2017 was another successful year for Parkingeye in the County Court. After recording a staggering 90% win rate in County Court Hearings in 2016*<\/sup>, 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.<\/p>\n 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.<\/p>\n 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.<\/p>\n 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 \u00a3100 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.<\/p>\n 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 \u00a3270 was awarded in the Claimant\u2019s favour, with \u00a385 per Parking Charge and an additional \u00a3100 in costs.<\/p>\n Within the defence filed, the Defendant submitted that they did not receive any of the Claimant\u2019s 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\u2019s evidence, the District Judge found that the defence was wholly without merit and awarded Parkingeye the Parking Charge amount of \u00a3100 and \u00a3260 in costs.<\/p>\n A counterclaim was filed during these proceedings by the Defendant in the sum of \u00a3500, 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\u2019s favour – \u00a3100 principal sum claimed, as well as \u00a3260 in costs.<\/p>\n A well-known campaigner against Private Parking Companies attended the hearing as the Defendant\u2019s 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\u2019s favour and awarded the Parking Charge amount of \u00a3100 and \u00a3100 in costs.<\/p>\n * where the Claimant was represented at the hearing<\/p>\n <\/p>\nC6FC5F6P \u2013 ParkingEye v Mr R \u2013 Middlesbrough County Court \u2013 31 March 2017<\/h3>\n
C4FC3V8Z \u2013 ParkingEye v Miss W \u2013 Bradford County Court \u2013 25 May 2017<\/h3>\n
D9FC136J \u2013 ParkingEye v Mr M \u2013 Eastbourne County Court \u2013 13 June 2017<\/h3>\n
D3FC24T0 \u2013 ParkingEye v Mr J \u2013 Romford County Court \u2013 28 July 2017<\/h3>\n
D9FC4172 \u2013 ParkingEye v Mr R \u2013 Birmingham County Court \u2013 17 October 2017<\/h3>\n