Last Updated: 13th December 2021
Parkingeye follows up Supreme Court triumph with continued success in the County Court
2017 was another successful year for Parkingeye in the County Court. After recording a staggering 90% win rate in County Court Hearings in 2016*, we continue to strive for the highest standards of excellence in our work in enforcing our Parking Charges issued for breach of contract on private land.
Parkingeye has been commended on numerous occasions for the manner in which we prepare our claims, and our continued success is owed in no small part to the hard work and diligence with which we approach each and every case.
Below are just a few examples of recent County Court Hearings from 2017 which illustrate this. It should be noted that all of the Defendants below paid the judgment awarded in full.
C6FC5F6P – ParkingEye v Mr R – Middlesbrough County Court – 31 March 2017
In this case, the Defendant attempted to distinguish their circumstances from those in the Supreme Court case of ParkingEye v Beavis (2015) UKSC 67, by arguing that the Parking Charge of £100 was excessive for parking without paying the relevant tariff due at night. The Judge found that the case law established in Beavis was entirely applicable to a scenario where parking required payment of a tariff, and that the Parking Charge was payable.
C4FC3V8Z – ParkingEye v Miss W – Bradford County Court – 25 May 2017
The Defendant in this case had been issued two Parking Charges for twice overstaying the maximum stay period at a popular local retail park. They admitted to having parked at the retail park in order to go to work at their office nearby on both occasions. A Judgment of £270 was awarded in the Claimant’s favour, with £85 per Parking Charge and an additional £100 in costs.
D9FC136J – ParkingEye v Mr M – Eastbourne County Court – 13 June 2017
Within the defence filed, the Defendant submitted that they did not receive any of the Claimant’s three items of pre-action correspondence and did not see the signage on the date of the parking event. The Defendant did not file any evidence to support the defence and did not attend the court hearing. Upon consideration of the Claimant’s evidence, the District Judge found that the defence was wholly without merit and awarded Parkingeye the Parking Charge amount of £100 and £260 in costs.
D3FC24T0 – ParkingEye v Mr J – Romford County Court – 28 July 2017
A counterclaim was filed during these proceedings by the Defendant in the sum of £500, which was struck out by the District Judge during the hearing as having no legal basis. The Defendant was also found to have behaved unreasonably during the proceedings and the District Judge subsequently awarded judgment in the Claimant’s favour – £100 principal sum claimed, as well as £260 in costs.
D9FC4172 – ParkingEye v Mr R – Birmingham County Court – 17 October 2017
A well-known campaigner against Private Parking Companies attended the hearing as the Defendant’s Lay Representative. The Defendant relied upon a defence of mostly generic quasi-legal arguments found in many template defence documents distributed to motorists attempting to avoid the payment of Parking Charges on internet forums. The District Judge presiding found in Parkingeye’s favour and awarded the Parking Charge amount of £100 and £100 in costs.
* where the Claimant was represented at the hearing
If your car park is currently being abused and you need a reputable parking enforcement company to enforce your parking rules please do get in contact today.
