Parking Eye in Court - Friday afternoon giggle
- Thread starter Muffin`
- Start date
Soldato
- Joined
- 5 Aug 2003
- Posts
- 8,541
- Location
- Essex
The bit at the end where the Judge is working out the compensation to the defendant is brilliant and hilarious 
Deleted member 651465
Deleted member 651465
The bit at the end where the Judge is working out the compensation to the defendant is brilliant and hilarious
Reading that I am trying to work out if the Judge was actually trying to be funny or the whole case was such a farce it could be nothing but funny.
I do like the bit at the end about expenses especially the
Basically: Shut up and stop arguing.
I do like the bit at the end about expenses especially the
Basically: Shut up and stop arguing.
Soldato
- Joined
- 9 Jan 2008
- Posts
- 6,523
- Location
- London/Camberley
The bit at the end where the Judge is working out the compensation to the defendant is brilliant and hilarious
Loved that part!
This hits the nail on the head
"Deputy District Judge Melville-Shreeve: Now let’s move on to the penalty charge
point. Some of the Courts have found that, that varying amounts of money are penalties
rather than a contractually agreed sum. 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? I, I’ve read your
principals’ evidence about this, but they don’t seem to address the problem of the fact
that the car park ordinarily wouldn’t attract any payment. "
"Deputy District Judge Melville-Shreeve: Now let’s move on to the penalty charge
point. Some of the Courts have found that, that varying amounts of money are penalties
rather than a contractually agreed sum. 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? I, I’ve read your
principals’ evidence about this, but they don’t seem to address the problem of the fact
that the car park ordinarily wouldn’t attract any payment. "
It was pretty clear right from the start that the Judge had pretty much made his decision and wasn't going to be swayed. I get the impression that this was probably based upon the fact that not all the information to make a fair decision had been disclosed by Parking Eye and or their lawyer. The Judge was pretty miffed that the contract with the landowner wasn't presented and in its place a note rather akin to a school note was presented and the fact that only the case that Parking Eye won had been presented and not the cases that they had lost.
Associate
- Joined
- 30 Sep 2004
- Posts
- 1,038
- Location
- Colchester, Essex
The costs bit at the end made me giggle. Their barrister was digging and digging...