Parking Eye lose case - have to pay parking!
Discussion
http://nebula.wsimg.com/53e672581a806f6f5ae7860268...
Not only not winning their claim, but having to pay the Defendant £45 plus, with some irony, parking costs.
Sorry if this is a re-post but I found it amusing.
Almost as good as the "toothbrush" case involving VCS:
http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?act=attach&...
"f there is another case in the S
horpe County Court, Grimsby County Court or Hull County Court live by four pm on
Friday, you will be coming to see me and I suggest you bring a toothbrush."
Bad day in the office for those counsel....
Not only not winning their claim, but having to pay the Defendant £45 plus, with some irony, parking costs.
Sorry if this is a re-post but I found it amusing.
Almost as good as the "toothbrush" case involving VCS:
http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?act=attach&...
"f there is another case in the S
horpe County Court, Grimsby County Court or Hull County Court live by four pm onFriday, you will be coming to see me and I suggest you bring a toothbrush."
Bad day in the office for those counsel....
"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"
"It seems to me you have, in this case you have a particularly hard problem because the deal that you’re offering people is free parking. There is no, there is no suggestion of any charge for any parking. So if your, your car park was perfectly managed it would be simply full of people who never paid a penny, either to ParkingEye or to the land owner, or to anybody else, it would be a car park without payment, a car park without profit, a car park without money. So, there’s no question, for example, of this lady, when she gets into her fifth hour, of blocking off a place that a paying customer was dying to get into, because there are no paying customers, so even if she stayed there for 40 years the consequences to ParkingEye would be of no financial significance, because she’s never going to have to pay. So how do you say this £85 could possibly be justified as a payment?"
TX.
"It seems to me you have, in this case you have a particularly hard problem because the deal that you’re offering people is free parking. There is no, there is no suggestion of any charge for any parking. So if your, your car park was perfectly managed it would be simply full of people who never paid a penny, either to ParkingEye or to the land owner, or to anybody else, it would be a car park without payment, a car park without profit, a car park without money. So, there’s no question, for example, of this lady, when she gets into her fifth hour, of blocking off a place that a paying customer was dying to get into, because there are no paying customers, so even if she stayed there for 40 years the consequences to ParkingEye would be of no financial significance, because she’s never going to have to pay. So how do you say this £85 could possibly be justified as a payment?"
TX.
Edited by Terminator X on Friday 14th March 10:18
Slidingpillar said:
Hmm interesting read, Mr Gopal clearly doesn't understand the basics of when one is in a hole to stop digging.
This probably didn't help him!"The system of the automatic number plate recognition systems, all of that incurs charges, Sir, and if the contract that a customer is entering into with ParkingEye is breached, the enforcement of that contract itself incurs charges and therefore the £85 that’s being claimed is a reasonable sum, and, and has been decided by various judges to be, not only district judges but also judges of a higher standard, Sir."
TX.
Terminator X said:
This probably didn't help him!
"The system of the automatic number plate recognition systems, all of that incurs charges, Sir, and if the contract that a customer is entering into with ParkingEye is breached, the enforcement of that contract itself incurs charges and therefore the £85 that’s being claimed is a reasonable sum, and, and has been decided by various judges to be, not only district judges but also judges of a higher standard, Sir."
TX.
I suspect that may have been an error in the transcript and he actually said "standing"."The system of the automatic number plate recognition systems, all of that incurs charges, Sir, and if the contract that a customer is entering into with ParkingEye is breached, the enforcement of that contract itself incurs charges and therefore the £85 that’s being claimed is a reasonable sum, and, and has been decided by various judges to be, not only district judges but also judges of a higher standard, Sir."
TX.
Muncher said:
Terminator X said:
This probably didn't help him!
"The system of the automatic number plate recognition systems, all of that incurs charges, Sir, and if the contract that a customer is entering into with ParkingEye is breached, the enforcement of that contract itself incurs charges and therefore the £85 that’s being claimed is a reasonable sum, and, and has been decided by various judges to be, not only district judges but also judges of a higher standard, Sir."
TX.
I suspect that may have been an error in the transcript and he actually said "standing"."The system of the automatic number plate recognition systems, all of that incurs charges, Sir, and if the contract that a customer is entering into with ParkingEye is breached, the enforcement of that contract itself incurs charges and therefore the £85 that’s being claimed is a reasonable sum, and, and has been decided by various judges to be, not only district judges but also judges of a higher standard, Sir."
TX.
Slidingpillar said:
Hmm interesting read, Mr Gopal clearly doesn't understand the basics of when one is in a hole to stop digging.
What a pathetic prick he was trying to argue against the costs; I love how the judge went on for ages looking at ways for the woman to get the £45 she clearly deserved.
Good to see in both these cases the judges looking out for the defendant.
Muncher said:
Someone else been reading RollonFriday? 
Credit where credit is due:http://www.rollonfriday.com/TheNews/EuropeNews/tab...
"The judge, who may or may not have been clamped in the past..."
Beats The Lawyer!
essayer said:
What a pathetic prick he was trying to argue against the costs; I love how the judge went on for ages looking at ways for the woman to get the £45 she clearly deserved.
essayer said:
What a pathetic prick he was trying to argue against the costs; I love how the judge went on for ages looking at ways for the woman to get the £45 she clearly deserved.
Good to see in both these cases the judges looking out for the defendant.
That said, he was probably best to have noted that he was on a downer from the start and not dug any deeper....
While this woman won this case, it should not be forgotten that she is part of the problem and not part of the solution.
Businesses need customers, many of them need parking, her selfish attitude to the concession that the businesses make to permit customers to park for a certain period is likely to lead to paid parking for all of us.
Businesses need customers, many of them need parking, her selfish attitude to the concession that the businesses make to permit customers to park for a certain period is likely to lead to paid parking for all of us.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff