Parking Eye lose case - have to pay parking!

[will_]

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&amp...

"f there is another case in the Shorpe 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....

[will_]

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!

[will_]

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.

To be fair to him, he was just doing the best job he could for this client. It's not going to be easy taking that judgment back when, I would think, most litigants in person roll over and a few judges probably do too.

That said, he was probably best to have noted that he was on a downer from the start and not dug any deeper....

[will_]

PurpleMoonlight said:

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.

Whilst you are absolutely correct, and land-owners do need to be able to decide (and enforce) what happens on their land, the least they could do is get the law right in the first place and perhaps not use bullyboy tactics to scare people into paying for non-existant or unenforceable "fines".

[will_]

JustinP1 said:

It just baffles me that Parking Eye don't seem to have worked it out yet....

I agree - you'd think that they might have considered the best way to draft a contract which they are going to seek to rely on repeatedly.

However I'm sure that it is only a tiny minority of people who fight these charges and most people just stump-up. In which case ParkingEye probably don't need to worry too much about an embarassing judgment here or there.

If they actually had a strong case they ought to seek a binding decision in the Court of Appeal - the fact that they do not seem inclined to do so speaks volumes to me.

[will_]

10 Pence Short said:

to make a binding decision.

There's a good reason why they won't do that already.

They don't want a binding decision if it goes against them.