Monday, 28 July 2014

Daily Mail expose ParkingEye lies

A while back ParkingEye tried to gag The Prankster, sending a series of harassing and threatening letters from Katie Mickleburgh of legal firm Hill Dickinson.

In one letter she wrote:
You allege [...] that our client issues parking charges for very short overstays and does not allow a five minute grace period. [...] This is simply untrue.
The Daily Mail today highlighted the case of a pensioner charged by ParkingEye for an overstay of 13 seconds. This is the shortest overstay the Prankster is aware of, shorter even than the ones he highlighted.

The Prankster is now running a sweepstake on whether it is more likely that Hill Dickinson will threaten to sue the Daily Mail for causing "immense damage to our client's reputation", or whether Katie Mickleburgh will write to The Prankster to apologise for being taken in by ParkingEye's lies.

Katie's biography page states she is strong in "ensuring matters are dealt with swiftly and efficiently, reaching the most cost effective conclusion". She is therefore no doubt suitably embarrassed with the error-filled letters she wrote to The Prankster, and the subsequent self-inflicted damage to her own reputation. The most cost effective conclusion was of course, to advise her client not to threaten to sue for damages if the facts they are unhappy about are true.

Katie will have learned an important lesson - never trust anything ParkingEye say. ParkingEye have regularly told lies to the court, to POPLA, to their customers, to the motoring public and of course, to their own legal representatives.

Happy Parking

The Parking Prankster


  1. The Mail Story of course reveals everything you've highlighted over the past year or two Mr P.....great to see awareness raised further.

  2. "A liar should have a good memory" - Quintilian

  3. About time the national press got on-board, shame they didn't highlight the often easiest methods to win an appeal more clearly than 'without authority', or the differences between Scotland and the rest of the UK.

  4. Thought it was a pretty poor article actually for a front page. Good to expose the problem but lots more advice could have been provided.

  5. Looks like this has rattled the BPA's cage...

  6. Fortune tellers and some members of the legal profession have things in common. "Cross my palm with silver and I will tell you what you want to hear!"

  7. I cannot agree with the BPA's response, POPLA is not effective. How can they rule that a charge is not a genuine pre-estimate of loss but not force the ppc to change the car park signs to the correct estimate of loss? It's ridiculous! I know that POPLA is better than nothing but I'm with the Daily Mail until the ppcs are forced to introduce fair clear systems that won't catch you out even if you follow all the car park rules correctly. Most of us are not 'selfish motorists' we are trying to do the right thing these ppcs have no right to bully us.