Thursday, 21 November 2013

ParkingEye - are they just making it up as they go along? Accountant apparently urgently needed!

The Prankster has received a large amount of documents that ParkingEye use to try and explain off their charges as a genuine pre-estimate of loss. They make interesting reading.

Here is one from a parking event in October 2012.

Here is one from early November 2012

And here is one from later in November 2012

So, what did happen in early November 2012 to make ParkingEye's costs jump £2 a parking charge, from £53 to £55?

Why did it come back down again?

Are ParkingEye just making it all up as they go along?

Are these paragraphs all referring to the same set of company accounts, and if so, why do the calculations vary.

Have ParkingEye discovered a new set of mathematical rules that only apply to the Parking industry?

Do ParkingEye need a new accountant, and if so, why is this post not advertised on their jobs page?

Lastly, if the costs are £55, and the charge £100, that leaves £45 profit. How can 45% profit be justified as part of a pre-estimate of loss calculation.

Happy Parking

The Parking Prankster


  1. This point will be run at trial later this month.

    More to follow..............

  2. And as we all know, costs and loss are not the same thing. The costs aren't attributable to the parking incident. Even Hitler knows this (now)

  3. Ah, but you are forgetting that PE need that £45 profit to finance their operation, and ensure that landowners can manage their car parks effectively. If PE didn't provide this service, the whole country would grind to a halt within days, as hordes of chavs in blinged-up Citroen Saxos occupied every available car park space for hours on end. This would plunge the country into chaos as retailers were left with piles of unsold goods, railway stations and airports became gridlocked, and drivers couldn't get off at motorway services as they would all be jam packed. The pound would plummet to a new low of 19p against the Euro, and martial law would have to be introduced to combat the rioting in every town and city. We should all be jolly grateful to PE for preventing this dreadful state of affairs, and Mr Cameron should nominate Rachel Ledson for a CBE in the New Year's honours list.

  4. their defence said 'we have incurred further costs, see attached letter' (this is over and above the £100 costs, although they actually forgot to attach the letter :D

    1. Well that's something they can't present to court then eh?