PePiPoo Helping the motorist get justice

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

ParkingEye meets its match as it takes on a top barrister over an £85 fine
stamfordman
post Sat, 26 Aug 2017 - 10:28
Post #1


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 4,906
Joined: 12 Feb 2013
From: London
Member No.: 59,924



Article on Guardian's site today.

When a parking company fired off an £85 ticket to Nicholas Bowen, little did it know just who it was taking on.

ParkingEye went after Bowen for overstaying the free two-hour limit at a motorway service station and, when he wouldn’t roll over, decided to sue him. But the firm, owned by Capita, may now be regretting picking this particular fight after a judge struck out the case and ordered the company to pay his costs of £1,550.


https://www.theguardian.com/money/2017/aug/...rrister-85-fine
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
 
Start new topic
Replies (1 - 15)
Advertisement
post Sat, 26 Aug 2017 - 10:28
Post #


Advertise here!









Go to the top of the page
 
Quote Post
Umkomaas
post Sat, 26 Aug 2017 - 11:14
Post #2


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 1,516
Joined: 8 Feb 2013
Member No.: 59,842



ParkingEye failed to turn up in court. Default win for the defendant. Hardly one he'll be adding to his CV. laugh.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
The Rookie
post Sat, 26 Aug 2017 - 21:22
Post #3


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 37,590
Joined: 9 Sep 2003
From: Warwickshire
Member No.: 317



Failing to turn up sealed their fate really!


--------------------
There is no such thing as a law abiding motorist, just those who have been scammed and those yet to be scammed!

S172's
Rookies 1-0 Kent

Council PCN's
Rookies 1-0 Warwick
Rookies 1-0 Birmingham

PPC PCN's
Rookies 8-0 PPC's
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cabbyman
post Sun, 27 Aug 2017 - 06:09
Post #4


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 5,396
Joined: 15 Dec 2007
From: Hampshire
Member No.: 16,066



According to PPCs, PE v Beavis makes every ticket enforceable.

Using the same logic, PE v Bowen now makes every ticket unenforceable!


--------------------
Cabbyman 8 PPCs 0
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
seank
post Sun, 27 Aug 2017 - 08:31
Post #5


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 197
Joined: 15 Apr 2013
Member No.: 61,183



In fairness, Parking Eye said in the article that they sent a rep to court, but the Hearing wasn't listed.
They say they paid the Hearing fee but it looks like a mix-up at court.
It will be interesting to see whether they appeal.
What was surprising was reading that they're taking 1000 people per week to the county court. It's looking like the BBC where Capita (the same company as here) takes one eighth of all Mags' court prosecutions over the tv licence.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
bargepole
post Sun, 27 Aug 2017 - 10:41
Post #6


Member
Group Icon

Group: Bad Boyz & Girlz
Posts: 1,995
Joined: 28 Jun 2004
From: High Wycombe
Member No.: 1,353



QUOTE (cabbyman @ Sun, 27 Aug 2017 - 07:09) *
According to PPCs, PE v Beavis makes every ticket enforceable.

Using the same logic, PE v Bowen now makes every ticket unenforceable!


Err ... No. Beavis was a Supreme Court decision, and therefore binding on lower court cases which turn on substantially the same facts and circumstances.

Bowen was only a County Court ruling, so can only be considered persuasive, and probably not even that if it was a one-sided hearing.


--------------------
We'll fight them on the roads, we'll fight them in the courts, and we shall never, ever, surrender
Cases Won = 20 (17 as McKenzie Friend) : Cases Lost = 4. Private Parking tickets ignored: 3. Paid: 0.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cabbyman
post Sun, 27 Aug 2017 - 12:38
Post #7


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 5,396
Joined: 15 Dec 2007
From: Hampshire
Member No.: 16,066



My tongue was very firmly poking through my cheek! wink.gif


--------------------
Cabbyman 8 PPCs 0
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
seank
post Sun, 27 Aug 2017 - 16:29
Post #8


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 197
Joined: 15 Apr 2013
Member No.: 61,183



The county courts and magistrates' courts must be sick to death of Capita.
How can it be reasonable to burden the courts with parking and tv licence nonsense?
Both courts are in the public sector, so financed by taxes levied on private sector profits.
No wonder the UK is still borrowing £1 billion per week.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
stamfordman
post Sat, 16 Sep 2017 - 18:45
Post #9


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 4,906
Joined: 12 Feb 2013
From: London
Member No.: 59,924



Update - Parking Eye sent a cheque but spelt Bowen's first name wrong:

https://www.theguardian.com/money/2017/sep/...torway-services

He has since emailed ParkingEye asking it to reissue the cheque in the correct name, while also asking for figures on the number of tickets it issues annually to people overstaying at night in motorway services car parks. He added: “Please indicate if you are prepared to engage with me in a sensible dialogue on the nighttime service station; if I do not hear from you I will continue to campaign against your current practices to help those who find themselves in a similar position to the one you put me in.”
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
The Rookie
post Sun, 17 Sep 2017 - 06:33
Post #10


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 37,590
Joined: 9 Sep 2003
From: Warwickshire
Member No.: 317



QUOTE (seank @ Sun, 27 Aug 2017 - 17:29) *
The county courts and magistrates' courts must be sick to death of Capita.
How can it be reasonable to burden the courts with parking and tv licence nonsense?
Both courts are in the public sector, so financed by taxes levied on private sector profits.
No wonder the UK is still borrowing £1 billion per week.

Because if the money is owed and the person won't pay, it may be the only recourse, you have of course forgotten DVLA as well.


--------------------
There is no such thing as a law abiding motorist, just those who have been scammed and those yet to be scammed!

S172's
Rookies 1-0 Kent

Council PCN's
Rookies 1-0 Warwick
Rookies 1-0 Birmingham

PPC PCN's
Rookies 8-0 PPC's
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Unzippy
post Mon, 18 Sep 2017 - 02:55
Post #11


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 932
Joined: 29 Oct 2013
Member No.: 66,323



QUOTE (stamfordman @ Sat, 16 Sep 2017 - 19:45) *
Update - Parking Eye sent a cheque but spelt Bowen's first name wrong:

https://www.theguardian.com/money/2017/sep/...torway-services

He has since emailed ParkingEye asking it to reissue the cheque in the correct name



Petty to the extreme!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Tartarus
post Mon, 18 Sep 2017 - 16:28
Post #12


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 248
Joined: 18 Mar 2015
Member No.: 76,324



My bank once refused to cash a cheque made out to me because my name had been spelled incorrectly. Now that cheques are much less widely used, may not be so much a quibble.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Umkomaas
post Mon, 18 Sep 2017 - 18:03
Post #13


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 1,516
Joined: 8 Feb 2013
Member No.: 59,842



QUOTE (Unzippy @ Mon, 18 Sep 2017 - 03:55) *
QUOTE (stamfordman @ Sat, 16 Sep 2017 - 19:45) *
Update - Parking Eye sent a cheque but spelt Bowen's first name wrong:

https://www.theguardian.com/money/2017/sep/...torway-services

He has since emailed ParkingEye asking it to reissue the cheque in the correct name



Petty to the extreme!

Although it might sound roughly similar, Nickalas is an unusual spelling and may have raised a query by the bank. Are you sure that PE was not so spelling it so as not to give him some return hassle to deal with?

Would you have thought it equally petty if they'd spelled in Nickerless? Sounds roughly similar too. wacko.gif

This post has been edited by Umkomaas: Mon, 18 Sep 2017 - 18:03
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
southpaw82
post Mon, 18 Sep 2017 - 18:23
Post #14


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 27,700
Joined: 2 Apr 2008
From: Not in the UK
Member No.: 18,483



Perhaps he was being as petty as PE are with their claims?


--------------------


Any comments made do not constitute legal advice and should not be relied upon. No lawyer/client relationship should be assumed nor should any duty of care be owed.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Unzippy
post Tue, 19 Sep 2017 - 06:57
Post #15


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 932
Joined: 29 Oct 2013
Member No.: 66,323



I meant PE being petty by issueing the cheque to the wrong name.
I assume in the prior goings on, PE will have seen his name in writing hundreds of times, yet they still got it wrong.
Petty or incompetant, take your pick.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
southpaw82
post Tue, 19 Sep 2017 - 09:09
Post #16


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 27,700
Joined: 2 Apr 2008
From: Not in the UK
Member No.: 18,483



Oh I see. I choose incompetent.


--------------------


Any comments made do not constitute legal advice and should not be relied upon. No lawyer/client relationship should be assumed nor should any duty of care be owed.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 



Advertisement

Advertise here!

RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: Friday, 23rd February 2018 - 14:48
Pepipoo uses cookies. You can find details of the cookies we use here along with links to information on how to manage them.
Please click the button to accept our cookies and hide this message. We’ll also assume that you’re happy to accept them if you continue to use the site.