4 of the best – ParkingEye fights back against the forums

Unfortunately a number of motorists receive misguided and often misleading advice from online forums who claim that ParkingEye’s charges are ‘unfair’ and ‘illegal’.

Previously this advice urged motorists to ignore all correspondence from ParkingEye, advice that has meant that ParkingEye has had to take legal action to recover the unpaid Parking Charges.

Further to this many motorists, on receiving a claim form, visit these sites for a ‘robust’ template defence. This sort of defence, and all that have subsequently followed, have failed to convince any County Court Judge that ParkingEye’s charges are unfair, disproportionate or a penalty.

Below are four of these forum based claims, in each case every defence raised by the defendant was categorically dismissed by the Judge and Judgment was awarded in ParkingEye’s favour.

Date Claim Number Name
23/08/2013 3QT61574 Mr Hudson
Defendant ordered to pay £200 to ParkingEye Ltd
This forum based defence stated that a contract cannot be formed from the signage onsite, that no consideration is made for drivers who park without payment and therefore no contract is offered to them, that the contract is unfair, that the charges are not a genuine pre-estimate of loss, that ParkingEye has no authority to issue Parking Charges on the land and that our business model is vexatious. The Judge found that the claimant had appropriate authority to operate the car park and that it had been unequivocally confirmed that the claimant has the required locus standi to bring this claim. The Court further found that there was no evidence that could lead to the conclusion that the terms of this contract offended the Unfair Consumer Terms Act or that the charge could be considered a penalty.
19/08/2013 3QT62515 Mrs Brewer
Defendant ordered to pay £200 to ParkingEye Ltd
The defendant’s defence was again based on arguments found on online forums and in particular those propagated by username ‘Lynzer’. The defendant stated that the particulars of claim that she received disclosed no reasonable grounds for bringing the claim. She later made an application for the claim to be struck out on the basis that the claim amounted to a misrepresentation of authority, based on the assumption that ParkingEye could not bring legal action in its own name. Under question from the Court the Defendant accepted that she had not prepared the application. The Judge found that ParkingEye was clearly entitled to operate, manage and enforce parking on the site, including the taking of legal action if necessary. The Court went on to dismiss the application and the defence and ordered that the defendant paid £200 to ParkingEye.
09/08/2013 3QT35496 Mr Graves
Defendant ordered to pay £200 to ParkingEye Ltd
The Defendant (again using arguments garnered from online forums) argued that the signage on site was insufficient to bring the terms and conditions of parking to the attention of the motorist, that the terms and conditions of parking were unreasonable and that the signage did not conform to British Parking Association (BPA) specifications.  He stated that he did not drive the vehicle on the date in question. He stated that the contract formed between the motorist and ParkingEye/the landholder was doubtful and that no offer was communicated to the driver. The defendant stated that the Parking Charge was a penalty and that the sum claimed was not a genuine pre-estimate of loss. He stated that the contract (which he had initially stated did not exist) was unfair as evidenced by the Unfair Consumer Terms Act. He stated that ParkingEye, not being the landholder, had no claim. All the defendant’s assertions were dismissed, including the notion that any of the terms of the contract breached the Unfair Consumer Terms Act and the Judge granted Judgment in ParkingEye’s favour.
23/07/2013 3QT29139 Mr Shelley
Defendant ordered to pay £200 to ParkingEye Ltd
Defendant (using information provided on an online forum) argued that ParkingEye’s parking charges: did not amount to a genuine pre-estimate of loss; were disproportionate; that there was no relevant contract between the defendant and ParkingEye; that there was no relevant contract between ParkingEye and the landholder; the ParkingEye’s Notice to Keeper was non-compliant and that ParkingEye did not have the legal right to issue parking charges on private land. Indeed the defendant stated himself on the very same forum that ‘Every point raised by myself (which included every loophole, law, and non-compliance ever raised on [internet forum name removed]) was summarily dismissed by the Judge’.

Further Court Hearings

Date Claim Number Name
29/08/2013 3QT46880 Mr Boxshall
Defendant ordered to pay £150 to ParkingEye Ltd
The defendant’s case was that the signage on site was not in the correct position, and not lit at night, that he didn’t want to use POPLA as it was an unfair system and that ParkingEye had used bullying tactics to try and obtain the money. The Judge accepted that the defendant did not see the signs, however the Court ruled that it was unreasonable to have not seen the signs as they were clearly displayed, the Judge therefore found in ParkingEye’s favour.
28/08/2013 3QT62429 Mr Sehgal
Defendant ordered to pay £200 to ParkingEye Ltd
Another forum based defence, arguing that the charges amounted to an unenforceable penalty and that the Notice to Keeper was non-compliant with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. The Judge found that the defendant was liable for the sum claimed and gave Judgment accordingly.
22/08/2013 3QT58459 Mr Fiaz
Defendant ordered to pay £200 to ParkingEye Ltd
The defendant’s case was that the defendant had not been driving the vehicle on the day in question, and could not therefore have entered into a contract. He stated that the amount of the Parking Charge did not reflect any loss suffered. The Judge found that Protection of Freedoms Act squarely transferred liability to the keeper and that the charge did reflect the loss suffered and subsequently found in ParkingEye’s favour.
21/08/2013 3QT46928 Mr Finza
Defendant ordered to pay £200 to ParkingEye Ltd
The defendant cited the Consumer Regulations Act 1977, and stated that the Parking Charge amount was disproportionate and did not represent a pre-estimate of our losses. The Judge ruled that the charge was not a penalty and that the charge was fully enforceable.
19/08/2013 3QT45946 Mr Pearcy
Defendant ordered to pay £225 to ParkingEye Ltd
The defendant’s defence centred on not having seen the signage and not leaving the car. The Judge stated that he was satisfied that the signs were to be observed and that they were sufficiently displayed. The Judge found that the defendant would have seen the signs and therefore entered Judgment.
16/08/2013 3QT58403 Miss Haylor
Defendant ordered to pay £175 to ParkingEye Ltd
The defendant’s defence contained arguments that the parking charge was unreasonable, that she could not see the signage because it was dark and that as she was under 18 years of age she could not be held to the contract. The Judge found firmly against the defendant on all grounds and in particular adjudged that the contract remained enforceable even with a minor.
08/08/2013 3QT39633 Mr Lachowicz
Defendant ordered to pay £200 to ParkingEye Ltd
Defendant argued that he did not enter into a contract with ParkingEye and did not see the signage. The Judge found that the signage was sufficiently clear.
01/08/2013 3QT22034 Mrs Butterworth
Defendant ordered to pay £350 to ParkingEye Ltd
Defendant argued that she had not seen the signage and therefore had never entered a contract with the Claimant and that the signage was not clear. The Judge ruled that the signage was adequately displayed and therefore found in ParkingEye’s favour.
01/08/2013 3QT51425 Mrs Lee
Defendant ordered to pay £138.50 to ParkingEye Ltd
The defendant’s defence focused on the ownership of the land and unreasonableness of the charge. Again the Judge summarily dismissed all these arguments instead finding that the amount of the charge was not unreasonable and does not amount to a penalty.
31/07/2013 3QT58534 Mr McNaught
Defendant ordered to pay £200 to ParkingEye Ltd
Defendant stated that he had not been made aware of the terms and conditions and had no idea what the charge related to. The court rejected each and every assertion made by the Defendant and preferred the evidence of the Claimant in all regards.
31/07/2013 3QT47038 Mr Sattar
Defendant ordered to pay £150 to ParkingEye Ltd
Defendant argued that the charge amounted to a penalty and that no contract had been offered and therefore no contract had been entered into. The Judge stated that there was no defence to the claim and was therefore obliged to grant Judgment as requested.
23/07/2013 3QT52097 Mrs Jones
Defendant ordered to pay £175 to ParkingEye Ltd
Defendant argued that she had paid the correct parking tariff, ParkingEye provided evidence that this was not the case. The Judge found in ParkingEye’s favour.
22/07/2013 3QT51179 R. Lomax
Claim dismissed
Due to the Claimant including, in their reply to defence, images of another of their car parks in Grantham that directly contradicted the particulars of claim the Judge chose to dismiss the Claim. He awarded no costs to either party.
19/07/2013 3QT56025 Mr Duffy
Defendant ordered to pay £200 to ParkingEye Ltd
Defendant argued that ParkingEye’s parking charge was disproportionate to the loss incurred. The Judge did not find this a persuasive argument.
17/07/2013 3QT33300 Mr Scott
Claim dismissed
Due to exceptional and unforeseeable circumstances the Judge found that the defendant could not have read the contract and therefore dismissed the Claim and awarded no costs to either party.

 

* It should be noted that every court hearing that ParkingEye has attended as Claimant in 2013 up until the 29th of August (where Judgment has been given) has been listed above.

Return to main news page