Tuesday, 25 March 2014

ParkingEye witness statement irregularities

A series of emails released under the Freedom Of Information Act expose serious irregularities in the way ParkingEye procure and use landowner witness statements.

The emails establish that ParkingEye write the witness statements themselves and then email them to the landowner where they are signed and emailed back. No supporting information regarding the parking event is supplied; only the date of the event.

On several occasions ParkingEye get information wrong; sometimes repeatedly.

In order to save inconvenience ParkingEye and the landowner collude to produce a pre-signed witness statement, which ParkingEye can then photocopy and date as often as they want without referring to the Landowner.

Many clauses in the witness statement are opinions rather than fact.

Many clauses in the witness statement are based on facts which it appears from the email trail the witness does not have in their own knowledge, and which they therefore cannot know whether they are true or not.

These are all examples of seriously bad practice. A witness statement should be written in the witnesses own words, and should be a statement of fact of information within the witnesses own knowledge; not opinions; not 'fact's you do not know yourself.

 Happy Parking

The Parking Prankster


  1. Shame on you Rachel Ledson.
    Your legal training is certainly not being used in accordance with the law here.
    If I were ParkingEye I'd ditch her right now before the $hit hits the fan and they get the backlash.

  2. Parking Charge Means the PENALTY FEE that has been agreed. Wish they'd clarify that a little.

  3. Oh dear. A catalogue of misdeeds interspersed with incompetence. And proof that PE were in breach of their KADOE contract with the DVLA, by requesting keeper data when they had no landowner contract in place.

    They had better hope nobody at the DVLA sees this, or they could be in serious trouble. In fact, I've emailed the link to the DVLA, just to make sure they know not to look at it.

  4. Let's hope no one complains to the Law Society about the conduct of Rachel Ledson or any other solicitors involved in this whole sorry mess.

    Just in case anyone feels inclined to put in such a complaint, here is the appropriate link.

    1. When is an irregularity an illegality ?

    2. This sounds like an audit trail.

    3. "principles" from the SRA website..

      uphold the rule of law and the proper administration of justice,
      act with integrity,
      not allow your independence to be compromised,
      act in the best interests of each client,
      provide a proper standard of service to your clients,
      behave in a way that maintains the trust the public places in you and in the provision of legal services,
      comply with your legal and regulatory obligations and deal with your regulators and ombudsmen in an open, timely and co-operative manner,
      run your business or carry out your role in the business effectively and in accordance with proper governance and sound financial and risk management principles,
      run your business or carry out your role in the business in a way that encourages equality of opportunity and respect for diversity, and
      protect client money and assets."

  5. Hang on, are you saying that witness statements have to be generated by....the witness ?

    Is it acceptable for witnesses to be "coached" by e-mail.

    I'm a little concerned, that this company relentlessly persued us through the courts. Time and time again, they relied on the so-called "Witness Statement." I was of the understanding that the witness had some understanding of what he signed.

    Where is the line of accountability here ?

    Have any criminal laws been broken ?

  6. Yet further confirmation of POPLA's complicity in this - Rachel confirms she was "issued with" the witness statements.

    Which again begs the question of why an independent appeals service is doing the in-house counsel's job for her.