Tuesday, 5 November 2013

ParkingEye caught out using post-dated witness statements

The Prankster has been made aware that ParkingEye's system for submitting landowner witness statements as evidence in court cases and POPLA cases is not robust. There appears to be failures in quality control by ParkingEye in the management of these witness statements.

In a recent case it was found that the witness statements were pre-signed by one person, and the dates added at a later time by a different person.

At this time it is not known whether the person adding the date is a ParkingEye employee or a landowner agent employee. It is also not known whether one witness statement was signed and then photocopied, or whether multiple witness statements were signed and left undated.

ParkingEye have cancelled the case in question, 3JD04542

All defendants with an active court case should therefore consider their position. If anyone would like to send their witness statement to prankster at, The Prankster would be happy to advise if their witness statement appears to be post dated by comparing it with others he has.

The case in question was signed by Rebecca Barnes, an employee of Collier International, acting as agents for Tesco, so any defendants with witness statements from Collier International or Tesco should especially consider their position.

As ParkingEye are in the habit of turning up to court without the landowner witness, then any defendant who has doubts over the landowner witness statement should bring this to the attention of the judge at the start of the hearing, and ask them to disregard the statement because of the known problems ParkingEye have had in the past. They should also ask to see the original witness statement to verify it has not been photocopied.

Happy Parking

The Parking Prankster

The Prankster would like to thank the source that discovered this and brought this to his attention


  1. This comment has been removed by the author.

  2. Surely this means that where, as happened in Barrow, a judge rejects an allegedly dodgy document from PE, that all parking notices up to the date of that rejection are governed by the same alleged authority....logically that means they are all null and void.

    If PE were relying on this document as authority, and it has failed, others cannot be pursued until a new one is provided...
    And those who HAVE paid are due a refund????


  3. Can ParkingEye get any more dodgy?!