ParkingEye are apparently upset that defendants can use online forums to gain access to information on why their charges are not legally enforceable.
This happened in Bristol court on Friday 24/01/2014, with Deputy District Judge Prigg presiding over the case. ParkingEye's legal representative accused unspecified online forums of waging a vendetta against ParkingEye and stated that ParkingEye could not show their landowner contract in court because this may break confidentiality laws with their clients. Judge Prigg said this was rubbish and the contract needed to be supplied.
ParkingEye almost always try and prevent their contract from being shown in court because it is often dated after the parking event and contains clauses which judges have found means they have no standing to bring the claim themselves. Instead, ParkingEye rely on landowner witness statements which are often obvious photocopies not signed by the witness themselves. Apart from this glaring problem, the witness statements never contain the address of the witness making them procedurally unsound. Often, the statements contain the wrong car park address or the wrong company name. Some judges have accepted these statements in the past when defendants have not known how to challenge them properly, so it is important to come armed to court with full information on witness statement irregularities.
Incidentally, the defendant won the case because the signage was not adequate.
If ParkingEye try this on again, the defendant should ask exactly which 'confidentiality laws' are being broken.
The Parking Prankster