ParkingEye responds to court case loss

First published in News
Last updated
Borehamwood Times: Photograph of the Author by , Reporter

A parking enforcement company says losing a recent court case will not “prejudice” future fines.

ParkingEye said there is no legal principal that will affect future cases after it lost a case at St Albans County Court this month.

Borehamwood resident Dominic Martin was awarded £108.50 costs, including £5 for parking in a “proper” car park, over two parking fines from Borehamwood Shopping Park

The 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.

A ParkingEye spokesman said: “Demand for ParkingEye’s services is driven by its clients, who want their car parks to be used in the way they are intended. We understand that genuine mistakes are sometimes made, however, and operate an audited appeals process, encouraging people to appeal if they feel there are mitigating circumstances.

“If a motorist disagrees with our decision they have the option to appeal to the independent appeals service (POPLA). Unfortunately Mr Martin chose not to use the appeals route so we took the matter to the small claims court.

“Although ParkingEye wins the majority of its cases, it lost this one on the individual facts of the case and not on an overarching legal principle that would prejudice claims of this nature in general. The judge agreed, however, with the principle, that parking needs to be managed via a charging system.”

Comments (1)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

12:26am 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: 7

Comments are closed on this article.

Send us your news, pictures and videos

Most read stories

Local Info

Enter your postcode, town or place name

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