While this strategy earns ParkingEye more court wins than otherwise, the legal professionals involved should be ashamed of themselves. The Prankster regards them as a disgrace to their profession. The first duty of a solicitor is to the court, and not to their client. They have a duty to make the court aware of relevant facts, including those which do not assist their case.
Rachel Ledson is ParkingEye's solicitor, and so has failed in her duty countless hundreds of times by failing to brief her LPC Law advocates properly. The alternative would be that large numbers of LPC Law advocates, including barristers, have failed to properly inform the courts of facts which they have been briefed.
The following cases indicate what happens when a judge is made aware that Beavis is being appealed. These should be quoted in any case where a parking company mention ParkingEye v Beavis.
3JD01272 ParkingEye v Wood. ParkingEye won the initial hearing by providing a fake witness statement (for use only at POPLA and photocopied without the witness knowledge) to the court. After a permission to appeal hearing, during which the judge repeatedly stressed he was not impressed such a small case was taking up so much of the court's time, HHJ Butler gave permission to appeal and the case will be reheard after the Beavis appeal.
3JD04003 ParkingEye v de Meza. DDJ Jones ruled for ParkingEye but enforcement of judgement and right to appeal have been suspended until after the Beavis appeal.
A0JD0153 ParkingEye v Green. Judge Dodd (of ParkingEye v Shelley fame) adjourned the case on the day without hearing from either party, until after the Beavis appeal.
A0QZ8099 Excel v Brunt. DJ Lettall was aware that Beavis was being appealed, so adjourned the case. He was not impressed that Excel had not informed him the case was under appeal and that he had found out himself by other means.
3JD09497 ParkingEye v Howell. Telford Court. ParkingEye sent all correspondence to the wrong address. When the defendant found out they had a CCJ against them, they asked for judgment to be set aside. DJ Chapman ruled the judgment be set aside and the case be stayed until after the Beavis appeal.
3JD05179 ParkingEye v Marsh. The case was adjourned until after Beavis.
District Enforcement v Jones, Telford Court. The case has been stayed until the Beavis appeal.
A0JD0402 ParkingEye v Mason at Walsall Court. The judge brought up the case of Beavis and questioned ParkingEye's capability to repay any fines which would be overturned if the Beavis case was to be successful. He also mentioned that Dudley county court and Telford county court are adjourning all future ParkingEye cases until the Beavis appeal is heard and ruled upon. He ruled for ParkingEye, but deferred enforcement of the judgment. The order ruled that if the Beavis appeal is successful the judgment will be overturned. However if ParkingEye are successful the charge must be paid in full within 21 days.
It is clear then that large amounts of court time are being wasted by ParkingEye due to their failure to inform the courts of the whole facts. All cases should be suspended until the Beavis appeal.
The Prankster would be interested to hear of any other motorists who have had their case adjourned until after Beavis, and would be especially interested to know how the judge became aware that Beavis was being appealed; from the defendant, from the claimant, or from their own knowledge.
The Prankster recommends that any motorist as well as informing the judge about the above cases, also takes a copy of HHJ Moloney's leave to appeal.
The motorist should also go to this link:
Type in 'Beavis' and then print out the current case status and bring this to court.
The Prankster also recommends that if the case is adjourned the motorist asks for their costs on the grounds that ParkingEye were acting unreasonably in not informing the court that Beavis was being appealed.
A0JD5113 ParkingEye v Park Furnishers Ltd (17/11/2014, Bristol) DDJ Melville-Shreeve
DDJ Melville-Shreeve was pointed to ParkingEye v Beavis extensively by the ParkingEye's advocate from LPC Law, Mr Binns. However Mr Binns did not inform the judge this case was being appealed, and the judge was not aware of this either.
The DDJ was strongly persuaded by HHJ Moloney and the argument around commercial justification. However, he also noted the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations (UTCCR) 1999 reference in HHJ Moloney's judgment. The DDJ held that the charge was not fair under the UTCCR because it was obviously a penalty and at a similar level to statutory penalties whose intention is to be the opposite of fair - to penalise people in order to avoid them doing things like this. So a penalty could never be fair under UTCCR.
The LPC Law advocate argued the car was there on business and therefore UTCCR did not apply. Melville-Shreeve held that on the balance of probabilities as the car was there during lunch break it was not there to furnish the park, and it was more likely that it was on private business. Otherwise UTCCR would not apply and he would have fallen in line with HHJ Moloney.
The claim was dismissed.
The Parking Prankster