[Update. More news on this case here]
[Edit 26/01/2014 after some corrections from lainieee]
ParkingEye had a default judgement overturned against lainieee, as reported in this thread.
Why ParkingEye were going after a disabled person in the first place is a question only they can answer. As the car park was the Range, Southampton and the date was 2013, only ParkingEye can also answer the question why they were pursuing a motorist when cases have shown ParkingEye have no standing to make a claim in their own name, and when the charge is not a genuine pre-estimate of loss to the landowner.
In the hearing, helped by a representative from pepipoo, and which was not attended by ParkingEye, the judge set aside the judgement and granted all but one of the directions asked for.
The case will now proceed to a re-hearing, unless ParkingEye decide that there is no prospect of success (perhaps because they have no contract with the landowner), or of course, unless the landowner themselves, The Range, decide to order ParkingEye to drop the charges.
Lainieee, exhausted by the day, passed out with stress after getting home. The Parking Prankster wonders how much more stress ParkingEye and The Range intend putting her under?
The Parking Prankster