Saturday, 28 March 2015

Government announces clamp down on private parking charges

The Government has issued a press release announcing it will clamp down on private parking charges.

The open consultation document is here and closes 25th May 2015.

Evidence of bad practices can be sent by web form, email or letter
Post: Parking reform –
Call for Evidence
High Streets Team
3/NE Fry Building
2 Marsham Street

Please take this opportunity to influence Government policy.

The Prankster has a vast collection of evidence of bad practice, which he will be submitting.

The Prankster has identified the following bad practices and dodgy tactics used by ParkingEye. Here is a reminder.

  • Pursuing cases when motorists break down, are injured or suffer medical emergencies
  • Pursuing cases against mothers who overstayed due to breastfeeding
  • Pursuing cases against disabled motorists who need more time to shop
  • Pursuing cases against elderly motorists who need more time to shop
  • Pursuing cases against motorists who are unable to leave the site due to congestion
  • Pursuing cases against motorists who were unable to appeal because they were in hospital and seriously ill
  • Installing sites without cameras on all entrances and exits, and then pursuing motorists for overstays if they left via an unmonitored route
  • Installing sites where the cameras do not record all entrances and exits of vehicles, and then pursuing motorists for overstays when two visits were made
  • Pursuing motorists for very short overstays, well within an acceptable grace period
  • Shortening parking periods to the detriment of retailers to increase their income
  • Aggressively pursuing tickets against the wishes of retailers served by the car park
  • Using inappropriate and hard to use technology coupled with confusing signage to target hospitals to generate vast income to the detriment of patient
  • Failing to take reasonable steps to mitigate transgressions by motorists
  • Providing false information to judges, including in the Beavis case
  • Charging motorists for POPLA, which the government has stated must be free to motorists
  • Using the Protection of Freedom Act to pursue keepers to court when they knew the land was not covered by the Act.
  • Charging motorists over £1 million in solicitor fees which were not actually incurred, making their court filings one of the most profitable part of the business
  • Providing landowner witness statements to court without the knowledge or permission of the witness by using photocopied witness statements
  • Providing landowner witness statements to court and POPLA containing information ParkingEye knew was not within the knowledge of the witness
  • Providing contracts to judges, including HHJ Moloney in the Beavis case, which had pertinent information redacted 
  • Sending motorists false information to make them think they have no chance in appealing the ticket to POPLA 
  • Providing outdated and misleading information on their web site
  • Not even bothering to defend large numbers of POPLA cases, causing motorists time and expense for cases ParkingEye knew they would not win anyway
  • Providing false information to POPLA in order to win cases
  • Pursuing through the court system even though they knew the motorist was neither the keeper or driver and was therefore not liable
  • Pursuing their own customers for huge penalty clauses when they try to get rid of them
  • Filing thousands of court cases without sending a letter before claim compliant with practice directions, or in some cases, without sending any letter before claim at all
  • Filing huge, complicated documents in court, in violation of the prime objectives of the courts in terms of proportionality to the sums involved. A typical filing will be over 50 pages with 30 or more case references.
  • Filing large numbers of documents after the filing deadline and without paying a fee
  • Complaining when motorists file after the filing deadline and asking the court to charge the motorists a fee
  • Refusing to reply to reasonable requests for information from motorists to allow them to defend their case
  • Filing false information in witness statements written by their employees including documents referred to by the witness statements
  • Filing deliberately misleading information in court documents, which while factually correct are not relevant, or are couched in terms to deliberately mislead
  • Ploughing on regardless with court cases, despite having lost all known similarly defended cases, causing defendants distress and expense.
  • Providing false information to and deliberately deceiving their own customers
  • Failing to properly quality check parking charge notices sent out
  • Pursuing cases where the landowner stated by ParkingEye in documents provided to court, was not the actual landowner and did not have the right to allow parking
  • Using signage to create entrapment zones in car parks, so that although coverage is sufficient in some areas, it is not in all
  • Getting CCJs by sending all the paperwork to the wrong address, and only establishing the right address once the CCJ is in place
  • Using dubious sales techniques such as over-estimating the value of equipment they are providing for free
  • Breaking government guidelines at hospital car parks
This list is not exhaustive, even if it is exhausting. If you have suffered any of these dodgy practices, from ParkingEye or any other parking company, please be sure and contact the High Streets Team.

The Prankster will also be informing the Government of the circumstances surrounding the hoax phone call which caused the ParkingEye v Beavis and Wardley hearing to be adjourned, along with the details of all legal persons involved.

Happy Parking

The Parking Prankster


  1. I have had a nice little 'write' to them about a lady I met who had forgotten her disabled badge, and was given a Parking ticket even thought the store had provided her with a permission to park in a disabled bay note, which was dated, timed and signed.

    It is about time that this often overzealous and/or target achieving behaviour is stamped out hard!

  2. I sent a email to my MP recently asking him to look at a fairer/more independent appeals system, so have just popped him a reply now to draw his attention to this.
    Every little helps. I'll send them a email also.

  3. Fab. Thanks for the info PP. Would love to share my experiences, and how it affected our family life for 10 months when we were pursued by Parking Eye through the legal system.

  4. Shouldn't this be brought to the attention of the judges in the Beavis case under appeal right now.

  5. Unfortunately, it seems to me that the survey suggests that this is in part a Central Government stamping on nasty out of control Local Authorities which is par for the course with Localism!

    The perspective is clearly LAs and High Street parking, not the whole range of different parking issues. Poorly designed questionnaire.