Parking Eye win in Cambridge Test Case

[Legal Beagles]

Download the Judgment (PDF)

More...

[Scigal]

Re: Parking Eye win in Cambridge Test Case

From the little bits i can understand, this saddens and scares me. Especially as a private comany are sueing my husband, who was not the driver anyway etc etc we were relyng on all the info the two defendants had supplied but no doubt PE will set precedent for all other ropey cowboys to sting anyway they wish and the little man in the free car park will be trully shafted. What a joke

[des8]

Re: Parking Eye win in Cambridge Test Case

Cheer up, it's not that bad

For a start it is still only a judgement in a county court, and is not binding on any other court.

If PE have already filed their standard claim, in my worthless opinion, this case isn't going to be much use to them.
The judge found the charge to be a penalty ..... their claim denies it is a penalty
The judge found the charge was based on commercial necessity ....... the claim will say it is GPEoL
BPA logo is on PE signs, so the CoP is an implied term of any contract and that requires the charge to be GPEoL..... not a penalty based on commercial necessity.

If PE have already filed their Claim their going to have to change it if they want to rely on the Cambridge case.

Anyway, that's what I think, and expect them soon to apply to lift the stay on my daughter's case and proceed to court.

Although overall this case is a set back I don't believe it's the end of the world ...just keep fighting:fencing::tinysmile_twink_t2: