Saturday, 7 March 2015

ParkingEye fail to impress Scunthorpe judge

March 4 2015 PARKINGEYE LTD V Mr A, county court at Scunthorpe

Mr A did his research and wrote to the judge expressing his concern that the case should be deferred due to the Beavis appeal. The judge informed the ParkingEye representative that they should have notified the court weeks ago about the impending appeal and as such the case will be heard after such time if applicable. He also stated that if Parkingeye lost that is the end of the case. If they win then negotiations should be adhered to with a payment offer that is sensible and in line with parking charges i.e. £20.00.

The ParkingEye representative constantly argued that this case must be heard. The judge told her that even if he wasted 90 minutes of court time he would then defer the case until after the outcome of the appeal case (Beavis).

The case was stayed until the Beavis appeal judgment.

Prankster Note

If you have received communications from ParkingEye which referred extensively to the Beavis case but did not mention it is under appeal, you could consider complaining to the solicitors regulatory Authority.

The solicitors code of conduct is here.

This has the following:O(11.1) you do not take unfair advantage of third parties in either your professional or personal capacity;

A solicitors first duty is to the court and they should provide all relevant information, even if it is to the detriment of their case. If you consider that mentioning Beavis without providing all relevant information is against the code of conduct, then the report form can be downloaded here.

If you don't know the name of the solicitor involved, report Rachel Ledson, head of legal for ParkingEye. If Rosanna Breaks signed your claim form, report her.

If you were the defendant in a hearing, where it was not admitted that Beavis was under appeal you should also report the LPC Law representative and LPC Law Head of Advocacy, Patrick Le Bas.

Both Rachel Ledson and Patrick Le Bas were put on notice quite some time ago that it was their duty to inform the court that Beavis was under appeal.

Happy Parking

The Parking Prankster


  1. Parking Eye's website still has that gloating report about them winning the Beavis "test case", without mentioning that the case went to appeal. Should that erroneous statement also be reported ?

  2. I lost my case based on the Beavis case as I wasnt aware that it was under appeal,

    1. How long ago was this? Could you have appealed?

      Sorry to hear this, but it looks like this is why they do those things - because it works often enough...

  3. I reported all paries to the SRA and they decided not to take any actions, seems they couldnt care less about the consumer!

  4. Scunthorpe Court - carrying on the good work started by Judge McIlwaine. A PPC graveyard?