tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3050188067980163727.post7837715531239809156..comments2024-02-21T09:25:42.645-08:00Comments on Parking Prankster: Ransomes lose in court. Proserve business model flawedParking Pranksterhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15270922602703929291noreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3050188067980163727.post-38327947762223339002014-10-29T04:36:36.908-07:002014-10-29T04:36:36.908-07:00From Wiki:
Jus tertii is where the defendant can p...From Wiki:<br />Jus tertii is where the defendant can prove that the land is not possessed by the plaintiff, but by a third party, as in Doe d Carter v Barnard.<br />Ransomes possess the land, nor Proserve. They act only as a company to enforce their own peculiar arrangements with the landowner. They do not have landowner status so can't use trespass to serve their own ends.Fractious Tarthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18121510469285069560noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3050188067980163727.post-317589764889498532014-10-29T02:31:49.026-07:002014-10-29T02:31:49.026-07:00I believe that a judge is limited to adjudicate on...I believe that a judge is limited to adjudicate on what is put in front of him rather than on hearsay or personal experience. Nothing wrong with this.cjdenverhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04812650106818623551noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3050188067980163727.post-44532341102771637832014-10-29T02:29:55.786-07:002014-10-29T02:29:55.786-07:00You may want to read up on the facts of the case. ...You may want to read up on the facts of the case. The driver didn't simply stop to look for the way (which I agree would not be trespass) but he intentionally parked there for 10min whilst doing some other things. It is clear that there was trespass in this instance and I believe the defendant also actually agreed to this. However, I agree with you, I would have preferred to see only nominal damages because apart from the self-inflicted "costs to Proserve" there are no damages to the landowner. But this needs to be read in conjuncture with HHJ Moloney's drive to make parking penalty charges legal, so he picked a number which sits comfortably in what ParkingEye charges for similar cases. Judicial activism rather than applying the clear current law? You be the judge of that ;)cjdenverhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04812650106818623551noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3050188067980163727.post-41481666616169879962014-10-29T01:05:49.351-07:002014-10-29T01:05:49.351-07:00Moloney (and no, I won't do the forelock tuggi...Moloney (and no, I won't do the forelock tugging) does seem insistent on ruling on purely what's put in front of him in the instant case, even when he knows or should know better. <br /><br />If he's feigning ignorance of Parking Eye's pranks, or wants to invent some fantasy alternative culprit, that's taking the law a blindfold too far.Colin MacDonaldhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01681687023913022670noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3050188067980163727.post-2670172878484387032014-10-29T00:44:23.866-07:002014-10-29T00:44:23.866-07:00Maloney has gone down a peg or two in my estimatio...Maloney has gone down a peg or two in my estimation.<br />The toothbrush waving judge has got this one all wrong.<br />1st there could be no actual trespass where the road is otherwise unrestricted, ungated and is part of the road system for vehicles visiting the premises on the estate. So what if a driver has to stop to consult his delivery documents to find an actual address? Snap, gotcha.<br /><br />Then the amounts of damages MUST be relative to the loss sustained by the landowner. Proserve's dodgy contract with the landowner doesn't form any realistic basis of loss. The landowner would suffer no loss at all if he sacked Proserve. The landowner is therefore complicit in bringing a loss on itself. In the overall nature of these things, where a loss can be prevented (as in the famous Wickes case where Maloney waved the toothbrush around) then inaction to prevent it should rule out any damages from being awarded.<br /><br />He got it badly wrong here.Fractious Tarthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18121510469285069560noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3050188067980163727.post-66731192186133979502014-10-27T04:59:13.334-07:002014-10-27T04:59:13.334-07:00Proserve will have to add Vat at 20% to their £150...Proserve will have to add Vat at 20% to their £150 charges as they are providing a Vatable service to Ransomes. However, since Ransomes are issuing claims for damages, they cannot recover the Vat charged by Proserve. The "black hole" is likely to get bigger Castlehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03172598313130029974noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3050188067980163727.post-36459908573519540912014-10-27T03:57:27.195-07:002014-10-27T03:57:27.195-07:00How can the cost of the appeal be around £500? The...How can the cost of the appeal be around £500? The appeal fee is £120, then some money for the judgement transcript (say £70) and a hearing fee of say £80 - what was the rest for? Costs of attending the hearing would have arisen on both sides so should cancel out, and any other costs are not allowed on the Small Claims Track?cjdenverhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04812650106818623551noreply@blogger.com