ParkingEye try every trick in the book to refuse to produce their contracts. Now we know why. If the judge gets to see it then the case is likely to be thrown out.
Their usual opening gambit is to say the contract is confidential and will be posted on the Internet by the defendant. That as we all know is pure bunkum. ParkingEye contracts are already posted on the Internet for all to see so there is no longer any reason for them not to be provided...apart from the obvious reasons like the actual paperwork is dated after the parking event. This is extremely commonplace for tickets issued in 2012. It seems ParkingEye were scrambling to get paperwork in place and failed miserably.
The next trick is to supply a witness statement instead of the contract. ParkingEye witness statements have been robustly discredited and are now widely known to be not worth the paper they are photocopied on. The Prankster has amassed a large collection which includes statements signed by people who are not the witness, statements with the date added in different handwriting, statements with photocopied signatures and statements with deliberately misleading clauses. ParkingEye are also known to withhold pertinent information from the witness, which would otherwise give them pause for thought when signing.
The witness statement is withheld for as long as possible into the court process as possible. This is presumably to stop the defendant knowing who the landowner is because then they can contact them and get them to drop the charges. Contacting the landowner is a tactic recommended by the British Parking Association.
If ParkingEye are asked who the landowner is they usually reply that this is a matter of public record but that they will not tell you. Yah boo sucks.
Lastly, if they ever do cough up the contract they only produce a heavily redacted version.
They came unstuck with this tactic big time recently, and their devious practices have now been exposed. In the recent court case ParkingEye v Gardham 3QT60598 ParkingEye chose to withhold their contract. When Bargepole showed Judge Jones the judgement from ParkingEye v Sharma 3QT62646 the LPC lawyer smugly whipped out a copy of the contract and presented it to the judge. He soon wished he hadn't as the judge started examining it and picking holes.
The judge quickly picked out the contradiction between clause 3.7, where the landowner appoints ParkingEye as their agent, and clause 22, where is states there is not agency relationship between ParkingEye and the landowner. The LPC lawyer looked like someone who thought he won the lottery then found he forgot to buy a ticket.
This case is important for everybody else who ParkingEye are taking to court and who receives a redacted contract or no contract at all. Here is the exact copy of page 2 of the contract supplied in ParkingEye v Barrett. ParkingEye complained that they did not want to release the contract because it will be posted on the internet. However, The Prankster is sure that in this specific case they won't mind. If they are unhappy, The Prankster will be more than happy to further redact it if requested.
Now everybody knows that ParkingEye deliberately cover up relevant parts of the contract in court cases it should be far easier for defendants to expose ParkingEye's dodgy practices. Defendants can add this to the growing list; dodgy landowner witness statements; unreliable witness statements from Jonathan Langham; unreliable signage maps and pictures. There seems to be hardly any credible evidence left.
Defendants can collect their version of the ParkingEye contract here. It is important to also request the unredacted schedule from ParkingEye, because it has often been found to be dated after the parking event and to contain relevant and pertinent information. The user manual should also be requested because this contains details on where ParkingEye should cancel tickets.
Here is clause 3.7
3.7 The Customer being the landowner of the Site(s) (or as agent for the landownerHere is the contradictory clause 22
and having the prerequisite authority to bind the landowner) hereby appoints
ParkingEye to act as agent as the appointed car park operator. Such appointment
shall include the authority to:
Nothing in this Agreement is intended to create a partnership or joint venture or
legal relationship of any kind that would impose liability upon one Party for the act
or failure to act of the other Party between the Parties, or to authorise either Party
to act as agent for the other. Save as expressly provided in this Agreement, neither
Party shall have authority to make representations, act in the name or on behalf of
or otherwise to bind the other.
The Parking Prankster