Parking Eye Ltd - Removing a CCJ
Discussion
My money would also be on the CA allowing the appeal, assuming that the case does not settle before the hearing. I think that Patrick Moloney's reasoning is somewhat heterodox.
Having said that, the selfish antics of the "I can park where I like" crusaders may provide some policy impetus for allowing a hefty charging regime. If the motorists and their Mickey Mouse McKenzie friends can resist the urge to run all the fatuous website points that they ran at first instance, and just focus on the penalty point, they will be doing their cause a favour.
Having said that, the selfish antics of the "I can park where I like" crusaders may provide some policy impetus for allowing a hefty charging regime. If the motorists and their Mickey Mouse McKenzie friends can resist the urge to run all the fatuous website points that they ran at first instance, and just focus on the penalty point, they will be doing their cause a favour.
I can see what he was thinking, in that he's trying to fit the unique position of private parking enforcement within the tight realm of liquidated damages. It's still a square peg in a round hole, though.
In this instance I think the best long term solution is regulate (shudder) the industry with a legislative mandate that allows PPCs to fine miscreants rather than pretending there's a reliance on LDs. Rules and fine maximums to be set by the regulator.
In this instance I think the best long term solution is regulate (shudder) the industry with a legislative mandate that allows PPCs to fine miscreants rather than pretending there's a reliance on LDs. Rules and fine maximums to be set by the regulator.
I agree. Allow regulated penalty charges, and upgrade POPLA to a statutory footing, or (better) extend the jurisdiction of the extant statutory appeal service to cover private penalties.
The Beavis decision strikes me as boot strapping the claim by treating a commercial project which has as its aim the recovery of charges as a basis for permitting those charges.The running costs of the enforcement company are self generated, and are not pendant upon real loss inflicted by the party in breach.
The Beavis decision strikes me as boot strapping the claim by treating a commercial project which has as its aim the recovery of charges as a basis for permitting those charges.The running costs of the enforcement company are self generated, and are not pendant upon real loss inflicted by the party in breach.
An irony here is that the statutory and private appeals services share the same resources. To have two entirely different processes, in the same building, dealing with the same parking behaviour, based purely on who owns the land, benefits nobody (other than those trying to gain profit/notoriety by having alarmist websites selling legal mumbo-jumbo.
Having companies such as Parking Eye issuing thousand of bulk claims per year is a waste of court time (and tax payer money) over what should be a simple, regulatory issue.
Having companies such as Parking Eye issuing thousand of bulk claims per year is a waste of court time (and tax payer money) over what should be a simple, regulatory issue.
Breadvan72 said:
Ethics require that you cite a binding authority adverse to your position. The fact that a non binding decision is being appealed does not change anything.
OK you win.Breadvan72 said:
I am sorry if you find it troublesome when information gets in the way of your opinions, but it happens.
You will be far more familiar with judges than I am. Apparently the reason that the judge at Stockport County Court stayed the claim was because, had he followed HHJ Moloney and the CoA decides in favour of Beavis. it would have meant that he had wasted his time and public money on a full hearing and subsequent judgement which would be subject to reversal on appeal. The latter being a further unnecessary drain on scarce resources. No wonder he was p
d off.It may not, as you say, be unethical to bring a claim based on Beavis but from where I'm standing it's not the most sensible thing to do. However, since the PPC's legal representative will still get paid for appearing perhaps he/she doesn't give a stuff.
Breadvan72]The 2012 Act simply made it possible in some cases to claim against a keeper of a car.[/qupte said:
Exactly what I said in the first place (the introduction of RK liability making it unsafe to ignore a PPC PCN) before you jumped all over me.
Breadvan72 said:
It did not alter anything about the underlying claim for parking charges.
Care to quote me where I said that it did? 
Little update on this...
I have now had an email back from the court who have given me the claim reference number. They have told me to speak to the claimant's solicitor who is parking Eye themselves??
I called the only phone number Parking eye have which is an automated line and putting my claim reference number in (which i didn't previously have) has allowed me to get a bit further and has given me an address to send an appeal to.
So ill send an appeal in the post today and see what happens....
I have now had an email back from the court who have given me the claim reference number. They have told me to speak to the claimant's solicitor who is parking Eye themselves??
I called the only phone number Parking eye have which is an automated line and putting my claim reference number in (which i didn't previously have) has allowed me to get a bit further and has given me an address to send an appeal to.
So ill send an appeal in the post today and see what happens....
You are not doing yourself any favours by dealing with Parking Eye at this stage.
You need to apply to have the judgement set aside ASAP. How promptly you do this has a bearing on the success of your application. With your opening post I see no problems with getting this set aside but you need to act quickly. It also takes quite a long time. I just had a judgement set aside and it took 5 months from applying to getting it off my credit file.
As the CCJ is already on your file, an application has to be made to have it set aside. I doubt Parking Eye can do this on your behalf and even if they could I am not sure they would be willing to pay the £155 fee so I think your beat bet is make the application now but carry on your appeal with Parking Eye. If you get a favourable outcome with Parking Eye, then it just means the setting aside will be easier as they would give their blessings.
You need to apply to have the judgement set aside ASAP. How promptly you do this has a bearing on the success of your application. With your opening post I see no problems with getting this set aside but you need to act quickly. It also takes quite a long time. I just had a judgement set aside and it took 5 months from applying to getting it off my credit file.
As the CCJ is already on your file, an application has to be made to have it set aside. I doubt Parking Eye can do this on your behalf and even if they could I am not sure they would be willing to pay the £155 fee so I think your beat bet is make the application now but carry on your appeal with Parking Eye. If you get a favourable outcome with Parking Eye, then it just means the setting aside will be easier as they would give their blessings.
Edited by Eclassy on Tuesday 16th December 13:28
I am in a very similar position. I received a PCN from Civil Enforcement although I was not the driver but the RK. I was advised (yes, yes I know) by a barrister to ignore all notices which I did. I then acted as a guarantor for my son's flat rental only to be informed I had a CCJ from these scumbags! I have applied to have it set aside and am in court on 20 Jan.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff