PPM v Keeper. C7GF75EN. Wakefield. 20/07/2017
The claim was for 2 PCNs at Travelodge, Hounslow.
The hearing (keeper report)
The judge dismissed the claim. She said that she was sick of telling Gladstones the same things.
Their witness statement was not good enough.
The proof of signage was no good.
They they had not made it clear whether it was the driver or the keeper they were claiming from.
They had no right to claim for additional monies other than the £100 per ticket that they had originally specified.
She insinuated that their business model seemed to to scare people into paying up before the case went to court and claiming additional money that they knew they would not have any right to in a court.
My witness statement was never even mentioned and I never had to open my mouth in court other than to say "Thank you ma'am".
Prankster Note
This judge seems to have hit the nail on the head.
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
where,s the "like" button?
ReplyDeletelike !
DeleteIt's a pity that the above Judge was not officiating at the Indigo v UHW Cardiff hospital case. That would have wiped the smugness from Indigo at the end of the Hearing.
ReplyDeleteThis is the type of thing that I was referring to the other week. If the claimant's case has obvious flaws that are seen time and time again, it should not fall only to the defendant to make the defense. It is good to see the judge was unwilling to accept a case that fell below a minimum standard and/or had obvious flaws.
ReplyDeleteNice Images is this and I like it very much.Driver Ed Coupon
ReplyDelete