Maxinep - Parking eye - WON!

[wales01man]

Re: Maxinep - Parking eye

To make a claim for a loss don't they have to state the actual loss?

[labman]

Re: Maxinep - Parking eye

That is mentioned in the link Wales. :beagle:

[wales01man]

Re: Maxinep - Parking eye

how much?

[labman]

Re: Maxinep - Parking eye

They didn't say - one of the reasons they lost the appeal. Click the link and have a read - it's shorter than many posts on here!

[wales01man]

Re: Maxinep - Parking eye

Thought a figure had to be stated cant go for a CCJ for a debt without figures why are they excused this?

[labman]

Re: Maxinep - Parking eye

They're not. Have a read of the link!

[mystery1]

Re: Maxinep - Parking eye

They do state a figure. It's on the signs and the notices. The problem for them is that when a motorist asserts that it's a penalty and offers evidence of such (most signage is enough) then the burden of proof has shifted to the ppc. It then becomes a huge problem for them to show losses that amount close enough to the amounts claimed without including business costs which are paid whether or not the motorist has parked i.e. not losses caused.

M1

[labman]

Re: Maxinep - Parking eye

They do state a figure. It's on the signs and the notices. The problem for them is that when a motorist asserts that it's a penalty and offers evidence of such (most signage is enough) then the burden of proof has shifted to the ppc. It then becomes a huge problem for them to show losses that amount close enough to the amounts claimed without including business costs which are paid whether or not the motorist has parked i.e. not losses caused.

M1

Not to mention the fact their genuine pre-estimate of loss can change from one day to another.

[wales01man]

Re: Maxinep - Parking eye

Thanks MI thought that was the case no wonder they just keep threatning hoping the so called offender pays,for many the threat of County Court makes them pay

[labman]

Re: Maxinep - Parking eye

They made just over 4 million profit last year!

[wales01man]

Re: Maxinep - Parking eye

Too many fools then

[labman]

Re: Maxinep - Parking eye

THIS makes interesting reading.

[wales01man]

Re: Maxinep - Parking eye

Interesting is there any info on the number of court judgements they won/lost

[labman]

Re: Maxinep - Parking eye

Not for last year. I've got them somewhere for the year before. Of far more relevance would be the number of DEFENDED judgments gained, rather than default judgments.

This is a classic, and the appeal STILL succeeded just today!

Cat found not guilty

Today POPLA ruled that a registered keeper's cat should be found not guilty of all parking charges.

The appellant asserted his cat had driven to Staples. The Staples parking attendant, despite searching the store diligently, could not find the driver. Presumably this was because they did not look under the shelves. Maybe the cat was playing with the mice in the computer department. Possibly even, the cat was in the warehouse having a quick kip, as cats do. In any case the operator could not come with a pre-estimate of loss justification.

No doubt CPS Midlands will think twice before purr-suing any feline drivers in the future.

The Prankster notes this case was filed on 31 May and it took 88 days to complete. The nominal target is 35 days, and the POPLA KPI set by the BPA is 44 days. Thus POPLA are still well behind schedule and do not yet seem to be eating into the backlog. The Prankster's last two decisions took 83 and 91 days, and he has outstanding cases which have been waiting for 126, 103 and 78 days.

Happy Parking

The Parking Prankster

[mystery1]

Re: Maxinep - Parking eye

Interesting is there any info on the number of court judgements they won/lost

Not exactly what you are after http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co...n-limited.html


They won v Kevin Shelley but any other, as far as i know, were default judgements. There should be a raft of court cases in the next few weeks.

M1