParking Eye, a subsidiary of Capita. Need I say anymore than many of you will know what other names Capita are known by especially in the IT world.
ReplyDelete"Laid into" won't deter them. There needs to be personal consequences for individuals who tell a judge that they had to waste his time because of their own incompetence.
ReplyDeleteWhat a very interesting day E&D Scaffolding (EDS) had in court with Parking Eye (PE). Deputy District Judge Woods (DDJW) was not impressed with PE stance on this matter or PE’s representative representations one little bit.
ReplyDeleteThe nub of PE's claim was that EDS were not permitted to enter the Royal free Hospital (RFH) for free. PE were relying on the signs that a driver passes and or reads when entering the Royal Free Hospital as being the contract, IE when you drive in to the Royal Free car park area the sign stipulates the terms and conditions of entering the Royal Free so that this be the contract and PE claimed that E&D Scaffolding broke the contract.
DDJW asked the PE representative on numerous occasions during the hearing that “had they put forward all their details of claim and had no further points to add to their claim” PE representative replied they had put forward all their points and they had no further points to add.
EDS defence was that they were contracted as a sub contractor to supply and fit/dismantle scaffolding for the NHS Royal Free Hospital maintenance main contractor so were allowed to enter the Royal Free Hospital to do contractual works.
The Judge was very accepting that PE were very difficult to get hold of due to no e-mail contract address or telephone number and this made it very difficult to contact PE to try to advise PE of all EDS registration numbers so EDS could be exempt. The registrations had been given to the main contractor to forward on.
DDJ Wood dismissed the Barry Beavis Judgement as irrelevant and that it would play no part in the hearing due to it complete irrelevance to PE Claim against EDS.
In DDJ Woods judgement he found that Parking Eye had no grounds for any claim against EDS and that they were most vexatious and unreasonable in their pursuit of EDS for the fines. This was especially so because a Charge Notice that PE had issued EDS on the very same day as the Charge Notice that PE were claiming for at the hearing had been cancelled by PE in November 2014.
DDJ Wood found that a contract had been made between EDS and the main contractor and intern with the Royal Free Hospital/landlord/owner of the land prior to entering the FRH to supply and erect/dismantle scaffolding for maintenance works at the Hospital; and this contract was in place before the alleged contract that PE were claiming was made when EDS entered the Hospital and passed the PE signs.
Therefore the alleged Parking Eye contract was superseded. DDJ Wood was not happy with Parking Eye in any shape or form for bring the claim against E&D Scaffolding Contractors Limited.
The judgement was a slam dunker against Parking Eye.
What a very interesting day E&D Scaffolding (EDS) had in court with Parking Eye (PE). Deputy District Judge Woods (DDJW) was not impressed with PE stance on this matter or PE’s representative representations one little bit.
ReplyDeleteThe nub of PE's claim was that EDS were not permitted to enter the Royal free Hospital (RFH) for free. PE were relying on the signs that a driver passes and or reads when entering the Royal Free Hospital as being the contract, IE when you drive in to the Royal Free car park area the sign stipulates the terms and conditions of entering the Royal Free so that this be the contract and PE claimed that E&D Scaffolding broke the contract.
DDJW asked the PE representative on numerous occasions during the hearing that “had they put forward all their details of claim and had no further points to add to their claim” PE representative replied they had put forward all their points and they had no further points to add.
EDS defence was that they were contracted as a sub contractor to supply and fit/dismantle scaffolding for the NHS Royal Free Hospital maintenance main contractor so were allowed to enter the Royal Free Hospital to do contractual works.
The Judge was very accepting that PE were very difficult to get hold of due to no e-mail contract address or telephone number and this made it very difficult to contact PE to try to advise PE of all EDS registration numbers so EDS could be exempt. The registrations had been given to the main contractor to forward on.
DDJ Wood dismissed the Barry Beavis Judgement as irrelevant and that it would play no part in the hearing due to it complete irrelevance to PE Claim against EDS.
In DDJ Woods judgement he found that Parking Eye had no grounds for any claim against EDS and that they were most vexatious and unreasonable in their pursuit of EDS for the fines. This was especially so because a Charge Notice that PE had issued EDS on the very same day as the Charge Notice that PE were claiming for at the hearing had been cancelled by PE in November 2014.
DDJ Wood found that a contract had been made between EDS and the main contractor and intern with the Royal Free Hospital/landlord/owner of the land prior to entering the FRH to supply and erect/dismantle scaffolding for maintenance works at the Hospital; and this contract was in place before the alleged contract that PE were claiming was made when EDS entered the Hospital and passed the PE signs.
Therefore the alleged Parking Eye contract was superseded. DDJ Wood was not happy with Parking Eye in any shape or form for bring the claim against E&D Scaffolding Contractors Limited.
The judgement was a slam dunker against Parking Eye.
What a very interesting day E&D Scaffolding (EDS) had in court with Parking Eye (PE). Deputy District Judge Woods (DDJW) was not impressed with PE stance on this matter or PE’s representative representations one little bit.
ReplyDeleteThe nub of PE's claim was that EDS were not permitted to enter the Royal free Hospital (RFH) for free. PE were relying on the signs that a driver passes and or reads when entering the Royal Free Hospital as being the contract, IE when you drive in to the Royal Free car park area the sign stipulates the terms and conditions of entering the Royal Free so that this be the contract and PE claimed that E&D Scaffolding broke the contract.
DDJW asked the PE representative on numerous occasions during the hearing that “had they put forward all their details of claim and had no further points to add to their claim” PE representative replied they had put forward all their points and they had no further points to add.
EDS defence was that they were contracted as a sub contractor to supply and fit/dismantle scaffolding for the NHS Royal Free Hospital maintenance main contractor so were allowed to enter the Royal Free Hospital to do contractual works.
The Judge was very accepting that PE were very difficult to get hold of due to no e-mail contract address or telephone number and this made it very difficult to contact PE to try to advise PE of all EDS registration numbers so EDS could be exempt. The registrations had been given to the main contractor to forward on.
DDJ Wood dismissed the Barry Beavis Judgement as irrelevant and that it would play no part in the hearing due to it complete irrelevance to PE Claim against EDS.
In DDJ Woods judgement he found that Parking Eye had no grounds for any claim against EDS and that they were most vexatious and unreasonable in their pursuit of EDS for the fines. This was especially so because a Charge Notice that PE had issued EDS on the very same day as the Charge Notice that PE were claiming for at the hearing had been cancelled by PE in November 2014.
DDJ Wood found that a contract had been made between EDS and the main contractor and intern with the Royal Free Hospital/landlord/owner of the land prior to entering the FRH to supply and erect/dismantle scaffolding for maintenance works at the Hospital; and this contract was in place before the alleged contract that PE were claiming was made when EDS entered the Hospital and passed the PE signs.
Therefore the alleged Parking Eye contract was superseded. DDJ Wood was not happy with Parking Eye in any shape or form for bring the claim against E&D Scaffolding Contractors Limited.
The judgement was a slam dunker against Parking Eye.