Thursday, 30 January 2014

ParkingEye court losses roundup

News of ParkingEye court cases losses are coming in thick and fast and The Parking Prankster has had to redesign his web site to keep up.

Overall losses can be accessed at this link
ParkingEye court losses in 2013 are recorded at this link.
ParkingEye court losses in 2014 are recorded at this link.

Here is the round-up for the last few days. Please contact The Prankster if any results are missing from this list.

3JD02430 ParkingEye v Howe. (Rhyll 30/01/2014) District Judge Thomas. Crewe Arms Hotel car park. The judge ruled the signage was not adequate and the defendant had done all she could be expected to do to ensure she had complied. The landowner witness statement had a company which did not exist at Company's House.
Read Bargepole's account here

3JD02462 ParkingEye v Thomas. (Preston 29/01/2014) District Judge Buckley dismissed the case because the signage was inadequate and so the motorist cannot have formed a contract with ParkingEye.

3JD06925 ParkingEye v Hopewell. (Halifax 29/01/2014) Deputy District Judge Gardner. The case was adjourned to await the results of the HHJ Moloney case.

3JD06533 ParkingEye v Collins-Daniel. (Bristol 24/01/2014). Deputy District Judge Melville-Shreeve felt the signage was inadequate.
Read Bargepole's account here

3JD05814 ParkingEye v Taylor. (Morpeth and Berwick 24/01/2014) District Judge Howard. Belvedere car park, Newcastle upon Tyne. ParkingEye did not produce a contract. The judge ruled that without a relevant contract they could not issue parking charges as they were not the landowner and they could not therefore bring the claim in their own name.
Read Bargepole's account here

3JD02357 ParkingEye v Gosnold. (High Wycombe 23/01/2014). District Judge Devlin. The judge agreed the landowner witness statement from Workman LLP was worthless. The LPC Law representative produced a heavily redacted version of the contract which the judge decided did not satisfy the 'relevant contract' provision of PoFa 2012 sch 4. The judge decided he did not need to rule whether Jonathan Langham's statement that ParkingEye's costs were £53 per ticket, when their accounts and DVLA figures showed the true figure was nearer £15, was perjury. As there was no standing for ParkingEye to bring the case, it was dismissed. £90 costs were awarded to the defendant.
Read Bargepole's account here

If anyone thinks that the reason ParkingEye have difficulty walking right now is because they have a pretty large bargepole shoved right where they don't want it...they are probably correct.

Happy Parking

The Parking Prankster


  1. Love it, is it a large Bargepole ? In the interest of a balanced view, and knowing the enemy better than a friend, any recent losing cases ?

    1. One of our team went to Basingstoke recently to help a defendant conduct his case, and the stupid twonk of a defendant never turned up for the hearing, so PE were awarded a Judgment in default. He'll no doubt ignore that as well, and find the bailiffs at his door waiting to remove his television. We try our best, but some people are beyond help.

    2. Thanks for that David, a list of losing cases would be useful, just to see why people lost. Know thy enemy and all that...(Transcripts as well). It would seem that well defended cases do win. (And so they should). Not to detract from the good work of Mr Prank of course.

  2. Mr, Prankster, you have done something nobody else has done in attempting to create a database of case history. It is clear that magistrates are swayed by past cases when a full transcript is produced. How much does it cost to get a transcript and why don't you have a Paypal donation fund on the blog or your site?

  3. Not a magistrate, but a county court judge.

  4. I wish I had gone to my court case now and not settled LOL