In this case, ParkingEye v Mr O, the overstay occurred because the driver had to suddenly and unexpectedly breastfeed her child. Although ParkingEye were informed about this and that the Equalities Act 2010 applied, they refused to cancel the charge, explaining that ParkingEye do not give extra time to people covered by the Equalities Act 2010 and that if she was not happy to be treated this way she should not park in the car park.
Once the case was referred to POPLA, Mr O put in a robust defence.
ParkingEye failed to even turn up.
The assessors verdict is reproduced below.
Once again all parties will be happy with this result. The motorist got the charge cancelled. The courts save time and resource. ParkingEye, obviously aware they would lose, saved large amounts of money by not even bothering to submit a case.
Happy Parking
The Parking Prankster
Poor Old Rachel, she was once fragrant but no more.
ReplyDeleteSurely even she can see she is now on borrowed time, what with all the outsoucring of important legal enquires to expensive London Chambers, even her new friends at Optima can be heard sniggering behind her back.
If only she had become a shareholder before PE sold out to Crapita but its too late now for regrets, however the gloomy faces of those in Chorley who now realise their 2nd stage payment is in serious doubt should lift your spirits a little.
Also you do have a 2.1 in legal studies from a provincial university; now that is something that NONE of her new friends in chambers have.
I am told that Totaljobs is a good website Rachel; why dont you take a look its free.
Best regards
RR
So delighted to see Parking Eye losing not only the Court fee and the POPLA fee in addition to all the time they spent putting together their 60 odd page Reply to Defence. Happy days!
ReplyDeletePE as well as other PPCs are failing to defend in POPLA, I suspect the lead adjudicator and the PPC's are plotting, cannot see this going on.
ReplyDelete