The whole business about contracts being confidential is a smokescreen. ParkingEye contracts are available on the internet; put there, not by motorists but by their own partners.
The Prankster therefore recommends that the following be added to all POPLA appeals concerning ParkingEye.
ParkingEye Witness Statements
ParkingEye’s use of witness statements has now been widely discredited and I wish to robustly challenge the use of any such witness statement without the actual documentary evidence; the full unredacted contract, together with the schedule and the ‘User Manual’. The user manual includes amongst other information, reasons why the landowner will cancel charges, and I therefore believe this is an integral part of the contract information.
In POPLA case 1771073004 the motorist submitted a witness statement which was rejected by the assessor, proving that witness statements are not automatically accepted by POPLA. The motorist challenged this decision, and the POPLA lead adjudicator replied:
“In this appeal, both parties produced evidence. The role of any tribunal of fact is to weigh often conflicting evidence. The Operator produced evidence to show that the vehicle was at a particular location. The Appellant produced a witness statement to show that it was not. The Operator produced images of the vehicle. The Appellant’s witness refers to having seen photographs of his vehicle in a location other than the site in question and but failed to produce the photographs or state where the vehicle was.”
This shows that assessors must weigh up the credibility of the evidence and cannot just accept a witness statement as true.
I will now provide evidence that ParkingEye’s witness statements are discredited by the courts, that they are used to cover up fatal flaws in their case, and that their practices and procedures around handling witness statements are not robust. I respectfully submit that I have produced enough evidence to show that ParkingEye’s witness statements cannot be relied on to be true.
1. 3QT52338 ParkingEye v Walkden 29/10/2013 Barrow in Furness. The hearing was originally held on 16/07/2013. ParkingEye produced a witness statement. District Judge Dodd found the witness statement extremely unsatisfactory, ordered the case to be adjourned at ParkingEye’s expense, and to reconvene at a later date. ParkingEye were ordered to produce a redacted contract from the landowner to the defendant, and a full unredacted copy to the Judge. The case reconvened on 29/10/2013. The contract sent to the defendant was dated Feb 2013 whilst the parking event was October 2012. The witness statement from Paul Shrewbrook of the Range and the attached letter of authority was not dated. The judge ruled that ParkingEye did not have authority to manage the car park because they contravened section 7.1 of the BPA code of practice which clearly states that the parking company must have written authority before any management of a car park can commence.
2. 3QT61897 ParkingEye v Barrett. 16/10/2013, Cardiff. The contract was dated 7/11/2012, which was after the Parking event on 24/10/2012. The contract was in a different name (Peachkey) to the landowner name (McDonalds Bridgend) given on the witness statement, although both contract and witness statement were signed by the same person. The contract had clause 22 redacted. ParkingEye stated that the witness statement from McDonalds referred to a different document, which they did not have in court. The witness statement also stated that the parking charge was valid. However, McDonalds had not been informed the defendant had broken down and were therefore not informed of the full facts by ParkingEye. District Judge C W Dawson adjourned the case and ordered ParkingEye to bring the originals of all documents next time. McDonalds, when informed of the irregularities, ordered ParkingEye to drop the parking charge and the case.
3. 3QT29139 ParkingEye v Shelley. 23/07/2013 The contact produced in court was signed in February 2013. However, the parking event was around October 2012. Once again the witness was Paul Shrewbrook of the Range.
4. In 3QT62646 ParkingEye v Sharma 23/10/2013 Brentford County Court, District Judge Jenkins explained he was throwing the claim out because it was brought in the name of ParkingEye and not the landowner. He said the landowner could bring the case in their own name or jointly with ParkingEye if they wished. The witness statement therefore contained incorrect information. It was not apparent from the witness statement that the witness had the required expertise to interpret the contract correctly.
5. In 3QT60598 ParkingEye v Gardam, 14/11/2013 High Wycombe County Court. District Judge Jones found the judgement by District Judge Jenkins persuasive and ruled that the claimant did not have the right to bring the case in their own name. The contract was produced in court and Judge Jones found clause 22 to be key, and that as ParkingEye could not act as agent of the Landowner then they could not bring the claim in their own name. The witness statement therefore contained incorrect information. It was not apparent from the witness statement that the witness had the required expertise to interpret the contract correctly.
In all known cases up to November 2013 involving ParkingEye when the landowner agent is Colliers International the signature is identical on every document and therefore appears to be photocopied. The date is added at a later time, and several different handwriting examples have been identified. Cases have been found from late 2012 to 1-10-2013, indicating this practice has been continuing for almost a year. In at least one case the witness statement has the same date as the parking event, creating the reasonable suspicion this was backdated – a witness statement is not automatically produced on the day for each of the 200,000 parking charges issued.
In several cases involving ParkingEye when the landowner is Aldi, the document is signed by somebody who is not the witness. The witness, Belinda Barlow (nee Ball) works in Trowbridge according to LinkedIn. The statements are signed by various people, including Rachel Organ, who all work in Swindon. Thus there is reasonable suspicion the witness has never seen the statement and associated evidence she is 'signing' for.
In several cases involving Paul Shrewbrook of the Range as the witness, the date has been added in multiple different handwritings, leading to the reasonable suspicion it was added after the event.
In cases involving Jon Briant as the witness, he sometimes asserts that Fistral beach car park is owned by Fistral Beach Ltd and at other times that it is owned by Britanic Industries.
In large numbers of cases the witness statement is signed by people with job titles such as manager, deputy port manager and the like, giving reasonable suspicion these people do not have the technical ability to correct interpret a complex 2 page contract and then make the statements they are signing for
ParkingEye resist producing the contract, not because it is confidential, but because in many cases it is not dated before the parking event, and in all known cases clause 22 means that they cannot act as an agent of the landowner and therefore cannot take court action in their own name.
I include a sample clause 22 from their contracts:
22. NO PARTNERSHIP OR AGENCYIn addition ParkingEye's procedures around witness statements are not robust and simply cannot be trusted.
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.
For all these reasons I request that any witness statement be disregarded an only the actual underlying evidence be considered. If this is not provided I request my appeal is upheld.
The Parking Prankster
Do you have a landowner witness statement from ParkingEye, CEL (Civil Enforcement Limited) or any other parking company? If so, please email a copy to email@example.com to allow further evidence of malpractice to be investigated.