Wednesday, 23 October 2013

ParkingEye spanked in court

Claim no 3QT62646 in the Brentford County Court was heard today, 23 October 2013.

ParkingEye paid a contract lawyer, Mr Larda, around £300 to turn up on their behalf. Apparently that was not enough money for him to bother to read the brief correctly; he thought he was representing Private Eye.

Possibly he wanted to quote the Private Eye Arkell v Pressdram case.

He was also a little behind on his paperwork, attempting to serve papers on the defendant 14 days after the time limit expired. Not unsurprisingly, the defendant's lay representative, 'Bargepole' rejected these. ParkingEye regularly think the rules of court do not apply to them, filing thousands of court claims without following the pre-action protocol, serving witness statements which contain conjecture, untruths, new evidence and new legal arguments, cherry-picking quotes from cases without providing transcripts, quoting from documents which have never been proved to exist, providing witness statements without giving the name and address of the witness, and withholding key documents from defendants until the filing deadline is imminent.

This time the judge was not impressed with their attitude. In a ruling that will send shivers down the backs of Parking company executives everywhere, and especially Capita who today bought ParkingEye for £57 millionDistrict Judge Jenkins explained he was throwing the claim out because it was not brought in the name of the landowner. He said the landowner could bring the case in their own name if they wished.

Mr Larda explained to the judge that he was incorrect, and that a case held in 1870 showed otherwise. The Judge was having none of it. Mr Larda tried again, explaining that ParkingEye had won cases 'all over the land'. The judge asked for transcripts, which were not forthcoming.

The Judge then announced that, in his opinion, a contractual arrangement to manage parking does not give rise to a cause of action to claim for damages, and the lack of ownership of the land meant that the claimant had no standing to bring such an action in their own name.

Mr Larda asked for leave to appeal. The judge refused, on the basis there were little grounds for success.

Presumably ParkingEye are scurrying to bank the cheque from Capita before the news their whole business model has gone down the pan gets out.

Happy Parking

The Parking Prankster


  1. Oops, although it might have really sealed the deal if they had been allowed to appeall. If they lost again that would have been the hammer blow to all of these companies.
    stu k

  2. I wonder if the actual landowner would like to take this to court. I doubt it!

  3. PE will definitely not appeal this as the risk of losing again in a court of records would create a precedent that would fatally damage their entire business model.

  4. The only flaw in this argument is that an appeal from a DJ lands at a CC in the same court - so still no court of record ;)