This post on Pepipoo shows that ParkingEye want their pound of flesh come what may.
The motorist was a genuine customer of Pizza Hut, and so asked them to cancel the parking charge, which they did. But ParkingEye, having got their teeth in, refused to let go.
They wanted the motorist to pay for various costs incurred. Now, the ParkingEye operational model is a bit like a splatter gun. They fire out parking charges left right and centre without any real knowledge of whether they are justified or not. All they have is a picture of a vehicle entering and leaving a car park, with no knowledge of actual time parked, whether their cameras missed a second visit, or whether there was some other extenuating factor. Many retail centres do not want to charge genuine customers for parking, and the longer they shop, the more money they spend. They will therefore cancel charges if the customer spends more than a certain amount. Of course, the ParkingEye cameras cannot determine how much the motorist has spent and so the system is inherently flawed.
ParkingEye boast that their appeals section is the best in the business. What this actually means is that they make so many mistakes they are forced to cancel huge numbers of tickets on appeal.
When ParkingEye get things wrong, it would seem right that they pick up the tab. However, ParkingEye do not seem to see it that way and always want the motorist to pay for ParkingEye's mistake. (In a way, it is also the motorists fault. Knowing the nature of the ParkingEye's approach to enforcement and armed with the knowlege of the large number of mistakes made, motorists should keep well clear of any business using ParkingEye, and take their custom elsewhere.)
Happily, this motorist was clued up. Once the landowner had cancelled the parking charge, ParkingEye did not have legal leg to stand on, because there was no basis for the charge in the first place. ParkingEye, despite filing over 8000 court cases this year, seem quaintly unaware of the legal niceties. Their knack of issuing Letters Before Claims which do not comply with practice directions is well documented, as is their failure to understand that solicitor costs are not normally claimable in the small claims court. Many judges have put them right on this issue.
After many letters and emails ParkingEye grudgingly dropped the case.
There may be subtle difference between cases, so any motorist being pursued by ParkingEye when the landowner has cancelled the parking charge should therefore seek advice on whether ParkingEye have a leg to stand on.
The Parking Prankster