Saturday, 10 May 2014

ParkingEye lose case. Judge decides ParkingEye's evidence is fabricated.

[This is a guest blog on behalf of Mr M. The Prankster has made a few changes but the substance is not changed.]

ParkingEye v Mr M. (17/04/2014) ParkingEye's evidence did not stack up and the claim was dismissed.

ParkingEye issued a charge to a motorist who had had a heart operation.  The charge was issued for overstaying, but Mr M was adamant that he did not overstay. The vehicle was not even at the location at the time stated on the parking charge. ParkingEye's own evidence was used to win the case.

On the 17/04/2014, Mr M went to court along with his cousin who was acting as a Mackenzie friend and interpreter. Mr M also brought along a witness.

The ParkingEye lawyer approached the interpreter and asked who was the defendant. He was advised it was Mr M. He then asked the interpreter who everybody else was. The lawyer was advised by the interpreter, that the interpreter was acting as a Mackenzie friend as well as interpreter and that the other person was a witness.

The ParkingEye lawyer claimed he was not aware of any witnesses and was not happy.

In the hearing, the lawyer told the judge that he was not aware that the defendant would be bringing any new evidence or the witness. He argued that he was not fully prepared with the new witness.

The Judge gave Mr M two options; either to adjourn the case for a new hearing, which would incur costs including the expenses for the lawyer; or to continue with the case and ignore the evidence as well as the witness.

Mr M advised the judge that he would rather deal with the case today and ignore the witness.  The judge read the evidence produce by ParkingEye including the response Mr M sent back.

In the evidence pack produced by PE it showed that there were two ANPR cameras both facing the same direction. One camera recorded the vehicle coming in and the other going out.

However the photos provided in the evidence pack only showed the front number plate for the vehicle, both in and out.  Mr M argued to the judge that the back number plate should be recorded. Because there was no photograph of the back number plate the evidence provided by ParkingEye was fabricated.

The judge read the response that Mr M had written prior to attending the court. He agreed with it and decided to dismiss the case.

[Prankster note. It seems this is a classic case of a double visit. ParkingEye's systems are fatally flawed and there have been many similar reported cases. In most cases this occurs when a numberplate is obscured by another vehicle or pedestrian. However recent cases have shown that ParkingEye's systems contain more deep-seated flaws. In one case, the charge was issued even though the motorist visited two different car parks. In this case, the charge was issued for two events recoded by the entry cameras, and no events recorded by the exit cameras. In court cases, ParkingEye claim to make up to 19 checks on their ANPR data. it is clear these checks are not comprehensive.]

The Prankster has decided to let Hill Dickinson have the last word

Happy Parking

The Parking Prankster



  1. Seems also to be (persistent) contempt of court and attempting to pervert the course of justice.

    As their wilful misconduct is so persistent and well documented cannot PE be registered as a vexatious litigant?

  2. And yet another black mark against Ms Ledson . When will the SRA do something about her conduct?

    1. I guess that they have the benefit of the doubt of not being made aware?

      Unless they receive an official complaint (the more, the better), they are unlikely to take any action.

      In the case of the ACS Law filesharing scam, Andrew Crossley was eventually struck off, but not until people complainted to SRA en-mass.
      Maybe a call to arms is required?

  3. Looling at it from a different angle, if my system that underpinned a charge had been accused of being flawed or not fit for purpose, then I'd want to be everything in my power to prove and publish that it is not. Have we seen anything to this affect from a PPC or the manufacturer? Have BPA been tasked with investigating this either?

    1. ParkingEye seem to have taken a novel and different approach and have apparently decided that rather than fix the problem they will use legal threats to prevent publication and exposure of the flaws in their system. I suppose time will tell which approach is best