tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3050188067980163727.post5452744785169154487..comments2024-02-21T09:25:42.645-08:00Comments on Parking Prankster: ParkingEye lose in court. Ignoring judge's directions and lying about them not the best tacticParking Pranksterhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15270922602703929291noreply@blogger.comBlogger12125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3050188067980163727.post-83070106724910916392014-06-04T11:29:41.213-07:002014-06-04T11:29:41.213-07:00I'm sure it has been considered, but the appli...I'm sure it has been considered, but the applications made must be totally without merit, which sadly due to POPLA may not be the case. We all know they're without merit, but legally speaking, they may be.Alexis Threlfallhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11792447399167532389noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3050188067980163727.post-9599721848459233062014-06-04T00:08:21.855-07:002014-06-04T00:08:21.855-07:00In our case, the LPC representative spoke to us be...In our case, the LPC representative spoke to us before we went into court, and said that she was trying to recover the £100 (charge), + £15 (court fee), +£50 (Solicitors fee), + "her cost of attending today." Was slightly nervous, as 4 hours had been scheduled for the case. <br /><br />Her opening comment in court was that it was her understanding that we didn't want to settle at mediation, and that we wanted to bring the case to court. This of course was untrue. With hindsight, I suspect she was trying to make us look unreasonable.<br /><br />Some 3 hours later (!) I was able to explain that we had been willing to settle at mediation, and that I had made what I considered to be a generous offer of what I considered to be a gpeol. The Judge appeared very interested in what I considered to be a gpeol. (£15).<br /><br />We won. The Dudehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03094393713034061104noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3050188067980163727.post-77573906814305349512014-06-03T10:35:24.896-07:002014-06-03T10:35:24.896-07:00Learned EDW2000 knows the CPR.
'acted unreaso...Learned EDW2000 knows the CPR.<br /><br />'acted unreasonably' (CPR 27.14g), indeed.<br /><br />Lord Justice Bargepole may wish to associate himself with the case of <br />http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/1994/40.html<br />of EDW2000https://www.blogger.com/profile/03880833351221188253noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3050188067980163727.post-50236443017491453562014-06-03T05:56:33.282-07:002014-06-03T05:56:33.282-07:00Quite correct, with the exception being that you c...Quite correct, with the exception being that you can claim full costs if you can prove the other party has 'acted unreasonably' (CPR 27.14g).<br /><br />Arguably, PE did act unreasonably in this case, but as the defendant had already submitted his costs claim in writing, it wouldn't have been a good idea to try and change that with this particular Judge.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10144220750323761989noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3050188067980163727.post-53151220933865280162014-06-03T03:24:50.003-07:002014-06-03T03:24:50.003-07:00EDW2000, that is the whole idea of Small Claims. A...EDW2000, that is the whole idea of Small Claims. As costs are fixed, it opens the law system to the "common man". It's designed to avoid the rich or companies denying the public the right to issue litigation by threatening large costs if they lose, as you see in libel cases. It's not supposed to be abused by corporations into threatening people into paying up, hence the vexatious rule, which at some point should be applied to Parking Eye.Custard Piehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04991326855766539410noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3050188067980163727.post-16158766602837982722014-06-03T01:13:36.573-07:002014-06-03T01:13:36.573-07:00How do they get that status? is there anything the...How do they get that status? is there anything the public can do to push things along? Custard Piehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04991326855766539410noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3050188067980163727.post-71051207626472921292014-06-02T12:26:43.754-07:002014-06-02T12:26:43.754-07:00In small claims costs are fixed so getting full co...In small claims costs are fixed so getting full costs is not going to happen.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01655642472702209335noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3050188067980163727.post-91145961009407766802014-06-01T09:51:24.424-07:002014-06-01T09:51:24.424-07:00I woulda asked for full costs rather than fixed.I woulda asked for full costs rather than fixed.EDW2000https://www.blogger.com/profile/03880833351221188253noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3050188067980163727.post-60052615983598117712014-06-01T06:22:49.263-07:002014-06-01T06:22:49.263-07:00Vexatious litigants? Vexatious litigants? Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03494722764150311186noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3050188067980163727.post-44932625949430827442014-06-01T01:40:18.395-07:002014-06-01T01:40:18.395-07:00People might be interested to know the extent to w...People might be interested to know the extent to which PE have lied about this.<br />On 23 Oct 2013, in PE v Sharma, DJ Jenkins dismissed a PE claim on the basis that they had no standing, as they were not the landowner.<br /><br />Then on 4 Dec 2013, at the first hearing of the Arora case above, he adjourned it to see if PE wanted to substitute the claimant as landowner. Due to PE's inability to comply with his directions, no new hearing was scheduled. However, this didn't stop PE putting the following stock phrase in subsequent Reply to Defence letters: ""It should be noted that District Judge Jenkins has since scheduled a hearing to provide his opinion on this matter, and so we do not believe that any rulings made by the District Judge prior to this should be taken into account". Complete and utter poppycock, designed to mislead defendants and other courts.<br /><br />Of course, PE have form for this sort of thing, yet on their website they have the brass neck to state: "Due to the large amounts of outdated, misleading and inaccurate advice propagated on certain online forums and blogs, ParkingEye has been forced in recent months to take legal action against those who fail to appeal or pay Parking Charges." Outdated, misleading, and inaccurate - those descriptions sum up PE's correspondence to a tee.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10144220750323761989noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3050188067980163727.post-28489734731655138142014-05-31T07:56:02.161-07:002014-05-31T07:56:02.161-07:00ParkingEye's true status can be seen on the si...ParkingEye's true status can be seen on the signs at the locations. On them all it proclaims themselves to be solely engaged to provide a traffic space maximisation scheme. and Parking is at the absolute discretion of the site.<br /><br />That doesn't even come close to them saying that they are the principal landowner. In any case, only a true lease of the car park should suffice and the ruling by HRH in the Cambridge case is bewildering since his judgement is fatally flawed in that respect.Fractious Tarthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18121510469285069560noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3050188067980163727.post-53388727602923162502014-05-31T05:04:50.067-07:002014-05-31T05:04:50.067-07:00This is a court of appeal judgment, and therefore ...This is a court of appeal judgment, and therefore persuasive. <br /><br />Not persuasive, binding (on lower courts).EDW2000https://www.blogger.com/profile/03880833351221188253noreply@blogger.com