Wednesday, 29 October 2014

Another ParkingEye profits warning

[Update 29/10/2014 ParkingEye have contacted The Prankster to inform him this information is not correct]

 The Prankster previously wondered whether ParkingEye would be issuing a profits warning.

It seems like other companies are similarly worried about ParkingEye. Here is Experian's take on the matter.

You have new Business Express Monitoring Alerts
There has been a significant fall in shareholders' funds over the latest accounting period.
In our view this company is a potentially higher than average credit risk. Our recommendation is to offer limited credit until a good trading pattern is established. Add to your monitoring list.
They also have a new unsatisfied CCJ for £490.

14 Oct 2014     County Court Judgment   TORQUAY      A0JD9590  £490
06 Feb 2014     Satisfied CCJ                   EDMONTON   3JD11031   £325
01 Sep 2009     Satisfied CCJ                   PRESTON        9QT48712    £60

The Prankster remains concerned about ParkingEye's long term viability and their strategy of putting all their eggs in one basket. If ParkingEye fail, then landowner's may potentially be liable to all parking charges issued on their behalf in the last 6 years which turn out to be unenforceable penalties. The Prankster therefore recommends landowners make a risk assessment of the situation and take any appropriate action.


Apparently the Registry Trust have made an error in this case and the CCJ was against the motorist, rather than ParkingEye.

ParkingEye have contacted The Prankster, who is happy to put the record straight.

The Prankster reiterates the perils of not turning up to a court hearing. In this case, this results in an extra £350 being loaded onto the amount owed due to the defendant being ruled 'unreasonable' for not turning up.

Happy Parking

The Parking Prankster


  1. It shows that PE do read this blog!

  2. It also shows that it is not necessarily true that ParkingEye is losing money each time one of their claims goes before a judge. The same happened in your earlier blog about the guy/girl who got shafted in Bristol and who also had to pay £490 for the charge.

    1. This assumes that the recipient of the CCJ either knows or cares. PE are unlikely to see any money in most cases.

    2. Ah well, on the court tracker you can see repeated instances where ParkingEye attaches a debt order to the victim's earnings, so they do enforce CCJs regularly. I still think they lose much less money than people think.

  3. At least they make a default confirmation that they're going down the pan......

  4. That Experian comment is quite revealing. Their accounting year has been extended from August to December to bring it in line with parent company Capita, and when the buyout deal was done, they were forecasting £25m turnover and £8m profit.

    It rather looks like the actual results will be a long way short of that, and some Directors may have to engage in some Apprentice-style boardroom pleadings if they want to keep their jobs.

    1. They could all join Tesco methinks. They'll be needing another board shortly

    2. The sort that you put down the back of one's trousers perhaps?