The Cambridge case.

[armadillo71]

We will be hearing a lot more about this, but I think The Prankster has summed it up nicely.

 

 

These are not 'normal' PE car parks, so the value of the win to them, is very limited I believe.

 

 

They were expecting the judgement to go against them by my understanding...

 

 

 

 

 

 

http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2014/05/parkingeye-win-cambridge-test-case.html

[Conniff]

There WAS a contract in a free car park. The consideration from the motorist was the promise to leave after 2 hours.

 

 

So this is about contract. The claim in a breach of contract is for damages and those damages must be an assessment of losses. So this is one of those 'I haven't a clue' people who wears a black cloak but has no idea of the law.

The defence must have been crap in not bringing this to his attention.

[Old Snowy]

So this is about contract. The claim in a breach of contract is for damages and those damages must be an assessment of losses. So this is one of those 'I haven't a clue' people who wears a black cloak but has no idea of the law.

The defence must have been crap in not bringing this to his attention.

However, provided the "penalty" is a "good" penalty (i.e. it is commercially justifed) there is no requirement that it be GPEOL. So that's alright then.

[Conniff]

So what is this justification or will that be classed as commercially confidential. Something really stinks here.

[armadillo71]

bargepole of PPP has uploaded the judgement.

 

The judge seems to think he can rewrite the law...

 

 

 

 

https://jumpshare.com/v/jKfGOSWc9g6bOsxtZxwL

[armadillo71]

ParkingEye have updated their news section for the first time this year....

 

http://www.parkingeye.co.uk/motorist-information/parkingeye-win-cambridge-test-case/

 

Of course it is very selective on what the judgement actually says.

 

The judge called it a PENALTY. But commercially justified. (Flawed I know.)

But ParkingEye do not issue penalty notices they state;

 

http://www.parkingeye.co.uk/motorist-information/is-the-parking-charge-enforceable-is-it-a-penalty/

[Old Snowy]

PE's cases are awash with contradictions

[armadillo71]

PE are starting to quote the Cambridge judgement apparently. The prankster has blogged some arguments to use against it.

 

 

http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2014/06/arguments-to-use-if-parkingeye-try-and.html

[armadillo71]

From bargepole;

 

Quick update: One of the defendants, Mr Beavis, has decided to go ahead with the appeal, and all the paperwork has been lodged with the Royal Court of Justice in The Strand today (day 21).No further information can be given, or questions answered about this, until directions are issued by the Court of Appeal, except to say nothing is likely to happen for 2-3 months at least.

[armadillo71]

http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2014/06/arguments-to-use-if-parkingeye-try-and_11.html

[Conniff]

justifiable and not disproportionate

 

Says a man who is on a paypacket higher than the Prime Minister

[armadillo71]

An update from The Prankster.

 

http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2014/07/cambridge-case-hoax-phone-call.html

 

And Government via the DVLA support this ' industry '......