Prankster guides fund next transcript

...and it's a cracker, ParkingEye v Collins-Daniel, available on the case law web page.

You really need to read it for yourself. The judge rips ParkingEye a new one while the defendant gets to speak exactly one line on page 10: 'That’s fine. Thank you'.

If you are a subject of a ParkingEye court claim and are frightened about court, take heart from this transcript. This shows that with the right defence you can let the judge do all the work.

Deputy District Judge Melville-Shreeve lets the ParkingEye advocate have it from the start. He highlights the fact that ParkingEye's legal department are acting incorrectly in only providing information about winning cases, and not about the ones they lost.

He points out that ParkingEye have selectively filtered one of the key cases they quote, ParkingEye v Somerfield, and that the lines quoted are 'obiter' (legal jargon for not relevant to the main case), and that in any case the charge in that case was £75 and not £85

He tells the advocate that it is too late to 'wave it around' because if he wanted to supply the contract it should have been supplied beforehand (a typical ParkingEye trick).

He rips the wording of the 'contract' (signage) to bits.

He points out the financial consequences to ParkingEye are the same if motorists overstay one hour or 40 years...nothing.

He points out that ParkingEye have not dared appeal a case even though this may be worth millions of pounds if they win. (He doesn't point out it is game over if they lose, but the implication is there).

The Advocate's crowning glory is in opposing babysitting costs of £20, at which point the judge awards £45 for loss of maternity leave instead. No doubt Mr Gopal will have put all that in his report back to ParkingEye.

His other contribution was to repeat ParkingEye's untrue allegations that

The Court may not be aware of it but at present there’s a big, the only way I can describe it is an internet vendetta against ParkingEye, and there’s been issues with certain members of the public obtaining copies of the parking agreements that ParkingEye have with landowners, so ParkingEye, on such matters, are cautious about providing these written agreements, it’s been made aware that these, these confidential documents have leaked onto the internet on certain public forums, which ParkingEye, obviously, given the fact that it’s a confidential relationship between ParkingEye and the landowner, are reluctant to do so.

For the benefit of any future defendant's who have to put up with this guff, this is all baloney and there are no known incidents of contracts being leaked onto public forums. Challenge the ParkingEye stooge to name one if this happens to you. However, there have been plenty of examples of ParkingEye contracts being placed onto public forums by their own customers. This usually happens as a result of Freedom of information requests to councils or hospitals.

Well done Mr Gopal for believing the rubbish ParkingEye fed you. The Prankster understands he can only work from the brief he is given, but sometimes you do have to question the information your client gives you.

Congratulations all round, especially to Mrs Collins-Daniel, whose defence meant she didn't even need to speak during the hearing.

The approved judgement is currently missing from the transcript; this will become available once the judge has approved it, as per the usual legal processes.

Happy Parking

The Parking Prankster