Parking fine victory for Borehamwood motorist

A Borehamwood motorist is celebrating after having his parking fines overturned in court.

Dominic Martin beat Parking Eye in St Albans County Court this month regarding two parking fines from Borehamwood Shopping Park.

The parking enforcement company claimed Mr Martin had exceeded the time limit in the car park on Theobald Street on two occasions, in December 2012 and January 2013.

Mr Martin initially ignored the fines but in July 2013, Parking Eye began court proceedings against him for ‘parking without authority on private land’.

On closer examination of the fines, he decided to take on the case as he believed the ‘overstay’ had not occurred.

Parking Eye offered to settle the case out of court for £115, which they later dropped to £100, but this was declined.

After reviewing the evidence presented in court, judge DJ Cross pointed out that the claim appeared to be on the basis of trespass rather than for breach of contract.

He also added that their witness statements from the director and facilities manager of Jones Lang LaSalle were “sloppy, and a disgrace” and ruled that Parking Eye had no authority to issue parking charges in Borehamwood.

Parking Eye refused to let the judge see the contract with the landowner, JLL, with their solicitor implying that no written contract existed.

They also failed to provide documentary evidence when requested by the court.

Mr Martin was awarded £108.50 costs, including £5 for parking in a “proper” car park.

Speaking to The Borehamwood Times, Mr Martin said: “Obviously there needs to be parking control at this site, but this current situation is not about parking control but about profit.

“Parking Eye has acted like a bully at every turn, ignoring the court process and using intimidation tactics throughout to try and stop me from winning this case. Unfortunately for them, some people will stand up to bullies.”

The case has been well documented on the parking prankster blog, Money Saving Expert and on peipo forums.

Dom Martin now plans to set up a support network for anyone who is awarded a fine from Parking Eye in Borehamwood.

Comments (7)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

6:06pm Wed 14 May 14

Unsullied says...

Well done Mr Martin. Top work.
Well done Mr Martin. Top work. Unsullied
  • Score: 20

8:21am Thu 15 May 14

ANt Gee says...

Congartulations on your success. I am sure a lot of people would just have paid up so hopefully your story will be an example to them to fight injustice and bullying
Congartulations on your success. I am sure a lot of people would just have paid up so hopefully your story will be an example to them to fight injustice and bullying ANt Gee
  • Score: 14

10:31am Thu 15 May 14

Believe in better says...

Excellent news, well done for standing up to the bullies....
Excellent news, well done for standing up to the bullies.... Believe in better
  • Score: 11

10:47am Thu 15 May 14

david Burcombe says...

NUMBER OF PEOPLE HAVE PAID THE FINE EVEN THOUGH THEY DID NOT OVERSTAY. THE INTIMIDATION BY P.E. COMPELLED THEM TO PAY I WONDER IF THEY CAN GET THEIR MONEY BACK 2 PEOPLE WERE FINE FOR NOT PARKING BETWEEN THE LINES NEAR LIDDL
NUMBER OF PEOPLE HAVE PAID THE FINE EVEN THOUGH THEY DID NOT OVERSTAY. THE INTIMIDATION BY P.E. COMPELLED THEM TO PAY I WONDER IF THEY CAN GET THEIR MONEY BACK 2 PEOPLE WERE FINE FOR NOT PARKING BETWEEN THE LINES NEAR LIDDL david Burcombe
  • Score: 8

11:05pm Fri 16 May 14

clementsphil says...

First point is that this is NOT a FINE - only a court or lawful authority can issue a fine - a private parking company can only issue a speculative invoice requesting that you pay a sum of money in damages for trespass or for breach of terms and conditions to avoid the possibility of (civil) court action.

If you don't pay, and the company take you to court, then you put them to proof that 1. They have the written authority of the landowner not only to issue charge notices but also to pursue court action in their own name, otherwise any damages are for the landowner to seek not the parking company. 2. Damages can only equate to the actual losses suffered by the landowner (or the parking company IF they have the authority to pursue them. In a free car park, the loss is NIL, plus maybe the £2.50 that the DVLA charge them for your details - in a pay and display car park charging £1 an hour, and you don't pay or overstay, then the 'damages' would be the money that you should have paid to park there. The parking company cannot charge you the costs of running their business, managing the site etc, so the parking charge (or fine if you choose to call it that) cannot possibly be the £60, £100 or more that they claim you owe.

Best practice now if you receive one of these invoices is to appeal direct to the company, and when they reject it (they always do) they have to give you a code to appeal to an independent appeals body - which will cost the parking company £27. Appeal on the basis that the company do not have sufficient rights in their contract to pursue the charge in their own name, and that the charge does not represent a genuine pre-estimate of their losses (ie the charge exceeds the amount that can be claimed as legitimate damages) and you WILL win the appeal.

Do not pay these parasites - for proper parking control they should install a barrier and pay on exit system - but that would not make them as much profit as fleecing people who don't know better into parting with money that they don't have to pay.
First point is that this is NOT a FINE - only a court or lawful authority can issue a fine - a private parking company can only issue a speculative invoice requesting that you pay a sum of money in damages for trespass or for breach of terms and conditions to avoid the possibility of (civil) court action. If you don't pay, and the company take you to court, then you put them to proof that 1. They have the written authority of the landowner not only to issue charge notices but also to pursue court action in their own name, otherwise any damages are for the landowner to seek not the parking company. 2. Damages can only equate to the actual losses suffered by the landowner (or the parking company IF they have the authority to pursue them. In a free car park, the loss is NIL, plus maybe the £2.50 that the DVLA charge them for your details - in a pay and display car park charging £1 an hour, and you don't pay or overstay, then the 'damages' would be the money that you should have paid to park there. The parking company cannot charge you the costs of running their business, managing the site etc, so the parking charge (or fine if you choose to call it that) cannot possibly be the £60, £100 or more that they claim you owe. Best practice now if you receive one of these invoices is to appeal direct to the company, and when they reject it (they always do) they have to give you a code to appeal to an independent appeals body - which will cost the parking company £27. Appeal on the basis that the company do not have sufficient rights in their contract to pursue the charge in their own name, and that the charge does not represent a genuine pre-estimate of their losses (ie the charge exceeds the amount that can be claimed as legitimate damages) and you WILL win the appeal. Do not pay these parasites - for proper parking control they should install a barrier and pay on exit system - but that would not make them as much profit as fleecing people who don't know better into parting with money that they don't have to pay. clementsphil
  • Score: 9

7:53am Sat 17 May 14

Believe in better says...

@ clementsphil, thank you for this, very clear explanation, I should like to see this more widely published. Would you mind if I copied this on to the community face book pages as I am not sure how many people will see this on here?
@ clementsphil, thank you for this, very clear explanation, I should like to see this more widely published. Would you mind if I copied this on to the community face book pages as I am not sure how many people will see this on here? Believe in better
  • Score: 3

12:29am Wed 21 May 14

charliemartin says...

ParkingEye Ltd, in all my dealings with them, are the masters of deceit, lies, and intimidation.

This case is of course very important, and the transcript can be used in future court hearings, in the same way Parking Eye use cases where they have won. Cases are always decided on individual facts of the case, the difference in this case is that it applies to EVERY charge issued in 2012 and 2013 that was raised under the non existent contract. They lost this case on the first point raised, 'do they have authority to bring this claim'. The judge decided that they didn't. This claim should never have reached the small claim court, as they don't even have a contract with the landowner, let alone a right to bring court action over land that they do not own or lease.

There were many other points in this case that were not heard that would have also resulted in this claim being dismissed.

If everyone appealed their ticket to Parking Eye, and then used the POPLA appeals processs on the grounds of their charge not being a Genuine Pre Estimate Of Loss (GPEOL) then all of these appeals would lose Parking Eye Ltd millions of pounds. Each appeal costs them £27, which is not recoverable, win or lose. I urge anyone who has dealings with this disgraceful company, to appeal initially to them, then to POPLA. Everything you need to know is in a new website,

www.bmpa.eu,
or go to
www.parking-prankste
r.com

for more information.

If you get court papers regarding this car park, ask for the case to be heard in the St Albans County Court, and if you are allocated the same Judge, then I am sure his previous Judgements will be persuasive. Parking Eye will tell you it is irrelevant, but then they would tell you the Earth was flat if they thought they could get £85 from you. Oh, and it cost Parking Eye Ltd at least £1,000 to lose this case. Very Satisfying.
ParkingEye Ltd, in all my dealings with them, are the masters of deceit, lies, and intimidation. This case is of course very important, and the transcript can be used in future court hearings, in the same way Parking Eye use cases where they have won. Cases are always decided on individual facts of the case, the difference in this case is that it applies to EVERY charge issued in 2012 and 2013 that was raised under the non existent contract. They lost this case on the first point raised, 'do they have authority to bring this claim'. The judge decided that they didn't. This claim should never have reached the small claim court, as they don't even have a contract with the landowner, let alone a right to bring court action over land that they do not own or lease. There were many other points in this case that were not heard that would have also resulted in this claim being dismissed. If everyone appealed their ticket to Parking Eye, and then used the POPLA appeals processs on the grounds of their charge not being a Genuine Pre Estimate Of Loss (GPEOL) then all of these appeals would lose Parking Eye Ltd millions of pounds. Each appeal costs them £27, which is not recoverable, win or lose. I urge anyone who has dealings with this disgraceful company, to appeal initially to them, then to POPLA. Everything you need to know is in a new website, www.bmpa.eu, or go to www.parking-prankste r.com for more information. If you get court papers regarding this car park, ask for the case to be heard in the St Albans County Court, and if you are allocated the same Judge, then I am sure his previous Judgements will be persuasive. Parking Eye will tell you it is irrelevant, but then they would tell you the Earth was flat if they thought they could get £85 from you. Oh, and it cost Parking Eye Ltd at least £1,000 to lose this case. Very Satisfying. charliemartin
  • Score: 1

Comments are closed on this article.

click2find

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree